HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Lindros, Stevens and the evolution of Dirty Checking

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-29-2012, 11:26 AM
  #1
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
Lindros, Stevens and the evolution of Dirty Checking

I sensed that bodychecking underwent a sea-change in the 1990's. Officials stopped calling Charging Infractions and guys like Lindros and Stevens (ironically) became lauded as great hitters when much of the time they were engaging in Charging.

Why did the interpretation of Charging change ? We are now getting back to understanding the basis for Bodychecking - which is to separate a puck-carrier from the puck. You cannot hit a man who does not have possession of the puck. It was always an infraction and a penalty. But not between 1993 and 2008 (largely).

I love Don Cherry, but did he help add to the confusion ? Where was the NHL Referee-in-Chief on this issue ?

I really dislike seeing the players of the 1990's being lauded as great "hitters" when so much of it was in fact Charging.

To this day, many are still confused about running a guy without the puck. It is wrong, and always has been.

Players like Raffi Torres are a product of dereliction of duty by the NHL during the 1990's.

The confusion still exists on these boards as many of my own Countrymen are continually moaning about IIHF Officiating at the World Junior Tournament; if it is charging it is deserving of a penalty - regardless of where you come from.

Back when I played my highest level amateur hockey if you hit me from behind or ran me, I either gave you a two-hander or dropped the gloves and started to beat you down.


Last edited by Redscotter: 12-29-2012 at 11:37 AM.
Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:30 AM
  #2
startainfection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 5,489
vCash: 500
charging is one of the most ridiculous penalties there are, it should only be called when a player leaves their feet, not when they hit someone at full speed btw the lindros/stevens hit was one of the cleanest huge hits there have ever been

startainfection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:39 AM
  #3
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
You obviously have not played Hockey at any meaningful level if you believe that ...

Rule 42 - Charging

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

42.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:43 AM
  #4
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
I actually & generally liked Scott Stevens as a hockey player, but he left his feet for about half his "hits" .... which is .... Charging !

Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:45 AM
  #5
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
You obviously have not played Hockey at any meaningful level if you believe that ...
I don't think that it's necessary to disparage someone just because they have a different opinion than yours.

And quoting the rule book doesn't bolster your case.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:49 AM
  #6
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,284
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
You obviously have not played Hockey at any meaningful level if you believe that ...

Rule 42 - Charging

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

42.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
What is your stance on the Campbell/Umberger hit?

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:51 AM
  #7
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
If someone thinks a rule that has been on the books since the beginning of the NHL is a "ridiculous rule" then they are worthy of disparagement.

Hockey is and should be a tough game, but the rules are in place to make it a safe game. Charging is a potentially life-threatening infraction of the rules.

Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:53 AM
  #8
M Gaz
Who needs a captain?
 
M Gaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,407
vCash: 500
If you stride into a hit or jump into a hit, that's charging. No other way around that.

M Gaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 11:54 AM
  #9
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
Campbell left his feet and jumped into Umberger. A Charge ...

Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:12 PM
  #10
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
If someone thinks a rule that has been on the books since the beginning of the NHL is a "ridiculous rule" then they are worthy of disparagement.
No one on this board is worthy of personal attack (I'm saying this as a moderator).

And the natural corollary to your claim above is that no rules should ever change in the NHL (since at some point, anything that was changed was on the books since the beginning of the NHL). Bring back the rover!

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:13 PM
  #11
Lexus
3 blind zebras
 
Lexus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
Campbell left his feet and jumped into Umberger. A Charge ...
Say what?!? (probably one of the cleanest and hardest hits in the history of the game.)


Lexus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:15 PM
  #12
Lexus
3 blind zebras
 
Lexus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,539
vCash: 500
This is a hit when a player leaves his feet. (awesome hit nonetheless)


Lexus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:17 PM
  #13
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,284
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexus View Post
Say what?!?

That is what I thought.

If that is leaving the feet, so is this:


AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:47 PM
  #14
MadDog172430
Sal Apologist
 
MadDog172430's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Do some people really still have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between jumping into a hit (leaving your feet like the Hardy-Keane hit) and your feet going up off of the impact of the hit (Campebll, Stevens)?

MadDog172430 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 12:49 PM
  #15
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,284
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDog172430 View Post
Do some people really still have a difficult time distinguishing the difference between jumping into a hit (leaving your feet like the Hardy-Keane hit) and your feet going up off of the impact of the hit (Campebll, Stevens)?
Seems like it

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:02 PM
  #16
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
If someone thinks a rule that has been on the books since the beginning of the NHL is a "ridiculous rule" then they are worthy of disparagement.

Hockey is and should be a tough game, but the rules are in place to make it a safe game. Charging is a potentially life-threatening infraction of the rules.
In terms of likelihood of a fatal injury, charging infractions would rank well behind "de sloooo-foot".

In terms of needless hits in the game of hockey, late hits that are generally referred to as "finishing a check" are something that need to be eliminated. I'll also add in that "protecting the goalie" by whacking any player within 10 feet of the net when there's a stoppage is annoying and pointless.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:03 PM
  #17
billybudd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
I sensed that bodychecking underwent a sea-change in the 1990's. Officials stopped calling Charging Infractions and guys like Lindros and Stevens (ironically) became lauded as great hitters when much of the time they were engaging in Charging.

Why did the interpretation of Charging change ? We are now getting back to understanding the basis for Bodychecking - which is to separate a puck-carrier from the puck. You cannot hit a man who does not have possession of the puck. It was always an infraction and a penalty. But not between 1993 and 2008 (largely).

I love Don Cherry, but did he help add to the confusion ? Where was the NHL Referee-in-Chief on this issue ?

I really dislike seeing the players of the 1990's being lauded as great "hitters" when so much of it was in fact Charging.

To this day, many are still confused about running a guy without the puck. It is wrong, and always has been.

Players like Raffi Torres are a product of dereliction of duty by the NHL during the 1990's.

The confusion still exists on these boards as many of my own Countrymen are continually moaning about IIHF Officiating at the World Junior Tournament; if it is charging it is deserving of a penalty - regardless of where you come from.

Back when I played my highest level amateur hockey if you hit me from behind or ran me, I either gave you a two-hander or dropped the gloves and started to beat you down.

This is actually Bettman's fault. It's not that "charging" was ever called the way you're saying it should be. But it was self-policed in fairly brutal fashion.

Used to be when you "charged" someone, it led to some pretty costly ramifications. Some dirtbag might try to stick fight your star over a hit in the first period. The benched might clear later on in the game. The refs might twiddle their thumbs while some thug beat on a skill player at center ice.

Bettman thought this was Neanderthal behavior (and it is), so he put a stop to the worst of this retaliatory stuff shortly after becoming commish.

However, without any change to address the incidents that lead to these barbaric responses, that left greatly diminished consequences for throwing dangerous, violent hits--and it remained that way for about 15 years until Shanahan started throwing his weight around (with mixed results...but it's still better than nothing).

So the culture of charging is Bettman's fault and his alone.

The culture of intentional headshotting is Colin Campbell's fault though, for inaction on a single hit.



This hit going unpunished lead to Mike Richards (who was watching it from the bench) starting to throw it, Richards getting away with it wasn't lost on a Matt Cooke who was sick of getting fined for kneeing people but still wanted blood and it just snowballed from there, at a cost of about two dozen guys' careers.


Edit: should note that I'm a Penguins fan and still thought this hit should have been a match penalty for intent to injure at the time. Kapanen got back up, but, if I'm not mistaken, started missing games with post-concussion syndrome shortly after. He wasn't really the same player again, though some of that had to do with age.


Last edited by billybudd: 12-29-2012 at 01:11 PM.
billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:08 PM
  #18
startainfection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 5,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
You obviously have not played Hockey at any meaningful level if you believe that ...

Rule 42 - Charging

42.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

A minor, major or a major and a game misconduct shall be imposed on a player who charges a goalkeeper while the goalkeeper is within his goal crease.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease area. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an opposing player makes unnecessary contact with a goalkeeper. However, incidental contact, at the discretion of the Referee, will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

42.6 Fines and Suspensions – When a major penalty and a game misconduct is assessed for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.

If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
ok and i think the rule should be changed, coaches want their players to skate as hard as they can and to hit as often as they can with out getting out of position, those 2 together mean that there are going to be alot of charging calls

startainfection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:16 PM
  #19
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,284
vCash: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
This is actually Bettman's fault. It's not that "charging" was ever called the way you're saying it should be. But it was self-policed in fairly brutal fashion.

Used to be when you "charged" someone, it led to some pretty costly ramifications. Some dirtbag might try to stick fight your star over a hit in the first period. The benched might clear later on in the game. The refs might twiddle their thumbs while some thug beat on a skill player at center ice.

Bettman thought this was Neanderthal behavior (and it is), so he put a stop to the worst of this retaliatory stuff shortly after becoming commish.

However, without any change to address the incidents that lead to these barbaric responses, that left greatly diminished consequences for throwing dangerous, violent hits--and it remained that way for about 15 years until Shanahan started throwing his weight around (with mixed results...but it's still better than nothing).

So the culture of charging is Bettman's fault and his alone.

The culture of intentional headshotting is Colin Campbell's fault though, for inaction on a single hit.



This hit going unpunished lead to Mike Richards (who was watching it from the bench) starting to throw it, Richards getting away with it wasn't lost on a Matt Cooke who was sick of getting fined for kneeing people but still wanted blood and it just snowballed from there, at a cost of about two dozen guys' careers.


Edit: should note that I'm a Penguins fan and still thought this hit should have been a match penalty for intent to injure at the time. Kapanen got back up, but, if I'm not mistaken, started missing games with post-concussion syndrome shortly after. He wasn't really the same player again, though some of that had to do with age.
The Neil/Drury hit was later that season as well.

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:21 PM
  #20
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,912
vCash: 500
I think you have to get rid of the "finishing your check" if you wanna get rid of charging. It's often used as an excuse.

Eisen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:23 PM
  #21
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,262
vCash: 500
Protip: if you're going to write an exposition about charging, learn the difference between leaving your feet before checks (Keane), "the pogo" (Torres' skates were on the ice when he hit Hossa, but he had no business being that far off the ice after contact unless he was starting to jump when contact was made) and being forced into the air by the force of the hit (Stevens, Campbell).

Also, it's funny how Buffalo got dumped on by the rest of the league for being whiners after Neil/Drury; of course until Mark Bell and his cage concussed Alfredsson. Then, of course it's:
Quote:
"...dirty for sure. He came from behind, nearly took his head off, guy's wearing a birdcage. Not cool" - Mike Fisher
The league poo-pooing the Sabres' letter for two+ years was a colossal mistake. Everything Golisano (and I can't stand the guy) said here has been codified since, but only after more players had their livelihoods threatened or ruined.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022401244.html

struckbyaparkedcar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 01:23 PM
  #22
CanucksSayEh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
Just because you can slide a piece of paper underneath a players skate, does not mean they "jumped". With big hits, there is almost always gonna be a point during contact where the hitter is off the ice.

CanucksSayEh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 09:11 PM
  #23
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
Quote:
This is actually Bettman's fault. It's not that "charging" was ever called the way you're saying it should be. But it was self-policed in fairly brutal fashion.

Used to be when you "charged" someone, it led to some pretty costly ramifications. Some dirtbag might try to stick fight your star over a hit in the first period. The benched might clear later on in the game. The refs might twiddle their thumbs while some thug beat on a skill player at center ice.

Bettman thought this was Neanderthal behavior (and it is), so he put a stop to the worst of this retaliatory stuff shortly after becoming commish.

However, without any change to address the incidents that lead to these barbaric responses, that left greatly diminished consequences for throwing dangerous, violent hits--and it remained that way for about 15 years until Shanahan started throwing his weight around (with mixed results...but it's still better than nothing).

So the culture of charging is Bettman's fault and his alone.

The culture of intentional headshotting is Colin Campbell's fault though, for inaction on a single hit.
Well said. My thoughts exactly. This is what many people do not understand about fighting in hockey. Fighting ensures that excess will be met with payback. I am against Enforcers mind you, but I think all players should be capable of taking a regular shift and mailing fists when the need arises.

Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 09:15 PM
  #24
Redscotter
Registered User
 
Redscotter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta.
Country: Canada
Posts: 45
vCash: 500
Bettman has been a disaster for the game.

Redscotter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-29-2012, 09:51 PM
  #25
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 20,651
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redscotter View Post
I actually & generally liked Scott Stevens as a hockey player, but he left his feet for about half his "hits" .... which is .... Charging !
There's a big difference between leaving your feet due to force of impact, and launching yourself into an opponent.

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.