Western Conference Second Round: (1) Vancouver Canucks vs (2) Edmonton Oilers

[blayze]

Playoff hockey is stressful but it's better than not having any

Yo let’s keep the Leafs out of this…

[Canucks_fan18]

I think they go Picard but sounds like there still thinking about it.

[Axeman33]

Pickard for game 5.

[Canucks_fan18]

Wow what a game. Honestly very impressed with my Canucks tonight. If we can play like that consistently were a contender. McDavid looked off again last night. 2nd time this series I seen that. I have no doubt he come's out hard on Saturday but something to note.

[Grapes]

Would someone please explain to me how Elias Pettersson gets two minutes for charging against Warren Foegele. Was it because he left his feet even though he was standing still ?

[lobo1969]

Would someone please explain to me how Elias Pettersson gets two minutes for charging against Warren Foegele. Was it because he left his feet even though he was standing still ?

Yes, it was 'charging' because he left his feet. The refs could have also called it 'elbowing' because Pettersson got his arm up on Foegele's head.

[senryu]

Yes, it was 'charging' because he left his feet. The refs could have also called it 'elbowing' because Pettersson got his arm up on Foegele's head.

The rule says "jumps into." Into is the key word. It looked to me like Pettersson jumped straight up, which isn't jumping into. I've seen a lot of people saying that the fact that Pettersson was in the air when someone skated into him is automatic charging by Pettersson, but I've not seen anyone mention that the rule says "into," as in, jumping toward someone. Did Pettersson jump toward the person who delivered the hit? I can't imagine that being airborne, not jumping toward someone, could be charging.

[doulos]

Wow what a game. Honestly very impressed with my Canucks tonight. If we can play like that consistently were a contender. McDavid looked off again last night. 2nd time this series I seen that. I have no doubt he come's out hard on Saturday but something to note.

I don't think either of these teams stand a chance in the next round. Canucks still struggle to score even against an utterly anemic Oilers team that looked atrocious from puck drop. The Oilers have all the same problems as every other season with no secondary scoring and tepid 5v5 play.

Definitely curious if the Oilers have an illness in the room currently or maybe their top guys are all just gassed from playing way too many minutes every game. Not sure.

Either way I didn't even bother watching thr third last night as it was pretty clear where the game was headed.

[Canucks_fan18]

I don't think either of these teams stand a chance in the next round. Canucks still struggle to score even against an utterly anemic Oilers team that looked atrocious from puck drop. The Oilers have all the same problems as every other season with no secondary scoring and tepid 5v5 play.

Definitely curious if the Oilers have an illness in the room currently or maybe their top guys are all just gassed from playing way too many minutes every game. Not sure.

Either way I didn't even bother watching thr third last night as it was pretty clear where the game was headed.

I disagree. The Oilers were if I recall betting favorite to win the cup coming into this series. 47/50 analyst to the Oilers to win. There a good team and could still win. But the Canucks are playing the type of hockey they need too to win. I think whoever get's by will still be a challenge for Dallas and Colorado. I would actually prefer to play Dallas as we have had success against them in the regular season and to me they seem like the Hurricanes of the West.

[LawMan]

The rule says "jumps into." Into is the key word. It looked to me like Pettersson jumped straight up, which isn't jumping into. I've seen a lot of people saying that the fact that Pettersson was in the air when someone skated into him is automatic charging by Pettersson, but I've not seen anyone mention that the rule says "into," as in, jumping toward someone. Did Pettersson jump toward the person who delivered the hit? I can't imagine that being airborne, not jumping toward someone, could be charging.

It was a very odd call. Pettersson does seem to "lean in" to the hit, he definitely jumps and maybe slightly towards the Foegele. I do think elbowing would have been the more logical call because he got his elbow up.
Eitherway I think it was 100% a makeup call for the soft penalty called a minute earlier in the game...
Reffing was not great last night, lots of soft calls early and then letting stuff go later in the game.

[doulos]

It was a very odd call. Pettersson does seem to "lean in" to the hit, he definitely jumps and maybe slightly towards the Foegele. I do think elbowing would have been the more logical call because he got his elbow up.
Eitherway I think it was 100% a makeup call for the soft penalty called a minute earlier in the game...
Reffing was not great last night, lots of soft calls early and then letting stuff go later in the game.

Agree with all of this.

[rataylor22]

The rule says "jumps into." Into is the key word. It looked to me like Pettersson jumped straight up, which isn't jumping into. I've seen a lot of people saying that the fact that Pettersson was in the air when someone skated into him is automatic charging by Pettersson, but I've not seen anyone mention that the rule says "into," as in, jumping toward someone. Did Pettersson jump toward the person who delivered the hit? I can't imagine that being airborne, not jumping toward someone, could be charging.

People are getting really hung up on this "into" word. Pettersson's goal with jumping was to win the contact. Therefore, there was intentionality in his actions. Furthermore, if actually would have jumped just straight up into the air without any directional momentum, he would have gotten destroyed. Try it sometime with a friend, jump straight up in the air and have them push you. The person pushing you isn't the one that is going to move.

Regardless, elbowing, interference, charging, what he did was a penalty, the specific call made is semantics.

[senryu]

People are getting really hung up on this "into" word. Pettersson's goal with jumping was to win the contact. Therefore, there was intentionality in his actions. Furthermore, if actually would have jumped just straight up into the air without any directional momentum, he would have gotten destroyed. Try it sometime with a friend, jump straight up in the air and have them push you. The person pushing you isn't the one that is going to move.

Regardless, elbowing, interference, charging, what he did was a penalty, the specific call made is semantics.

Well, people are hung up on the word "into" because that is in the rule. It seems to me that the charging rule is designed to outlaw situations where the skater or jumper or whatever is the one instigating the contact. Not turning away and bracing for the contact initiated by Foegele. I only saw one angle, but from what I saw, it did not seem like Pettersson was pursuing Foegele in order to initiate contact with him. It seemed like the opposite. Under the sort of interpretation I've been seeing today, if Foegele punches Pettersson or swung his stick at Pettersson and Pettersson jumped straight up, that would be charging as well, as Pettersson was in the air while contact was made. I just haven't seen the "you're in the air, therefore anything that happens is your fault" interpretation before.

If Pettersson sees the impending contact and directs his elbow at Foegele's face, that's different, probably closer to interference or something like that. But with respect to the "in the air equals 100% fault" rule proposed today, that seems wrong to me.

[rataylor22]

I mean it's a reverse hit. Pettersson is very clearly initiating contact. To note, both players can initiate contact, which is what happened here.

[doulos]

McDavid and Hyman both dealing with injuries. Canucks have been playing much more physical than the Oilers for sure.