Gudbranson lays out rookie Dube

[Drugs Delaney]

It’s Gud to see Guddy hitting people hard and winning fights. That’s what he does.

 

[Oddbob]

This is what I hate about nowadays NHL! Perfectly clean hit, and there has to be a fight! NO, just NO!

If it is a dirty or questionable hit, absolutely stand up for your teammate, but not when it is a perfectly acceptable hit. We already see so few of these nice clean hits anymore, and we didn't use to see clean hits basically every time lead to a fight!

 

[Oddbob]

@Sojourn it is called keeping your head up, every hockey player learns this the second they start playing competitive contact hockey!

 

[varano]

The hit itself was fine, but its certainly interference.

 

[RegDunlop]

This is what I hate about nowadays NHL! Perfectly clean hit, and there has to be a fight! NO, just NO!

If it is a dirty or questionable hit, absolutely stand up for your teammate, but not when it is a perfectly acceptable hit. We already see so few of these nice clean hits anymore, and we didn't use to see clean hits basically every time lead to a fight!

You can't be serious? I would agree if the hit was fine - but it WASN'T!!

Let's get one thing straight. As a lifelong Oiler fan I despise the Flames and cheered their loss. I could care less how nice of a guy Hammer is.
But... the facts.
G hit the new rookie on his first NHL shift. Malicious? Perhaps not, but those saying it was a clean hit just don't get it. You cannot or should never get penalized for a clean hit. Interference is not a clean hit.
G gets a 2min minor as he should. To make G pay for his infraction, Calgary should have scored on the PP. They failed. And 6 more times after.
G gets out of box and H gets noble and challenges him. Acceptable response to me. Unfortunate H got injured as he's not in Gs fight class.

Calgary should have had someone less important approach him.
NP with anything at all that transpired. But in no way was Gs hit on the rookie legal.

 

[Anglesmith]

Early hits or hits without the puck are so disgusting. Don’t understand why there’s never punishment. I’d rather get hit high with the puck then hit not expecting it.

Yeah, I don't really get the attitude in this thread. It's not just a matter of timing between this and a legal check. It's the difference between hitting someone who is trying to avoid being hit and taking a free shot on an unprepared player who has no reason to be defending themself.

Hitting early may not be dirty based on intent, but it is reckless and irresponsible to make a hit based on the small chance that by the time it lands, it might be legal. It sure as hell shouldn't be commended. 9/10 times the only reason these hits are as forceful as they are is because of the unsuspecting opponent.

 

[puckIuck]

flames are soft. I can see many more nights where teams just bully them

 

[Oddbob]

You can't be serious? I would agree if the hit was fine - but it WASN'T!!

Let's get one thing straight. As a lifelong Oiler fan I despise the Flames and cheered their loss. I could care less how nice of a guy Hammer is.
But... the facts.
G hit the new rookie on his first NHL shift. Malicious? Perhaps not, but those saying it was a clean hit just don't get it. You cannot or should never get penalized for a clean hit. Interference is not a clean hit.
G gets a 2min minor as he should. To make G pay for his infraction, Calgary should have scored on the PP. They failed. And 6 more times after.
G gets out of box and H gets noble and challenges him. Acceptable response to me. Unfortunate H got injured as he's not in Gs fight class.

Calgary should have had someone less important approach him.
NP with anything at all that transpired. But in no way was Gs hit on the rookie legal.

Yes and he shouldn't have been penalized for a "dirty" hit, except for maybe interference. Interference is not dirty! Aiming for his head, aiming from behind, going too low or low bridge are dirty, what Gudbranson did, was not dirty, there is a massive difference. 2 minute penalty for interference because puck was not there is not a dirty play, it is a normal play that happens a whole bunch of times a game.

 

[Butch 19]

The check was clean, the play was not, as someone said earlier.

and they were wrong.

 

[RegDunlop]

Yes and he shouldn't have been penalized for a "dirty" hit, except for maybe interference. Interference is not dirty! Aiming for his head, aiming from behind, going too low or low bridge are dirty, what Gudbranson did, was not dirty, there is a massive difference. 2 minute penalty for interference because puck was not there is not a dirty play, it is a normal play that happens a whole bunch of times a game.

I'll concede you have a point and my opinion has changed. This is actually a good discussion.

Interfence is illegal not 'dirty' although it can be depending on circumstances, timing, etc. I agree it was not in thus case. A 2 minute penalty was correctly called IMO as the play was no more or less of an infraction than tripping or hooking.

Again - unfortunate results but normal play of events in the best sport in the world.

 

[Bedards Dad]

I'll concede you have a point and my opinion has changed. This is actually a good discussion.

Interfence is illegal not 'dirty' although it can be depending on circumstances, timing, etc. I agree it was not in thus case. A 2 minute penalty was correctly called IMO as the play was no more or less of an infraction than tripping or hooking.

Again - unfortunate results but normal play of events in the best sport in the world.

Hitting an unsuspecting player without the puck who isn't looking is dirty.

Interference can be a dirty play (see: above) or can be clean (see: getting in the way of/holding up of someone who doesn't have the puck)

 

[DL44]

Oh great, hockey is back which means we need a thread for every single hit.

Yup..

Also this will help document the lead up to all the retribution and payback the flames heap upon Gudbranson and.... Pettersson.

The danger our rookie Pettersson is now subjected to in the next game could be tremendous.

What kinda escalation will all the provacation lead to. Pettersson maybe forced to drop em vs Prout. I cant believe I fell in love with hockey because of the hits, the fights, and Rock em Sock em but meow my heart bleeds with worry, concern, and disgust : mind you that's mostly over my diet.. Still love the hits, fights, RockemSockem part of the game.

 

[Sojourn]

@Sojourn it is called keeping your head up, every hockey player learns this the second they start playing competitive contact hockey!

Oh, bullshit. He wasn’t eligible to be hit. Period. Calling this a perfectly clean hit, and chastising a player who wasn’t eligible to be hit is ridiculous. No player keeps their head up in all situations when they aren’t a legal target. You aren’t being realistic. If you were blindsided during a game without even having touched the puck, are you really going to sit there and tell me it’s your fault for not being aware another player was going to lay an illegal hit on you?

I say again, bullshit. Hits like this are dangerous. If the player had been injured on this hit, we would be looking at a suspension. Without question.

 

[RegDunlop]

Hits of this type can be and are dangerous. That is why there is different levels of punishment for the infraction. I believe it was appropriate in this instance.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Hamonic got smashed in that fight

The guy is made of glass. He really needs to stop doing this kind of thing.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

No headshot, no slew foot, no malice in the hit. The play itself was illegal, but it wasn't a dirty hit.

Maybe not dirty, but still dangerous. Anytime you hit a player who can reasonably expect not to be hit you're putting someone in danger. One could also argue the semantics behind a hit being "dirty", since a clean hit is generally one that is within the rules, not purely whether the mechanics of the hit were clean.

 

[Westcoastsniper]

Gudbranson is on record saying the hit was early.

 

[Foppberg]

Maybe not dirty, but still dangerous. Anytime you hit a player who can reasonably expect not to be hit you're putting someone in danger. One could also argue the semantics behind a hit being "dirty", since a clean hit is generally one that is within the rules, not purely whether the mechanics of the hit were clean.

Yeah, I've had a lot of people say a hit can't be clean and early/late at the same time. But that's a difference of semantics imo

 

[Mick Riddleton]

Going by HF, would we not say he was attacked, mugged and an unsuspecting victim

 

[Lunatik]

Sure it can, didn't target the head, just a clean solid body check. Only issue was that it was early.

I get what you mean though, I just don't think that qualifies as making it dirty.

I think people are too hung up on clean and dirty. I think there is too much grey area for it to be either or.

For me there is....
Clean - Within rules and unlikely to cause injury
Legal - Within rules but could hurt someone
Illegal - Not malicious, but not within the rules
Reckless - Not malicious, but dangerous.
Dirty - Malicious

 

[Sojourn]

I think people are too hung up on clean and dirty. I think there is too much grey area for it to be either or.

For me there is....
Clean - Within rules and unlikely to cause injury
Legal - Within rules but could hurt someone
Illegal - Not malicious, but not within the rules
Reckless - Not malicious, but dangerous.
Dirty - Malicious

Sure, but then by your own definition, calling this a clean hit would be false. I'm not saying you're calling it that, just that some have been.

Which, I think, is kind of the point. Calling this a clean hit is inaccurate. A hit can't be early and clean. It stops being clean when you're hitting a player not eligible to be hit, and who has no idea he should be bracing himself for a hit. It's important that players know they can be hit. I'm absolutely okay calling this a reckless hit, but calling it a clean one is ignoring the fact it was pretty dangerous because it was a hit on an unsuspecting playing who wasn't eligible to be hit. That's an important factor.

This was a hit that was a penalty, but it wouldn't have taken much to be a suspension. The difference here between a penalty and a suspension was an injury.

 

[I Hate Philadelphia]

Good lord Hamonic got annihilated.

 

[gwh]

Garbage tier hit, but you d really just rather knee the rat... Fighting is stupid.

 

[stampedingviking]

Oh, bull****. He wasn’t eligible to be hit. Period. Calling this a perfectly clean hit, and chastising a player who wasn’t eligible to be hit is ridiculous. No player keeps their head up in all situations when they aren’t a legal target. You aren’t being realistic. If you were blindsided during a game without even having touched the puck, are you really going to sit there and tell me it’s your fault for not being aware another player was going to lay an illegal hit on you?

I say again, bull****. Hits like this are dangerous. If the player had been injured on this hit, we would be looking at a suspension. Without question.

It was a fraction of a second, it's not like he was intentionally targeted miles from the puck.

It was a slightly mis-timed hit that deserved and got two minutes for interference.

 

[Iapyi]

Clear cut interference and not a clean hit because of that. If Dube had touched the puck then no problem.