Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Erik Gudbranson suspended one game for hit on Frank Vatrano


Apricot

Recommended Posts

Its not a great hit, but Guddy is going to get the entire rule thrown at him. It doesn't seem anywhere near severe enough to run through the entire rule:

 

Rule 41 - Boarding
41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
41.2 Minor Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent.
41.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent (see 41.5).
41.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.
41.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.
41.6 Fines and Suspensions – Refer to Rule 23.6 – Fines and Suspensions – Physical Fouls Category.
When a major penalty is imposed under this rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall be imposed.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its actually quite similar. What bugs me is the idea that there was intent to injure called by the refs, I really don't see how thats justified. But I've dropped the idea of consistency in ref'ing a long time ago. 

The players visor flexed upon impact and did some damage to his face. The refs saw that and made the call. The force was minimal as Guddy was coming in from net front.

 

A suspension would be ridiculous considering how many much worse hits are let go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

In slo-mo, riff, in slo-mo.

Vatrano actually takes a quick look, then turns back on the puck behind the net. He should have got 2 minutes for being stupid. You have to protect yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RWMc1 said:

The players visor flexed upon impact and did some damage to his face. The refs saw that and made the call. The force was minimal as Guddy was coming in from net front.

 

A suspension would be ridiculous considering how many much worse hits are let go.

ah I didn't catch that part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Vatrano actually takes a quick look, then turns back on the puck behind the net. He should have got 2 minutes for being stupid. You have to protect yourself. 

Exactly. There should be some onus on Vatrano for exploiting the situation. However when you're part of Jacob's team, you get some perks that others don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL is so inconsistent with their ruling on the instigator ruling when another player jumps in to take on the offender (in this case Gud).  Last game Dorsett got an extra two for coming to the defense of his own player on a cheap hit.  Either call it or don't but you can't have it both ways.  Canucks played lousy all game (all players) and didn't deserve to win this game.  With all of the penalties in the first two periods their lines never had a chance to get going.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Exactly. There should be some onus on Vatrano for exploiting the situation. However when you're part of Jacob's team, you get some perks that others don't.

ah well such is the way of being a Vancouver fan. I'm pretty excited by Boeser last night though, it seemed like he found another gear in a tough game, so I'm going to focus on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Guddy was at the optional skate so he may have to sit. If so, it will be another obvious attempt to stifle any physicality on the Canucks. They did the same thing to Edler.

Unlike Edler, Gudbranson will continue to play physically. I don't think he'll be deterred by a chat with George Parros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Nah, he hits him hard enough, intentionally, that he even lifts his leg to accomplish the hit's impact. This is a bad hit. I love Guddy and all, but, no. 

 

9 hours ago, Toews said:

That's a routine play though.You see forwards make that play fairly frequently throughout the game as well as when defenseman are along the boards in their own zone. During my own playing days I played a lot off the cycle and you have to pivot your body like that to make that pass and you really don't expect to get hit when in that position. Guddy was supposed to pin him to the boards not drive his shoulder into the numbers. 

You guys are right.

My judgement was a bit impared last night by booze and passion.

Guddy had a choice, I can't pin it all on Vatrano.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

ah well such is the way of being a Vancouver fan. I'm pretty excited by Boeser last night though, it seemed like he found another gear in a tough game, so I'm going to focus on that. 

Truly. He is a difference maker and is going to make waves in the league. Great to see him playing with Bo again. Put Virtanen on that line, and look out.

 

I showed my kids the video of his multiple attacks on McQuaid's shins, and we were in stitches. Have to give McQuaid credit for blocking that cannon fire. One tough hombre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

You need some hair of the dog, lucky. Yer talking nonsense.

Guddy needed to make that hit, you take that guy out every time. Vatrano had it coming, for sure you don't get to just turn your back to the ice and tool around with the puck.

Sadly, I can see a bit too much jump in Guddy during the hit.  "crossing the line". 

He still needs to take his man in that situation, just sucks it ended up being right on the numbers and he left his feet.

 

But I probably do need some hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...