Radko Gudas: The BIGGEST NHL Rat NO ONE Talks About

[cneely]

Ok fine, heavily supports then. Right, I’m sure that’s what it is!

You can make whatever assumption you want. There simply isn't proof.

Did you know that the Leafs are 27th in times shorthanded over that same stretch? So they take fewer penalties and have fewer penalties taken against them. What if we hypothesize that as one of the leagues marquee teams, refs tend to feel under a microscope doing their games and subsequently put their whistles away. Seems the impact is neither positive or negative for the Leafs.

Because they’re a dirty team.

Who also happen the control the puck a fair bit. Far more than the Leafs do in fact.

 

[cneely]

The rule doesn't say how far a player has to travel for a hit to be considered a charge. Doesn't say how many strides, doesn't say if he can glide or not. It just says "as a result of distance traveled". It is what it is.

So then any hit that is subjectively deemed "violent" could be called charging.

 

[HofT]

Well don't pretend the Leafs have this grand never ending window, they have this year and then a lot of things are up in the air.

It's like life. One day we'll have to just let it go...

 

[HansonBro]

My interpretation of charging...not the rule book

Charging is when a player is clearly just skating around looking to hit someone with no intentions of playing the puck. Usually involves 5-6 direct strides at the other player (I know 3 is often thought the rule). Most often the other player is unsuspecting of the hit. Also leaving the feet during a hit.

So a combination of those things is how I see charging and have since I was a child.

What Gudas did had none of those properties. The call was bull shit. I feel bad for the guy getting penalized for a good hockey play that resulted in a PP goal and a Leafs comeback to ultimately win the game

Signed,
Leafs fan

 

[HofT]

You can make whatever assumption you want. There simply isn't proof.

Did you know that the Leafs are 27th in times shorthanded over that same stretch? So they take fewer penalties and have fewer penalties taken against them. What if we hypothesize that as one of the leagues marquee teams, refs tend to feel under a microscope doing their games and subsequently put their whistles away. Seems the impact is neither positive or negative for the Leafs.



Who also happen the control the puck a fair bit. Far more than the Leafs do in fact.

100%! And I'll describe the "negative" impact. The Leafs are obviously a soft team and they're a possession based team. So, in theory you'd think Leafs would have more pps since they're always holding onto the puck and less pks since they're a soft team. But it's really 50/50 and a lot of 5 on 5 hockey as you described.

And that's because when the Leafs do play rough or dirty they will get called more than not because they don't frequently play that way. It's clear, and easier to find those penalties than from a rougher team that will frequency make infractions. Refs will not call everything to disrupt the pace and flow of the game. Plus the fact they're human and it's difficult to see and call everything.

So, yea it's not necessarily a ref problem, it's more that the leafs are too soft lol. But as I said before, this year feels different. Leafs are getting more calls going their way than previous years with this group and I'm thinking that's due to the addition of Bunting and the team's defensive play (at least at the beginning).

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Sorry but a player taking swing because hes late and to hit as hard he can on the board, goal post or on goalie and risk security of player, its an easy call and ref will call it most of the time... was one of easiest call of this game

Ref also check the replay to see if this hit deserve a 5 min major. The reality its if aston-reese stay in the ice injured, im pretty sure its a major penalty

I don’t understand the relevance of “because he’s late”. It’s a play of opportunity based on circumstances, just like every physical play.

And again, “risk security of player”. Every hit on a player risks security of the player.

If the league or fans want this type of situation to be a penalty, they should write a rule for it being illegal to check a player into the net. But that type of exacting language gets avoided with the current phrasing and we’re left with one ref calling what another obviously wouldn’t based on past cases. Guys get checked into the goal frame all of the time because the defender is behind the attacking player.

Regardless, I don’t think it should be a penalty because going to the net always has and always should (IMO) involve the risk of getting hit hard. It should be up to the defending player to be smart and not direct a player taking that risk into his own goaltender. The puck carrier going to the net being somehow immune from physical contact is crazy to me.

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

If taking 1 stride & then gliding the final 15 feet before trying to make a play on the puck then hitting a guy shoulder to shoulder is a penalty, they should just make the league no-hit & be done with it.

 

[HofT]

If taking 1 stride & then gliding the final 15 feet before trying to make a play on the puck then hitting a guy shoulder to shoulder is a penalty, they should just make the league no-hit & be done with it.

As I said, the amount of strides and time gliding isn't an objective manner in the rulebook. It just says "distance traveled", "violently check an opponent in any manner" and "into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

And it was absolutely not shoulder to shoulder lol

 

[Beezeral]

Sorry but a player taking swing because hes late and to hit as hard he can on the board, goal post or on goalie and risk security of player, its an easy call and ref will call it most of the time... was one of easiest call of this game

Ref also check the replay to see if this hit deserve a 5 min major. The reality its if aston-reese stay in the ice injured, im pretty sure its a major penalty

you may want to head back to the leafs board beacuse this is by far the dumbest thing posted in this thread and that includes all the insane posts from @HofT

 

[Chainshot]

Plenty of people have talked about him but mostly in the past due to him being dirty to players, both on the opposition and on his own team. He most definitely is not some silent menace that no one acknowledges. He's just mangling people less often now than he did in Tampa or Philly.

 

[RussianGuyovich]

is this a parody thread? a bit? are we doing a bit?

 

[HofT]

you may want to head back to the leafs board beacuse this is by far the dumbest thing posted in this thread and that includes all the insane posts from @HofT

Rules are rules. I don't write them, I just post them.

 

[thusk]

Physical and dirty are different things. If Gudas wanted to play dirty he would be the most suspended person in league history. He is an extremely dangerous man who follows the rules. He leads one of the best defensive pairings in the league whilst being strong enough to force entire cities put their diapers on and cry as we saw last night. A powerhouse of a specimen, yes, dangerous, yes; but not dirty.

Sure a 3rd pairing from one of 10 worst defensive team in term of GAA and GAx should be a top defensive pair in NHL...

I don’t understand the relevance of “because he’s late”. It’s a play of opportunity based on circumstances, just like every physical play.

And again, “risk security of player”. Every hit on a player risks security of the player.

If the league or fans want this type of situation to be a penalty, they should write a rule for it being illegal to check a player into the net. But that type of exacting language gets avoided with the current phrasing and we’re left with one ref calling what another obviously wouldn’t based on past cases. Guys get checked into the goal frame all of the time because the defender is behind the attacking player.

Regardless, I don’t think it should be a penalty because going to the net always has and always should (IMO) involve the risk of getting hit hard. It should be up to the defending player to be smart and not direct a player taking that risk into his own goaltender. The puck carrier going to the net being somehow immune from physical contact is crazy to me.

Ref call those plat almost every time, the only difference is normally they hit the player on their own goalie and not on the post

This rules is already written...its the exact definition of a charging

If a offensive player cut dangerously to the net without having any space for it and create contact with goalie, they will get a call for goalie interference

If a defender hit dangerously with momemtum a offensive player and create a contact with the posy, his own goalie or with the board, they will get a call for charging

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

I thought that caveman had retired.

 

[Beezeral]

Rules are rules. I don't write them, I just post them.

and interpret them terribly.

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

As I said, the amount of strides and time gliding isn't an objective manner in the rulebook. It just says "distance traveled", "violently check an opponent in any manner" and "into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

And it was absolutely not shoulder to shoulder lol

Now you're just trolling.

First you tell me he never made a play on the puck which your gif clearly shows that he did. You responded to the same point by someone else with the dumbest response possible.

Now you're gonna tell me it wasn't shoulder to shoulder(I was actually gonna put chest but I left it more generic for emphasis to cover more hits) when your gif clearly shows he hit him in the upper chest/right shoulder area which by your definition from earlier is "the blindside".

I should be the one loling here.

 

[HofT]

and interpret them terribly.

The rulebook just says "distance traveled", "violently check an opponent in any manner" and "into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

Gudas violently checks all those boxes.

 

[capfit9]

Not so much rat more like ....

 

[Golden_Jet]

Rules are rules. I don't write them, I just post them.

But you can’t interpret them correctly.

So, it's okay when the Panthers fans complain about a penalty, instead of blaming their own players for blowing a 4-2 lead.

That happens when you see how many PPs leafs got compared to Florida.

 

[Romang67]

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. Net. Doesn't. Matter. I don't understand why you keep coming back to the net and how ZAC ended up spine first into the net. It's the equivalent of arguing that something is a tripping because a fall occurred during a hockey game, and not because the fall was caused by another player tripping him up.

If a player is allowed to glide 10 feet and hit another player in the middle of the ice, it's allowed next to the net. Everything else you keep bringing up is completely irrelevant. Would this hit be called if it were an open ice hit?

 

[LeafsNation75]

That happens when you see how many PPs leafs got compared to Florida.

Until Nylander scored in overtime not once did the Leafs have a lead during the whole game.

I'm sure if the Leafs were in the Panthers situation and blew a 4-2 lead and our fans complained about one specific penalty, you would be one of the first people to say get over it.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Until Nylander scored in overtime not once did the Leafs have a lead during the whole game.

I'm sure if the Leafs were in the Panthers situation and blew a 4-2 lead and our fans complained about one specific penalty, you would be one of the first people to say get over it.

We’re all looking forward to your next thread complaining.

 

[HofT]

Now you're just trolling.

First you tell me he never made a play on the puck which your gif clearly shows that he did. You responded to the same point by someone else with the dumbest response possible.

Now you're gonna tell me it wasn't shoulder to shoulder(I was actually gonna put chest but I left it more generic for emphasis to cover more hits) when your gif clearly shows he hit him in the upper chest/right shoulder area which by your definition from earlier is "the blindside".

I should be the one loling here.

42.1 Charging: "as a result of distance traveled", "violently check an opponent in any manner" "check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

Gudas made a play, and that's travelling from a distance, crouching down and locking onto Aston-Reese's blindside where he eventually checks Aston-Reese who violently goes into the goal frame spine first. I call it violent cause he came at a distance at a fast pace and the net was dislodged. That's what happened. That's the result.

Right, not shoulder to shoulder. Gudas was never parallel with Aston-Reese. He got him in the chest.

 

[LeafsNation75]

We’re all looking forward to your next thread complaining.

Since you didn't deny what I previously said, I'm going to assume what I said was true.

 

[HofT]

The. Net. Doesn't. Matter. I don't understand why you keep coming back to the net and how ZAC ended up spine first into the net. It's the equivalent of arguing that something is a tripping because a fall occurred during a hockey game, and not because the fall was caused by another player tripping him up.

If a player is allowed to glide 10 feet and hit another player in the middle of the ice, it's allowed next to the net. Everything else you keep bringing up is completely irrelevant. Would this hit be called if it were an open ice hit?

You're completely ignoring the rest of my post. You're making it sound like I'm just talking about the net which is not true lol

I'm bringing up the rule and I'm talking about all 3 of the criteria for a charge.
Here: "as a result of distance traveled", "violently check an opponent in any manner" "check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

Gudas checks those boxes.

And you should focus on what actually happened instead of "ifs"