Radko Gudas: The BIGGEST NHL Rat NO ONE Talks About

[WetcoastOrca]

The daily LeafsNation75 video whining about the refs and trying to paint the Leafs as the victims.
The Leafs had 9 power plays against Florida. That’s 30% of the game. Apparently that’s still proof that the refs and the league are out to get the Leafs.

 

[Ezekial]

Bolded size 72 font doesn't make every check that results in a player hitting the goal frame a charge.

 

[HofT]

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.

I must have gave the wrong impression by highlighting that part. This thread was kinda continuing from the other thread so I still had that other thread's mindset and the discussion going on there.

So, here's the rule this time with no highlights:

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.

At the start of my gif Gudas is on top of the hash marks. To deliver his hit, he travels from there to the top of the goalie crease. That's his distance. And in that distance he is fully lock on and homing on Aston-Reese's blindside at a significant pace. Now, the other part of the rule is if 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 went spine first into the frame of the net dislodging it and forcing the play to stop all cause of Gudas's distanced travelled fully holding A or X charged violent hit.

Also, thehockeyguy's has a good interpretation of the rule. In the video hes talking about the Scheifele charge against the Habs back in 2021 playoffs.

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

Think you didn't read all my posts

 

[Ezekial]

I must have gave the wrong impression by highlighting that part. This thread was kinda continuing from the other thread so I still had that other thread's mindset and the discussion going on there.

So, here's the rule this time with no highlights:

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.

View attachment 637240

At the start of my gif Gudas is on top of the hash marks. To deliver his hit, he travels from there to the top of the goalie crease. That's his distance. And in that distance he is fully lock on and homing on Aston-Reese's blindside at a significant pace. Now, the other part of the rule is if 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 went spine first into the frame of the net dislodging it and forcing the play to stop all cause of Gudas's distanced travelled fully holding A or X charged violent hit.


Think you didn't read all my posts

Aston Reese also traveled a distance, Radko Gudas made a play on the puck FIRST then finishished a body check. How often is a charge preceded by a poke check?

Lastly when you say "holding a or x" you're a clown. The dude isn't playing a f***ing video game, he's playing defense in the NHL.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

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

I mean the thread is literally asking why nobody talks about him. I answered. Shouldn't be a difficult comment to follow.

 

[HofT]

Aston Reese also traveled a distance, Radko Gudas made a play on the puck FIRST then finishished a body check. How often is a charge preceded by a poke check?

Lastly when you say "holding a or x" you're a clown. The dude isn't playing a f***ing video game, he's playing defense in the NHL.

Gudas doesn't swipe away at the puck or anything. And LOLOL, but it's funny you can visualize and understand what I mean when I said he is fully charging from a distance like hes holding A or X on a video game controller. And it's cause he is from a significant distance and with enough time to lay a charged hard hit on Aston-Reese's blindside. Like the entire time he is lock on Aston-Reese's blindside and then eventually he just goes for the body violently enough to fly Aston-Reese's spine right into the post dislodging the net and forcing the ref to stop play.

 

[nturn06]

I mean the thread is literally asking why nobody talks about him. I answered. Shouldn't be a difficult comment to follow.

I read the innitial post few times and didn't see any question. Literally no question.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I read the innitial post few times and didn't see any question.

It is in the title.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

Think you didn't read all my posts

I did, and quite honestly I think it’s offensive that you’re sitting here trying to “explain what the rules really are” as though you know something virtually everyone else doesn’t.

This play fundamentally lacks the necessary prerequisite to be a charge. Gudas didn’t stride into his hit. To be a charge, there is an element of… well.. charging a player. Gudas is literally approaching a puck carrier and making a play on the puck, and the result is a collision. He is relatively flat on his feet except for some momentum towards the puck. He doesn’t leave his feet or jump. He doesn’t drive his opponent in any unnatural direction. There’s no charge.

 

[nturn06]

It is in the title.

There is no question in the title either, just a statement

 

[Ezekial]

Gudas doesn't swipe away at the puck or anything. And LOLOL, but it's funny you can visualize and understand what I mean when I said he is fully charging from a distance like hes holding A or X on a video game controller. And it's cause he is from a significant distance and with enough time to lay a charged hard hit on Aston-Reese's blindside. Like the entire time he is lock on Aston-Reese's blindside and then eventually he just goes for the body violently enough to fly Aston-Reese's spine right into the post dislodging the net and forcing the ref to stop play.

Okay you're either blind or completely disingenuous, he definitely makes a play on the puck with his stick.

 

[holy]

Gudas?

 

[LeafsNation75]

Hope this isn't your video...Its bad.

No it’s not my video, it popped up randomly on my YouTube feed last night.

If you don’t like what he said maybe post a comment on the video.

 

[HofT]

I did, and quite honestly I think it’s offensive that you’re sitting here trying to “explain what the rules really are” as though you know something virtually everyone else doesn’t.

This play fundamentally lacks the necessary prerequisite to be a charge. Gudas didn’t stride into his hit. To be a charge, there is an element of… well.. charging a player. Gudas is literally approaching a puck carrier and making a play on the puck, and the result is a collision. He is relatively flat on his feet except for some momentum towards the puck. He doesn’t leave his feet or jump. He doesn’t drive his opponent in any unnatural direction. There’s no charge.

It's not everyone. And I'll repeat again again, he does not need to stride into the player for it to be considered a charge. No where does it say that in the rule. It just says distanced travelled.

And again I'll repeat, the thehockeyguys has a good interpretation of the rule

 

[phillyb]

Gudas has been in the league since 2012 and has thrown questionable hits his entire career. First suspension was 2015. No way this guy flies under the f***in radar - what the hell is the dude in the video smoking?

 

[Beezeral]

I must have gave the wrong impression by highlighting that part. This thread was kinda continuing from the other thread so I still had that other thread's mindset and the discussion going on there.

So, here's the rule this time with no highlights:

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.

View attachment 637240

At the start of my gif Gudas is on top of the hash marks. To deliver his hit, he travels from there to the top of the goalie crease. That's his distance. And in that distance he is fully lock on and homing on Aston-Reese's blindside at a significant pace. Now, the other part of the rule is if 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 went spine first into the frame of the net dislodging it and forcing the play to stop all cause of Gudas's distanced travelled fully holding A or X charged violent hit.

Also, thehockeyguy's has a good interpretation of the rule. In the video hes talking about the Scheifele charge against the Habs back in 2021 playoffs.




Think you didn't read all my posts

the fact you are trying to compare the Schiefele play to last night is so incredibly dumb. the two plays couldn't be any more different.

 

[Suntouchable13]

I did, and quite honestly I think it’s offensive that you’re sitting here trying to “explain what the rules really are” as though you know something virtually everyone else doesn’t.

This play fundamentally lacks the necessary prerequisite to be a charge. Gudas didn’t stride into his hit. To be a charge, there is an element of… well.. charging a player. Gudas is literally approaching a puck carrier and making a play on the puck, and the result is a collision. He is relatively flat on his feet except for some momentum towards the puck. He doesn’t leave his feet or jump. He doesn’t drive his opponent in any unnatural direction. There’s no charge.

This league should just come out and ban hitting, no beating around the bush, if that's a charge. Laughable.

 

[Cheddabombs]

No it’s not my video, it popped up randomly on my YouTube feed last night.

If you don’t like what he said maybe post a comment on the video.

??

This thread is comical. If you don't want people to comment on the video here, maybe don't start a thread on a message board sharing the video with no comment and also copying the video title word for word. Could maybe let others find the video on their own if they so choose.

 

[Trashpass]

I can see why the game is getting softer year after year if this is a play someone deems thread worthy

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

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.

Your gif doesn't support your position at all.

Gudas took 1 stride then glided the last 15 feet before contact & never left his feet which makes it the definition of not charging. He even made a play on the puck.

Just because he gets checked into the net means nothing in regards to a charging penalty. It has to fit the other criteria which are 3 strides or leaving your feet to make the check.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

It's not everyone. And I'll repeat again again, he does not need to stride into the player for it to be considered a charge. No where does it say that in the rule. It just says distanced travelled.

And again I'll repeat, the thehockeyguys has a good interpretation of the rule

Cool story dude, thanks for posting a 12 minute video that nobody is obliged to watch and that doesn’t prove your point. Nobody here is talking about number of strides. Your video means f*** all in this context. Gudas didn’t travel some distance to make a violent hit. He made a play on the puck with a freaking poke check dude. There was a resultant collision that you cannot identify as charging because it doesn’t meet any of the qualitative descriptions in the rule book.

It's not everyone. And I'll repeat again again, he does not need to stride into the player for it to be considered a charge. No where does it say that in the rule. It just says distanced travelled.

And again I'll repeat, the thehockeyguys has a good interpretation of the rule

Cool story dude, thanks for posting a 12 minute video that nobody is obliged to watch and that doesn’t prove your point. Nobody here is talking about number of strides. Your video means f*** all in this context. Gudas didn’t travel some distance to make a violent hit. He made a play on the puck with a freaking poke check dude. There was a resultant collision that you cannot identify as charging because it doesn’t meet any of the qualitative descriptions in the rule book.

 

[HofT]

Okay you're either blind or completely disingenuous, he definitely makes a play on the puck with his stick.

View attachment 637253
View attachment 637255

Full motion is better. Gudas is prepping for a hit by crouching down and homing in on Aston-Reese which he then dangerously hit into the frame of the net. Like the results speak for itself, no? Even if he did actually swipe the puck away he still lays the charged travelled hit on the blindside of Aston-Reese. The hit made his body spin and made his spine go right into the post. It's a penalty

Cool story dude, thanks for posting a 12 minute video that nobody is obliged to watch and that doesn’t prove your point. Nobody here is talking about number of strides. Your video means f*** all in this context. Gudas didn’t travel some distance to make a violent hit. He made a play on the puck with a freaking poke check dude. There was a resultant collision that you cannot identify as charging because it doesn’t meet any of the qualitative descriptions in the rule book.


Cool story dude, thanks for posting a 12 minute video that nobody is obliged to watch and that doesn’t prove your point. Nobody here is talking about number of strides. Your video means f*** all in this context. Gudas didn’t travel some distance to make a violent hit. He made a play on the puck with a freaking poke check dude. There was a resultant collision that you cannot identify as charging because it doesn’t meet any of the qualitative descriptions in the rule book.

Are you ok? Sorry for posting proof Lol

 

[gilfaizon]

No it’s not my video, it popped up randomly on my YouTube feed last night.

If you don’t like what he said maybe post a comment on the video.

No thank you. I commented my opinion here and that was quite enough. No need to give additional views/comments to bad content.

 

[miscs75]

He’s the 4th biggest rat on his team. Tkachuk, Lomberg and Hornqvist all rank well above Gudas.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

Are you ok? Sorry for posting proof Lol

“proof” that you are incapable of formulating a legitimate argument.