Bartkowski hit on Gionta (No Supplemental Discipline)

[izzy]

Refs gave Bartkowski a penalty for an illegal play, so it wasn't a clean hit. Its not much different from John Scott nudging Loui last year, head down and late contact.

Refs are capable of mistakes.

 

[OkimLom]

It's very similar in my mind to the Campbell/Umberger hit. You can't call that clean and call this one dirty. Maybe it shouldn't be in the game, but it strikes me as legal.

Two different hits.

Umberger hit, shoulder to chest. Umberger played the puck.

Gionta hit, shoulder to shoulder. Gionta didn't play the puck.

The only thing similar was that it was caused by a suicide pass.

Both hits clean, and the "illegal" nature of the Gionta hit was the penalty of interference, which when slowed down says shouldn't have been called. But because of the gamespeed the refs felt he wasn't near the puck.

It's easy to say things happened in the hit for us fans because we have the luxury of having replay and can play it multiple times over and over and analyze the play. The refs have to call the game how they see them at the speed it happens. Sometimes the fans need to realize this and back off on the criticism of the officials a little.

 

[ss53mech]

This is going to hurt to type as I have an unnatural hatred of all things Boston.

Clean hit, suicide pass that the player attempts to play. Bartkowski is risking letting the player by him if he does nothing, isn't in a great position to attempt to play his stick so the more consistent play is to eliminate the player positionally. Thus resulting in him taking the body out of the play. Bartkowski shifts his weight in to the hit before the puck gets there but has it timed so that if Gionta receives the puck he gets run over directly after. In my book that makes him a viable for a body check. Bartkowski doesn't have time to abandon the hit after Gionta fails to accept/control the pass. Niether player really at fault on this one. Ugly result, no obvious malicious intent.

Having said all that Bruins fans, I still think the Orpik hit was legit, and I think this whole concept of players having to answer the bell for every hard hit is complete and total BS. I have no problem with players challenging players after questionable hits, I just think it's crap to validate a hit by whether a player chooses to fight after delivering a big hit.

 

[CJDolan]

No, you can't eliminate them. But stronger penalties would serve as a deterrent. Maybe if Bartkowski had known that predatory blindside hits to a defenseless player might get him a 20 game suspension, he would have held up and Gionta wouldn't be concussed.

You're seriously suggesting a player lose 1/4 of his salary for a hit like this?

Yeah. Take up competitive knitting or something. This body contact stuff may not be for you.

 

[CJDolan]

Refs gave Bartkowski a penalty for an illegal play, so it wasn't a clean hit. Its not much different from John Scott nudging Loui last year, head down and late contact.

Except for the fact that Scott hit loui in the head first.

There's a big difference between getting an interference because the guy barely missed the puck and doing what john Scott did.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Great hit!!! Gionta got caught watching the puck. No foul at all. I don't know why a penalty was called.

The reason why it was called is that Gionta tried but failed to get the puck. That made it interference, otherwise if Gionta had gotten to the puck it would have been a great hit.

Bartkowski read the play (suicide pass = great opportunity for a hit) and went for it. He could never had imagined that Gionta would have whiffed on such a pass. When that happened though, he was already committed to the hit and delivered it. To be honest, I think the vast majority of players would have done the same as Bartkowski. He even answered the bell when challenged by Foligno.

I understand Buffalo fans being angry as you never want to see one of your own hit/hurt, but I feel it wasn't Bartkowski's intention to murder Gionta. He was trying to deliver a legal hit. As many said, a couple of inches of difference (= Gionta gets the puck instead of whiffing on it) and the thread would have been "Great hit by Bartkowski". In such a fast game like hockey is, two inches is more like microns...

 

[stokes84]

People calling this a "clean hit" have either lost their minds or never had one to begin with.

 

[ranold26]

People calling this a "clean hit" have either lost their minds or never had one to begin with.

Anything else to add or whine about?

 

[1rd]

Shouldn't have even been a penalty.

 

[IntangiBo]

Shouldn't have even been a penalty.

Gionta didn't touch the puck.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Gionta didn't touch the puck.

Do you think it's interference if a guy is trying to take a pass and it hops over his stick and he gets hit at the same time?

 

[King Woodballs]

People calling this a "clean hit" have either lost their minds or never had one to begin with.

and yet so supplemental discipline......

 

[Sanderson]

Do you think it's interference if a guy is trying to take a pass and it hops over his stick and he gets hit at the same time?

Technically, yes. A hit exist to seperate an opponent from the puck, it is illegal ot hit an opponent who doesn't have the puck. A player cannot just go for a hit and pray that the opponent will do everything so that the hit is legal, it's on him to make sure he is allowed to make the hit. In this case, Bartkowski couldn't be sure that Gionta would have the puck, yet he opted to go for the hit anyway, hence it is on him if anything goes wrong.

Beyond that, this was hardly a case of a player just missing a simple pass, Gionta had to really stretch out to even have a chance of getting the puck.

All in all, the call was the right one. Bartkowski interfered with an opponent, which makes it a penalty. Gionta got injured on the play, which makes it a game misconduct. No need for anything more than that. Bartkowski banked on something that he shouldn't have banked on, and it turned out to make his hit illegal. It definately wasn't an attempt to injure, but in the end you are responsible for your own actions, which in this case leads to 5+game. Not every not-clean hit needs to be defended to death, just like not every 5+GM needs to be followed by a further suspension.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Technically, yes. A hit exist to seperate an opponent from the puck, it is illegal ot hit an opponent who doesn't have the puck. A player cannot just go for a hit and pray that the opponent will do everything so that the hit is legal, it's on him to make sure he is allowed to make the hit. In this case, Bartkowski couldn't be sure that Gionta would have the puck, yet he opted to go for the hit anyway, hence it is on him if anything goes wrong.

Beyond that, this was hardly a case of a player just missing a simple pass, Gionta had to really stretch out to even have a chance of getting the puck.

All in all, the call was the right one. Bartkowski interfered with an opponent, which makes it a penalty. Gionta got injured on the play, which makes it a game misconduct. No need for anything more than that. Bartkowski banked on something that he shouldn't have banked on, and it turned out to make his hit illegal. It definately wasn't an attempt to injure, but in the end you are responsible for your own actions, which in this case leads to 5+game. Not every not-clean hit needs to be defended to death, just like not every 5+GM needs to be followed by a further suspension.

That's never been the standard of officiating. If a player attempts to play the puck, he's fair game. That's not interference and the lack of a call from the NHL proves it.

 

[Ozamataz Buckshank]

Clean hit from a player on the cleanest team in the league. Good show from the NHL for no supplemental discipline.

 

[Sheppy]

People calling this a "clean hit" have either lost their minds or never had one to begin with.

The hit was fine.

The sensitivity of the fans these days legitimately make me laugh.

 

[MrWilson*]

This league is a joke. Same BS as with Jagr. Gionta aint Jagr, but he's approaching old fart status. Got rocked, legally and the league is making itself look ridiculous again. Farnham gets rocked by Bergenheim on a hit that was far more brutal and much later...no penalty, no suspension, no nothin'. Who is Farnham?? Exactly...

No player should be protected, coddled, fought for, given any quarter or otherwise receive special treatment because of their age, status, salary, recent injuries, all star votes, future HOF induction or the fact that they like to whine and ***** about things all the time...EVER.

Thanks for the memories.

 

[Pepper]

That's never been the standard of officiating. If a player attempts to play the puck, he's fair game. That's not interference and the lack of a call from the NHL proves it.

Actually that's pretty grey area when it comes NHL. Kostopoulos was slapped with a suspension for a hit on Brad Stuart because Stuart missed his attempted whack at the puck (ergo interference)

 

[IntangiBo]

That's never been the standard of officiating. If a player attempts to play the puck, he's fair game. That's not interference and the lack of a call from the NHL proves it.

The NHL wasn't going to call an interference penalty after the fact. This is interference. Not sure what's left to say. That doesn't make it a suspension or Bartkowski a monster, but it was interference. You're free to skip between what the rule is or what the standard is, you're wrong on both accounts. This play certainly gets called interference on many occasions. Interference.

 

[BruinLVGA]

People calling this a "clean hit" have either lost their minds or never had one to begin with.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[stokes84]

and yet so supplemental discipline......

And yet a 5 minute major and a game misconduct.

 

[King Woodballs]

And yet a 5 minute major and a game misconduct.

which wasn't justified

 

[Nynja*]

Refs dont have the advantage of slowed down replays from multiple angles. They have to make a judgement call from what they saw on real time. A lot of people here said "looked bad, need to see replay...oh, after seeing the replay, the contact of the hit wasnt to the head or anything".

Refs made their call based on Gionta going flying from a hit when they felt he never even had the puck. If it takes 5 different slowmo replays to discern that a hit that "looked bad was clean", then the refs didnt make "a bad call".


Refs make a call on the ice in real time without replays, DOPS felt that their call was sufficient and didnt warrant anything else.

 

[BruinsBtn]

The NHL wasn't going to call an interference penalty after the fact. This is interference. Not sure what's left to say. That doesn't make it a suspension or Bartkowski a monster, but it was interference. You're free to skip between what the rule is or what the standard is, you're wrong on both accounts. This play certainly gets called interference on many occasions. Interference.

Laughably wrong.
If a player had to touch the puck every time there was a hit, there would be 20 penalties a game.

 

[phosphene*]

Another Boston goon throwing cheap hits and not getting any punishment. There's nothing new under the sun.