Petey uses the reverse hit often so that explains why Ruby hates it. Very little to be confused about here.

- boonerbuck

See my comment above

See my comment above
- Reubenkincade

I did. You showed your bias/dislike for Petey in it basically backing up my claim. I don't buy the letter to the law with the rule book schtick. You are cherry picking.

As you mention in your previous post, letter of the law, or something like that, the reverse hit is interference, no different than a defender not being able to tie up a player after he has dumped it in. If the player does, they usually get called.
Promoting the reverse hit is promoting the rulebook be ignored, yet some think it is okay, probably because it is one of the few things Pouty is decent at, cheating.
- Reubenkincade

alrighty then, love ya man but absolutely disagree on the reverse hit, if the puck isn’t there then yes, interference, if the puck is there just as legal as getting hit any other way.

I did. You showed your bias/dislike for Petey in it basically backing up my claim. I don't buy the letter to the law with the rule book schtick. You are cherry picking.

- boonerbuck

If the puck is in the area it does not break, circumvent, or cheat any rule in any way possible.

alrighty then, love ya man but absolutely disagree on the reverse hit, if the puck isn’t there then yes, interference, if the puck is there just as legal as getting hit any other way.
- Makita

You can literally skate through people when you have the puck and it's not interference. The puck carrier does not get called on interference for contact. Leaving your feet is not interference with or without the puck. Interference is no argument here.

Let's be clear about that call on Petey in the playoffs. You are not allowed to leave your feet while throwing a hit. In his case he was the one being hit while holding the puck.

First time in 45 years of watching hockey that I saw a ref interpret the rule like that. The professionals covering or reporting hockey all said the same. Clearly this ref was being a crooked goof.

Is it a coincidence that Ruby supports that interpretation with Petey being the only one we have ever seen called for it?

alrighty then, love ya man but absolutely disagree on the reverse hit, if the puck isn’t there then yes, interference, if the puck is there just as legal as getting hit any other way.
- Makita

How is it possible for the person receiving the reverse hit to have the puck? It can't just be in the vicinity.

You can literally skate through people when you have the puck and it's not interference. The puck carrier does not get called on interference for contact. Leaving your feet is not interference with or without the puck. Interference is no argument here.

Let's be clear about that call on Petey in the playoffs. You are not allowed to leave your feet while throwing a hit. In his case he was the one being hit while holding the puck.

First time in 45 years of watching hockey that I saw a ref interpret the rule like that. The professionals covering or reporting hockey all said the same. Clearly this ref was being a crooked goof.

Is it a coincidence that Ruby supports that interpretation with Petey being the only one we have ever seen called for it?

- boonerbuck

I have seen it called a few times, I don't just watch Canucks games. The league needs to shit or get off the pot on this issue, either a penalty or not a penalty.
That call on Pouty was one of the stranger ones I recall seeing in a while.

How is it possible for the person receiving the reverse hit to have the puck? I can't just be in the vicinity.
- Reubenkincade

How does this make sense? First, we've seen Petey throw a reverse hit with possession of the puck countless times. It's very possible.

If Petey doesn't have possession of the puck... why is this player bearing down on Petey at full speed to make an open ice hit? Why is the stationary player the one that is interfering here? If Petey isn't being basically charged while neither is in possession, contact never happens.

"It can't just be in the vicinity". Really? How many times in a every game do we see a player who just passed or shot the puck get hit and it's legal? With those hits, the puck isn't even in the vicinity. How many times is there a hit/contact when 2 players are going for the puck but don't have possession or even touched it? It's constant every game.

How does this make sense? First, we've seen Petey throw a reverse hit with possession of the puck countless times. It's very possible.

If Petey doesn't have possession of the puck... why is this player bearing down on Petey at full speed to make an open ice hit? Why is the stationary player the one that is interfering here? If Petey isn't being basically charged while neither is in possession, contact never happens.

"It can't just be in the vicinity". Really? How many times in a every game do we see a player who just passed or shot the puck get hit and it's legal? With those hits, the puck isn't even in the vicinity. How many times is there a hit/contact when 2 players are going for the puck but don't have possession or even touched it? It's constant every game.
- boonerbuck

Excellent post Booner.

I have seen it called a few times, I don't just watch Canucks games. The league needs to shit or get off the pot on this issue, either a penalty or not a penalty.
That call on Pouty was one of the stranger ones I recall seeing in a while.
- Reubenkincade

Not only do you not understand the game of hockey, you don't understand the rules either. It was simply called a penalty because he (Pettersson) left his feet. You can't do that, even if you're stationary. You cannot jump into a player whether you're taking a stride or standing still. Crouching down, using your weight and leverage, is allowed, however.


Rule 42.1 of the NHL Rulebook states that a "minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates, jumps into or charges an opponent in any manner."

Good football game going on in Seattle!

How is it possible for the person receiving the reverse hit to have the puck? It can't just be in the vicinity.
- Reubenkincade

Simple, if the puck is passed to a player and the opponent is going to body check that said player the puck is in the vicinity just the exact same as shoulder or a frontal check, it’s legal and should stay legal.

How does this make sense? First, we've seen Petey throw a reverse hit with possession of the puck countless times. It's very possible.

If Petey doesn't have possession of the puck... why is this player bearing down on Petey at full speed to make an open ice hit? Why is the stationary player the one that is interfering here? If Petey isn't being basically charged while neither is in possession, contact never happens.

"It can't just be in the vicinity". Really? How many times in an every game do we see a player who just passed or shot the puck get hit and it's legal? With those hits, the puck isn't even in the vicinity. How many times is there a hit/contact when 2 players are going for the puck but don't have possession or even touched it? It's constant every game.
- boonerbuck

Exactly!!

https://www.google.com/ur...Vaw0SFFy8R46bP_VsmFKErsLR

How does this make sense? First, we've seen Petey throw a reverse hit with possession of the puck countless times. It's very possible.

If Petey doesn't have possession of the puck... why is this player bearing down on Petey at full speed to make an open ice hit? Why is the stationary player the one that is interfering here? If Petey isn't being basically charged while neither is in possession, contact never happens.

"It can't just be in the vicinity". Really? How many times in a every game do we see a player who just passed or shot the puck get hit and it's legal? With those hits, the puck isn't even in the vicinity. How many times is there a hit/contact when 2 players are going for the puck but don't have possession or even touched it? It's constant every game.
- boonerbuck

Did Pouty receive said reverse hit or is he the hitter

Thanks NYN,

I might be the only one here that didn’t have a problem with the major on Hughes, if Norris didn’t bleed it would have been 2, he did so letter of the law is a major.

I did have have issues with the rest of the officiating it was pretty inconsistent and heavily favoured the Sens.
- Makita

That was my take as well 👍🏻

Prime example of inconsistency:
https://x.com/rayferraro2...tuI3QjRDh0ZYvfwPhsew&s=19

Hughes' being a major and this being a minor is hilarious
- NorthNuck

Bruins say no more

Did Pouty receive said reverse hit or is he the hitter
- Reubenkincade

It was clearly a forward hit met with a reverse hit. The hit initiator is clearly the guy who skated 25 feet to hit a stationary player who at the moment of contact... countered. You are making it sound like the player was just going to skate by and mind his own business.... and Petey nailed him.

It's not that complicated really. Petey was about to take a huge hit and he countered it. At no point was Petey hunting down a hit. He was the intended target as soon as it was determined the puck was headed for his stick.... as he should be. No one interfered with anyone. It was a hockey play made into a fiasco by a douchebag ref.

You can literally skate through people when you have the puck and it's not interference. The puck carrier does not get called on interference for contact. Leaving your feet is not interference with or without the puck. Interference is no argument here.

Let's be clear about that call on Petey in the playoffs. You are not allowed to leave your feet while throwing a hit. In his case he was the one being hit while holding the puck.

First time in 45 years of watching hockey that I saw a ref interpret the rule like that. The professionals covering or reporting hockey all said the same. Clearly this ref was being a crooked goof.

Is it a coincidence that Ruby supports that interpretation with Petey being the only one we have ever seen called for it?

- boonerbuck

Bruin fans are spoiled by league favouritism.

https://www.google.com/url?
- Reubenkincade

That's clearly interference because OEL didn't have control of the puck. Neither did Guentzel.

Bruin fans are spoiled by league favouritism.
- Nighthawk

No kidding. Same with T.O. and Oilers fans I feel.

I had people point out to me that the Leaf's get more penalties on most nights. Something they couldn't deny is when you watch Leaf's games or highlights... how (frank)ing often they get the very late PP in a game when they are behind by a goal. Ridiculous made up bullpoop calls. I never seen a team in my life tie up games in the last 2min on the PP often as them... or hold onto the 1 goal lead for that matter on the game ending PP.

Oilers... well... just look at the Petey penalty we're are discussing and how it took us off the PP. Oilers benefit from crazy calls or non calls so much I want to puke. Both refs will watch McDavid spear someone in the nuts and no call. (frank) off NHL. We can see you.

It was clearly a forward hit met with a reverse hit. The hit initiator is clearly the guy who skated 25 feet to hit a stationary player who at the moment of contact... countered. You are making it sound like the player was just going to skate by and mind his own business.... and Petey nailed him.

It's not that complicated really. Petey was about to take a huge hit and he countered it. At no point was Petey hunting down a hit. He was the intended target as soon as it was determined the puck was headed for his stick.... as he should be. No one interfered with anyone. It was a hockey play made into a fiasco by a douchebag ref.
- boonerbuck

You are the 1 that keeps bringing Pouty into this. I original said something about reverse hits are dangerous, like the Hughes crosschech/boarding call.

That's clearly interference because OEL didn't have control of the puck. Neither did Guentzel.
- Pacificgem

I see, so if a player has control of the puck, they are free to take infractions and not be called. Your opinions are about as consistent as the refs.

I see, so if a player has control of the puck, they are free to take infractions and not be called. Yo9ur opinions are about as consistent as the refs.
- Reubenkincade

You’re making it more complicated than it is. You don’t even know the definition of a reverse hit, as indicated by the video you posted.

If a player has control of the puck and someone tries to hit him he’s free to protect himself and use his weight to reverse hit said player. It’s not that complicated, and it’s not a penalty, which is why it’s not called a penalty. (unless you leave your feet or your principal point of contact is the head)

You are the 1 that keeps bringing Pouty into this. I original said something about reverse hits are dangerous, like the Hughes crosschech/boarding call.
- Reubenkincade

I made the reference originally, yes. It's inaccurate to say that I keep bringing Petey into this as we're in a discussion about it now. Here's an example... your last post was this and only this... a question.

"Did Pouty receive said reverse hit or is he the hitter"

I answered with an explanation. That is not me continuing to bring him into this. No, that's me answering your question.