Sergachev Stretchered Off in First Game Back

[The Comish]

If I'm guessing, something (or somethings, plural) in the knee went pop. Torn ACL and maybe MCL/PCL is my guess. Hoping for the best.

[ross10019]

I’m pretty sure that’s a broken ankle, not a knee issue - broken fibula or possibly tibia (but I don’t think so).

[islefan31]

Gotta ask, we all love a big hit, but isn't the reverse hit interference? It's such a dangerous play.

[2014olympicgold]

1. I've always thought the reverse hit was just interference. The league also ignores interferences for like 99% of the game, it's the most annoying penalty they ignore to me because by definition it happens every dump in. But yes, the reverse hit is 100% interference.

Here's the definition of interference from the League Rulebook:

A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may “block” the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponent’s path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself “bigger” and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going); his free hand is not used and he does not take advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.

2. I thought ankle initially the way his foot got stuck under him.

3. Initially I was thinking it wasn't going to be as bad as we first thought. We see this happen, and always go "Torn ACL" in hockey, but it turns out they're back in 4-6weeks. But after seeing his Insta post rambling about how the universe has it's own plans....I'm thinking it's actually something longgggg term.

[The Comish]

I’m pretty sure that’s a broken ankle, not a knee issue - broken fibula or possibly tibia (but I don’t think so).

Gotta ask, we all love a big hit, but isn't the reverse hit interference? It's such a dangerous play.

1. I've always thought the reverse hit was just interference. The league also ignores interferences for like 99% of the game, it's the most annoying penalty they ignore to me because by definition it happens every dump in. But yes, the reverse hit is 100% interference.

2. I thought ankle initially the way his foot got stuck under him.

3. Initially I was thinking it wasn't going to be as bad as we first thought. We see this happen, and always go "Torn ACL" in hockey, but it turns out they're back in 4-6weeks. But after seeing his Insta post rambling about how the universe has it's own plans....I'm thinking it's actually something longgggg term.

Love the media reports, so far they've confirmed that it's a "lower body" injury. Awesome information. How hard would it be to say knee, ankle or leg injury? My first thoughts were that something broke as well, but when I saw the angle of the knee when it was bent, I went with torn ACL. I hope it's not too serious, but man, to be stretchered off, it has to be significant.

I was thinking about how the term "reverse hit" is now mostly accepted, but it sure seems to be textbook interference. I don't mind when the defenseman chasing the puck in his own end, after a dump in, slows and initiates "a little" contact, but some of these reverse hits are significant hits on a player who clearly doesn't have the puck. Ah well, that's a topic for another thread!

Hoping Sergachev isn't out too long.

[ross10019]

3 years ago I broke my fibula bad in a beer league game - wasn’t a reverse hit, happened when I had to sidestep to evade a guy (reckless play by him), and when I jumped aside and planted on my left leg my ankle did exactly what Sergachev’s did.

I’d be shocked if it’s not a broken fibula, and probably a bad one that will require surgery. Broken tibia also possible but not sure, it didn’t look like a Stamkos-type bending.

In my case, they inserted a plate with 7 screws, took me 5 months to get back on the ice. And that was with a ton of dedicated PT.

He’ll heal faster of course, he’s an elite young athlete not a 50+ year old schlub like me, but I seriously doubt we see him this year.

[dejeanneret]

Doesn't look good. My guess would also be a knee issue with a bend like that, but I'm no doctor (nor do I play one on TV). Wish him a speedy recovery whatever the issue is.

Intersting points regarding interference/reverse hit. But even under the definition above, seems to me there is a good argument that this is *not* interference. I first focus on the part that says:

Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference.

Isn't the key there "WITHOUT establishing body position?" And in the Sergachev scenario, seems pretty clear to me that the forward had established his body position, and was standing his ground so to speak, when Sergachev was angling to go through the forward (thereby displacing him from his established body position) to get the puck.

Moving on the rule book definition then, it would seem the question then becomes whether Lafreniere

[took] advantage of his body position to deliver an otherwise illegal check.

Did he?

I guess one could say "yes" because Sergachev did not possess the puck.
But then again, on this particular play, Lafreniere did not have possession of the puck either and Sergachev was also in process of delivering a check upon him.
So was Sergachev's play interference as well?
Or were neither interference and that's just that's just a corner puck battle in a contact sport with an unfortunate result?

My interpretation would be that this falls in the bucket of "unfortunate result" from a clean, legal play.

[PenguinHunter]

Doesn't look good. My guess would also be a knee issue with a bend like that, but I'm no doctor (nor do I play one on TV). Wish him a speedy recovery whatever the issue is.

Intersting points regarding interference/reverse hit. But even under the definition above, seems to me there is a good argument that this is *not* interference. I first focus on the part that says:



Isn't the key there "WITHOUT establishing body position?" And in the Sergachev scenario, seems pretty clear to me that the forward had established his body position, and was standing his ground so to speak, when Sergachev was angling to go through the forward (thereby displacing him from his established body position) to get the puck.

Moving on the rule book definition then, it would seem the question then becomes whether Lafreniere



Did he?

I guess one could say "yes" because Sergachev did not possess the puck.
But then again, on this particular play, Lafreniere did not have possession of the puck either and Sergachev was also in process of delivering a check upon him.
So was Sergachev's play interference as well?
Or were neither interference and that's just that's just a corner puck battle in a contact sport with an unfortunate result?

My interpretation would be that this falls in the bucket of "unfortunate result" from a clean, legal play.

I love the above interpretation.

[2014olympicgold]

I interpret the rule of, neither had possession of the puck, and Laf delivered a hit. You can have your lane, but you can't dump someone.

To me it's the same as a dump in and the defenseman is skating with the player and checks the player legally, but no where near the puck. If neither had possession, and Laf loads up for a hit, he's the offender.

[PenguinHunter]

I interpret the rule of, neither had possession of the puck, and Laf delivered a hit. You can have your lane, but you can't dump someone.

To me it's the same as a dump in and the defenseman is skating with the player and checks the player legally, but no where near the puck. If neither had possession, and Laf loads up for a hit, he's the offender.

So what is Laf supposed to do in that situation... let Sergachev run him into the boards?

[2014olympicgold]

So what is Laf supposed to do in that situation... let Sergachev run him into the boards?

That's not really a valid argument on if a reverse hit is interference. In that situation, I don't know what you do, but again it's not an answer for "is a reverse hit interference".

I don't disagree with you that Laf was in a tough spot (especially with the lowkey dirty Serg), but I won't say you can deliver an illegal hit to protect yourself and the hit deemed not illegal. As a coach I would say "protect yourself" but if you do it illegally...it's still illegal.

[ross10019]

Doesn't look good. My guess would also be a knee issue with a bend like that, but I'm no doctor (nor do I play one on TV). Wish him a speedy recovery whatever the issue is.

Intersting points regarding interference/reverse hit. But even under the definition above, seems to me there is a good argument that this is *not* interference. I first focus on the part that says:



Isn't the key there "WITHOUT establishing body position?" And in the Sergachev scenario, seems pretty clear to me that the forward had established his body position, and was standing his ground so to speak, when Sergachev was angling to go through the forward (thereby displacing him from his established body position) to get the puck.

Moving on the rule book definition then, it would seem the question then becomes whether Lafreniere



Did he?

I guess one could say "yes" because Sergachev did not possess the puck.
But then again, on this particular play, Lafreniere did not have possession of the puck either and Sergachev was also in process of delivering a check upon him.
So was Sergachev's play interference as well?
Or were neither interference and that's just that's just a corner puck battle in a contact sport with an unfortunate result?

My interpretation would be that this falls in the bucket of "unfortunate result" from a clean, legal play.

Totally, and the puck is at Laf’s feet and he’s allowed to shield and protect it.

Very similar to when a soccer defender close to a ball bodies an attacking opponent who is trying to save a ball from going across the touch line.

[2014olympicgold]

Totally, and the puck is at Laf’s feet and he’s allowed to shield and protect it.

Very similar to when a soccer defender close to a ball bodies an attacking opponent who is trying to save a ball from going across the touch line.

Soccer you can shield, but you can't legally body check the guy in that situation.

Lowering the shoulder and doing what the reverse hit is different than shielding out a player.

[ross10019]

Soccer you can shield, but you can't legally body check the guy in that situation.

Lowering the shoulder and doing what the reverse hit is different than shielding out a player.

If youve played soccer, you know there is always physical contact and the ref will never call it.

[2014olympicgold]

If youve played soccer, you know there is always physical contact and the ref will never call it.

I have, and if you noticed I first said the NHL doesn't call interference properly at all throughout games. If you want to argue should something be called is another debate. Not calling something, and something being legal are different.

But whatever, it's spun out of control. To me reverse hitting is by definition, interference if the hitter hasn't touched the puck yet. If you want it to be legal...then we need to redefine the term possession which would effect offsides...again, spinning tires now.