Radko Gudas: The BIGGEST NHL Rat NO ONE Talks About

[korrowan]

I have been calling him Ratko Goonas for years.

 

[reino]

OMG meaniehead Gudas touched butter soft Leafs team

 

[Romang67]

42.1 Charging: Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

By the NHL rulebook this play is a textbook Charge.

Gudas, as a result of distance traveled, violently hit Aston-Reese who was a step ahead of Gudas into the goal frame which resulted in the net being completely dislodged forcing the Refs to stop play.

You can't hard hit a player right into the pipes lolol

As others have pointed out, you're misinterpreting the meaning of that part of the rule. "into the goal frame" exhausts the space where a hit may take place. It doesn't say a hit into the goal posts is a charge. It says a hit into the goal posts can be a charge, just like a hit on open ice or a hit into the boards can.

 

[hamzarocks]

1st round exit inc

Another rebuild coming for florida

 

[Mrfenn92]

Wasn’t charging. Good hit by Gudas.
Good clean hip check also. Have no problem with Aston Reese going after him either.

 

[SteadyFreddie]

Leafs fans get gifted 2 points by the refs

Leafs fans still think they were screwed by the refs

Must be a Wednesday

Yall are an embarrassing lot

Gee, I wonder why leaf fans think that the refs are constantly screwing them? It could be because they rank 28th in power play opportunities since 2018…

 

[Beezeral]

As others have pointed out, you're misinterpreting the meaning of that part of the rule. "into the goal frame" exhausts the space where a hit may take place. It doesn't say a hit into the goal posts is a charge. It says a hit into the goal posts can be a charge, just like a hit on open ice or a hit into the boards can.

At this point I think that poster is intentionally mis-reading the rule to keep up with a point he knows is wrong. Just can't put the blue and white goggles aside long enough to admit he was wrong.

 

[HofT]

As others have pointed out, you're misinterpreting the meaning of that part of the rule. "into the goal frame" exhausts the space where a hit may take place. It doesn't say a hit into the goal posts is a charge. It says a hit into the goal posts can be a charge, just like a hit on open ice or a hit into the boards can.

No, I'm not misinterpreting. Nowhere in my posts do I say a player getting hitting into the goal frame is 100% a charge. That part does have significance since it is documented in the rulebook but I highlighted it becaue that was the end result that stopped play. Regardless, everything else I described in my post is part of the rule as well.

 

[nturn06]

Nobody talks about him because he sucks.

That's a funny take in a thread talking about him....

 

[HofT]

At this point I think that poster is intentionally mis-reading the rule to keep up with a point he knows is wrong. Just can't put the blue and white goggles aside long enough to admit he was wrong.

No, I 'm obviously being serious and being consistent with the literal definition of the rule, word for word.

 

[RiverbottomChuck]

Leafs needed all the stripes to help them last night.

 

[Romang67]

No, I'm not misinterpreting. Nowhere in my posts do I say a player getting hitting into the goal frame is 100% a charge. That part does have significance since it is documented in the rulebook but I highlighted it becaue that was the end result that stopped play. Regardless, everything else I described in my post is part of the rule as well.

IYour post focuses on Gudas's hitting the player into the goal post. You are focusing on the wrong part of the charging rule.

Key question to ask yourself: if that hit takes place on the blue line, should a charging penalty be called?

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

Is this the same guy that posted a video saying that Leafs fans should be outraged based on Makar's second goal from the Red Wings game? If it's the same guy, he compared MacKinnon putting a chip on a defender right after passing the puck to Makar to Tavares' disallowed goal where Holl blatantly bowls over a Tampa player.

 

[ACC1224]

I'm going by the definition of the rule. Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.
View attachment 637155

At the start of the gif Gudas is on top of the hash marks. To deliver his hit, he then travels from there to the top of the goalie crease. That's certainly enough distance travelled to be considered charging. But only if it was a "violent" hit and interpreting a violent hit can be very nuanced. With that said, I and the Refs are interpreting a violent hit here by the fact that Aston-Reese got Tombstoned by the Undertaker and went head first right through the ice. Lol for real tho because the net got completely discharged and stopped play.

Still doesn't look like a penalty to me.

 

[HofT]

IYour post focuses on Gudas's hitting the player into the goal post. You are focusing on the wrong part of the charging rule.

Key question to ask yourself: if that hit takes place on the blue line, should a charging penalty be called?

I'm focusing on "into the goal post" cause that's what happened and like i stated before it's proof that the hit was "violent" enough.

And with your hypothetical, by definition of the rulebook, if Gudas came at a distance and hit violently enough on the player on open ice then yes, that would be charging as well. But I can see that being more difficult to distinguish.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Whenever a silly thread like this comes out, it's always due to a minor situation that happened during a game that night VS certain teams

Gudas is deadly... He fits in that category of every team and it's fans would LOVE to have him in their team

 

[ACC1224]

Leafs needed all the stripes to help them last night.

Was a nice change for sure.

 

[Romang67]

I'm focusing on "into the goal post" cause that's what happened and like i stated before it's proof that the hit was "violent" enough.

And with your hypothetical, by definition of the rulebook, if Gudas came at a distance and hit violently enough on the player on open ice then yes, that would be charging as well.

You're focusing on the part of the rule that says a charging penalty can be called regardless of where on the ice the hit takes place. Which is why I know you don't understand what the rule is saying.

But more importantly, you're now saying that a player taking on stride into a hit after turning around on the ice should be a charging penalty?

That is quite the take.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

42.1 Charging: Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

By the NHL rulebook this play is a textbook Charge.

Gudas, as a result of distance traveled, violently hit Aston-Reese who was a step ahead of Gudas into the goal frame which resulted in the net being completely dislodged forcing the Refs to stop play.

You can't hard hit a player right into the pipes lolol

Think you missed the key detail, soz I capitalized it for you

 

[Hemsky001]

I'm getting use to that constant crying from the Leafs fans it gets better every time actually.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I have been calling him Ratko Goonas for years.

Same, I thought i was the only one, lol.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

People always have a really difficult time when they are faced with the actual rulebook. They like to talk about the game however they want, but then act like the actual rulebook doesn't exist and penalties are just what they think they should/shouldn't be.

Thanks for citing the actual rule here. I'm sure a vast majority of people complaining about the call had no clue that this is even a part of the rulebook.

Don’t ever become a lawyer. He provided the rule that clearly proves his point is wrong. The portions this poster chose to capitalize are all part of an initial statement that clearly indicates you need to accomplish said capitalized parts as a result of distance traveled.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Don’t ever become a lawyer. He provided the rule that clearly proves his point is wrong. The portions this poster chose to capitalize are all part of an initial statement that clearly indicates you need to accomplish said capitalized parts as a result of distance traveled.

Thanks for your feedback and the future career advice.

 

[Golden_Jet]

The daily post after a leafs game, complaining about the reffing again.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

Another rebuild coming for flordia

Hey at least our problems in Florida haven’t gotten so bad that we’re slurring our words

Thanks for your feedback and the future career advice.

You’re very welcome.