Tomato, Tomahto. First Chytil, now Buchnevich. Other than being ex-Rangers and Eastern Europeans, the other thing that they have in common would be, the dirty hits they’ve received.
I put this at 3 out of 5 Troubas. Definite charge. Distance or jump = charge, he had both. 5/game for the charge all by itself. And of course, it was also interference. Add in the head contact, we're at supplemental discipline. The fact he stands up and ends up in the air tells me it wasn't the contact that made him leave the ice, it was his effort to go high by jumping into the hit (Trouba style).
Just watch his helmet. Starts at or below his target, ends up 6+ inches higher right at contact.
If you look at the part of the interference rule that was cut out from the video, it also mentions "a legal “battle for the puck,”" in reference to hitting a player not in possession of the puck. idk what exactly that means, because it is never defined and that term is not used anywhere else in the rulebook except once in regards to goalie interference, but honestly "achhhtually in the slow mo you can see his stick was 0.5 inches away from the puck" always has and always will be total bs.
4 Comments
Tomato, Tomahto. First Chytil, now Buchnevich. Other than being ex-Rangers and Eastern Europeans, the other thing that they have in common would be, the dirty hits they’ve received.
Result requires a major, IMO. You can't commit to a hit when the player doesn't have the puck and not face the consequences when they never have it.
I don't think it's supplemental on current NHL standards, though.
Hit by Tucker later on in the game was far worse.
I put this at 3 out of 5 Troubas. Definite charge. Distance or jump = charge, he had both. 5/game for the charge all by itself. And of course, it was also interference. Add in the head contact, we're at supplemental discipline. The fact he stands up and ends up in the air tells me it wasn't the contact that made him leave the ice, it was his effort to go high by jumping into the hit (Trouba style).
Just watch his helmet. Starts at or below his target, ends up 6+ inches higher right at contact.
If you look at the part of the interference rule that was cut out from the video, it also mentions "a legal “battle for the puck,”" in reference to hitting a player not in possession of the puck. idk what exactly that means, because it is never defined and that term is not used anywhere else in the rulebook except once in regards to goalie interference, but honestly "achhhtually in the slow mo you can see his stick was 0.5 inches away from the puck" always has and always will be total bs.