Situation 1
A player leaves his feet and jumps at the last second to deliver a body check. Would this be considered charging?
Yes. Rule Reference 607Note.
Anytime a player jumps in the process of delivering a body check, a charging penalty must be called, even if the contact is still made by the trunk of the body to the trunk of the opponent. The jumping motion provides additional force that is not necessary to deliver a legal body check.
Situation 2
A player comes off the bench on a legal line change and sees an opponent skating up the ice with his head down. The player skates across the ice at full speed to deliver a hard body check that punished the player with the puck. Does this qualify as charging?
Yes. Rule Reference 607Note.
Even though the rule is specific to taking more than two fast strides for charging to be called, in some instances distance travelled with full strides could qualify as charging, as well. The key is that the player travelled a great distance at full speed for the purpose of punishing the opponent and not simply making a good defensive hockey play that separates the opponent from the puck.
Situation 3
A player delivers a check without taking the two fast strides, but instead accelerates through the check and delivers just as much force as if he had taken two fast strides. Could this be considered charging?
Yes. Rule Reference 607Note.
By accelerating through the check and maximizing the force used, the player is no longer simply separating the opponent from the puck and instead is attempting to intimidate or punish the opponent. Under the Body Checking Standard of Play, this must be penalized under the charging rule.
Situation 4
What guidelines should the Referee use when determining whether to assess a minor plus misconduct, major plus game misconduct or match penalty for charging a goalkeeper while in his crease or privileged area?
Several factors may come into play when making this determination. Rule Reference 607(c, d and e).
The degree of force used to deliver the check and also the intent of the attacking player must be taken into consideration. If the attacking player is going hard to the goal and then makes an honest attempt to avoid the goalkeeper once it is realized contact is unavoidable, a minor plus misconduct penalty is deemed appropriate.
In the case where a defending player has forced the attacking player into his own goalkeeper, no penalty should be assessed provided the attacking player has clearly made every attempt to avoid the contact with the goalkeeper.
However, if the player makes no attempt to avoid the goalkeeper and takes advantage of the opportunity to intimidate or punish by accelerating through the contact, or by extending the arms or dropping the shoulder to deliver the hit, the major plus game misconduct penalty option would be the proper call.
Situation 5
What guidelines should an official use when assessing a penalty to a player making contact with the goalkeeper while outside of the privileged area?
Although a goalkeeper can be legally checked when outside the privileged area, he is not considered to be “fair game.” Rule Reference 607(d).
A penalty should be assessed in every instance where unnecessary or avoidable contact is made with the goalkeeper – even when outside the privileged area.
When the goalkeeper has possession of the puck, the attacking player is permitted to deliver a check aimed at separating him from the puck. However, any check delivered with the intent to intimidate or punish the goalkeeper should be penalized as charging.
When the goalkeeper is no longer in possession and control of the puck, any avoidable contact (meaning the attacking player has sufficient time to avoid the contact) must also be penalized under this rule.
Situation 6
Does the goalkeeper’s Privileged Area include the area behind the goal line?
Yes. Rule Reference 607 (d.Note 2).
The goalkeeper’s Privileged Area extends to the closer end boards.
