Re: Chimera on McQuaid
posted at 3/30/2012 9:18 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Chimera on McQuaid : I'm curious to know if you are disputing that THIS is charging or challenging the charging penalty as something that should be eliminated?
Posted by Neecic[/QUOTE]
I dislike subjective penalties. Could be/couldn't be. It's up to the ref.
Here's something to think about:
If McQuaid hadn't stupidly turned to face the glass and this was a thunderous shoulder to shoulder check in which McQuaid was knocked down but popped right back up, would it still be charging?
- A minor
penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner."
Truthfully, the definition is terrible. First, you can't use a word to define a word. Also, in proper English, you can remove the "or jumps into" and the "or charges" and the sentence should still read properly. Therefore, a minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates an opponent in any manner.
How does a player skate another player?
"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."
The "distance traveled" is not defined. Is it 10 feet? Is it 10 strides? Does it have to be in a straight line?
Let's say Ovechkin comes off the bench with Zanon (I almost wrote Zombo LOL) behind the net. As Ovechkin gets a head of steam and starts around the net, Zanon takes off up the right side. Ovechkin catches Zanon and cracks him against the glass right before the bench. He certainly would have traveled quite a distance. It is also a violent check because Ovechiin hits like a truck. The check is into the boards. So we have distance, violence and boards.
Is that charging or is it hockey?
It is flawed from beginning to end.