HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   The Gauthier hit on Vanek (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=246930)

BobbyClarkeFan16 04-28-2006 02:26 AM

The Gauthier hit on Vanek
 
Well, they were showing the Gauthier hit on Vanek on TSN's Off The Record. And everytime they showed the hit, it looks more and more like Gauthier hit Vanek in the shoulder and Vanek fell forward. The showed several different camera angles of the hit and you could actually make a case that Gauthier didn't check Vanek from behind. Hey, I'm not here to cause a war or a riot, but I thought it was interesting to say the least. The way that Vanek and the ref were positioned and where Gauthier hit him, you could easily see why the ref called the checking from behind. But if you watch the hit carefully from Gauthier's angle, you can see where he clearly hit Vanek on the shoulder that caused Vanek to fall forward.

donelikedinner 04-28-2006 03:57 AM

i watched the replay at home atleast a dozen times frame by frame with my tivo and its a close call. it does initially look like a bad hit, but slow-mo shows Vanek gets hit in the shoulder area and then he immediately folds over and goes for a spin. did Vanek put on a show? maybe, but he did get hit. what intrigues me is that good players use the reflections in the glass to see whats behind them. if Vanek saw Gauthier come towards him in the glass and he chose to turn away,he was probably looking to draw a penalty.

but as always, a hit is a hit. most of the time.

Vikke 04-28-2006 05:56 AM

Upload it, someone. Please :)

Flyers_01 04-28-2006 07:19 AM

The folding up and going for a spin was definately an attempt to draw a penalty.

On a similar note the Sabres fans also want Forsberg to be suspended over his hit on Briere. If it was up to the Sabres fans anyone who touches a Sabre would be suspended.

capn89* 04-28-2006 07:23 AM

Each of the times Gauthier hit someone "from behind" this year was a case of him reading a play and going in for the huge hit, only to have the guy turn his back at the last second. In my opinion, if you see a guy coming at you to cream you, and you decide to turn your back to the play to draw a penalty because you're too chicken to take a hit, then it's too ****ing bad if your neck breaks. That's what you get for being a coward. The Flyers got this guy to play D and throw the biggest hits on the team. I'm not going to fault him for doing his job. It's not his fault that someone turns away from him. It's a risk you take when you turn your back to someone, maybe they should just learn to take hits like men.

Philly Flyer Fan* 04-28-2006 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyers_01
The folding up and going for a spin was definately an attempt to draw a penalty.

On a similar note the Sabres fans also want Forsberg to be suspended over his hit on Briere. If it was up to the Sabres fans anyone who touches a Sabre would be suspended.


Lindy Ruff has started that craze. That SOB must go through paper like it's going out of style with all his complaints to League office.







Dear Gary Betman,

Last night Gauthier tried to hit Vanek and Vanek turned and embelished to try to draw a penalty on the play. Anyways, forget that.........this Gauthier guy has a reputation for body checking, isn't this hockey were playing Mr. Betman Sir? Also, we had a powerplay and Handzus blocked a shot.........what the hell is that Mr. Betman??? We can't go on like this?

I kindly ask you to review the Gauthier hit and punish him by suspending at least 10 games for body checking a Buffalo Sabre. As for Handzus blocking shots, he deserves at least 3 games!!!

I know this is my 50th letter to league office complaining about checks to my players, but this is hockey isn't it???



Regards,


Lindy Ruff

Mellifleur 04-28-2006 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donelikedinner
i watched the replay at home atleast a dozen times frame by frame with my tivo and its a close call. it does initially look like a bad hit, but slow-mo shows Vanek gets hit in the shoulder area and then he immediately folds over and goes for a spin. did Vanek put on a show? maybe, but he did get hit. what intrigues me is that good players use the reflections in the glass to see whats behind them. if Vanek saw Gauthier come towards him in the glass and he chose to turn away,he was probably looking to draw a penalty.

but as always, a hit is a hit. most of the time.

I haven't seen the replay except maybe a few times and not in slow mo. The refs will call what they initially see and unless another official contradicts them that is what the call will be. Replay will never come into play in the NHL because it too drastically slows down a game the league wants to be fast and exciting. With the exception of reviewing goals of course.

You bring up another interesting point in players turning their backs trying to draw penalties. Don Cherry has harped on that for some time. Personally I think if you turn your back, especially near the board, in an attempt to draw a penalty it's stupid. You risk your health and it's kind of a cheap way to draw a penalty. Sure it's always a good thing to try and draw a penalty and give your team an advantage but I also kind of think it's cowardly to turn your back on a what could be a legitamate check. I don't know whether or not Vanek was doing this purposely as he seemed to be looking at the puck in or by his feet, I'd have to see the replay again to make a judgement...

Jester 04-28-2006 08:14 AM

it was a penalty, but people comparing that to the Wellwood hit are complete tools. i think Gauthier actually tried to abort that hit at the last moment and that is why he ended up catching him on the side, not square in the back. i think he was expecting Vanek to turn around and try to come out the other side and when that didn't happen he was stuck in a bad spot.

the flip was ridiculous.

Flyers_01 04-28-2006 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester
it was a penalty, but people comparing that to the Wellwood hit are complete tools. i think Gauthier actually tried to abort that hit at the last moment and that is why he ended up catching him on the side, not square in the back. i think he was expecting Vanek to turn around and try to come out the other side and when that didn't happen he was stuck in a bad spot.

the flip was ridiculous.


Alot of the acting in attempts to draw penalties have been ridiculous but as long as it works they will keep on doing it. Wasn't there something new this year where the league was supposed to be reviewing dives and fining players. I seem to remember Avery getting a fine. If the league ever reviews Maxim's play he is in trouble as i'm not sure he can go two periods with diving.

GameFace247SON 04-28-2006 08:57 AM

OMG, don't care anymore, let it die! S-T-F-U! :deadhorse

can we please just focus on :hockey:

Philly Flyer Fan* 04-28-2006 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameFace247SON
OMG, don't care anymore, let it die! S-T-F-U! :deadhorse

can we please just focus on :hockey:



Lets all do so and skunk those Sabres :yo:

Zobes 04-28-2006 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capn89
Each of the times Gauthier hit someone "from behind" this year was a case of him reading a play and going in for the huge hit, only to have the guy turn his back at the last second. In my opinion, if you see a guy coming at you to cream you, and you decide to turn your back to the play to draw a penalty because you're too chicken to take a hit, then it's too ****ing bad if your neck breaks. That's what you get for being a coward. The Flyers got this guy to play D and throw the biggest hits on the team. I'm not going to fault him for doing his job. It's not his fault that someone turns away from him. It's a risk you take when you turn your back to someone, maybe they should just learn to take hits like men.

Take hits like men = Chasing Brian Campbell all over the ice, hitting him late and hitting him in the head because he laid out Umberger.

joshjull 04-28-2006 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameFace247SON
OMG, don't care anymore, let it die! S-T-F-U! :deadhorse

can we please just focus on :hockey:

:clap: :clap: Well said. Plus I'm sure something will happen tonight to start some more arguing. So we should all ice our fingers and get ready. ;)

rikker 04-28-2006 10:27 AM

from an outsider's perspective, i think that Gauthier's hit showed his lack of respect for another player (he has a history of this). i'm sure that Clarke picked him up because of this trait, believing that intimidation by injuring other team's player's with cheap shots is part of the game. IMO, it should not be and never should have been. if you can intimidate a team/player with a hard clean hit, be my guest.

i think the criteria for determining whether the hit deserves repercussions is whether the player 'follows through' or not. when you are approaching a player who has the puck along the boards, and in his feet, you need to realize that that player is supposed to try and protect the puck by shielding it with his body. if the player with the puck turns his back, you don't follow through (drive upwards with your body). if you do this, you should get a boarding and an intent to injure penalty.

taking the body, open ice hits are part of the game, but there's no room for trying to maim other players.

the league, the referees and Campbell are to blame, IMO. i've seen major discrepancies and fantom calls all year long. also, the amount of diving this year has confused me to the point that i don't know whether i'm watching hockey or soccer.

joshjull 04-28-2006 10:30 AM

Here are Gauts comments on the issue http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hoc...55064-sun.html

Thought you guys would like to read it. Enjoy

goodrev 04-28-2006 10:33 AM

Quote:

Take hits like men = Chasing Brian Campbell all over the ice, hitting him late and hitting him in the head because he laid out Umberger.
actually because obviously you have never heard of it, that would be called "old time hockey" and being held "accountable for your actions on the ice." If Campbell doesnt want to be hit or is going to whine about being hit after he dished out a monster hit and injured a flyer then he should stay at home and have his mommy change his daipers. By the way with all the whining coming from the buffalo boards and players about hitting you didnt hear umberger complain once about getting decimated did you? thats because he is a REAL hockey player and he has more guts than all of the sabres. As for the diving by the sabres does it happen? yes, does forsberg dive? yes, have they been calling all the penalties against the flyers? yes, have they been calling all the penalties against the sabres? no. Apparently the sabres are either just better at it or more experienced divers than the flyers. And to my knowledge Avery was the ONLY player who got a fine for diving this season.

complaining about people going after Campbell is asenine, its like when ottowa complained when we went after havlat when he tried to mcsorley recchi and they wouldnt put him on the ice, if you are afraid to own up to your actions and take responsibility you should never set foot on the ice.

stanley 04-28-2006 10:42 AM

I thought the hit was clean. Vanek was moving from the defensive left corner to right. His skates were parallel to the boards and moving toward Gauthier. Anywho, when I read Bob McKenzie's op-ed piece the day after, I was really disappointed. It was the standard company line, and it didn't discuss inconsistencies and contradictions with League policy and how it does and does not protect players. Heck, even Gauthier's comments were the standard company line. Brainwashing and public pressure will do that to you. It's too bad the NHL hasn't also brainwashed players who potentially receive big hits to avoid dangerous sitautions. What I expected out of someone in McKenzie's position was something more introspective. Maybe the dog wasn't available to kick when he wrote the piece.

To expand on that a little, the NHL places little or no responsibility on players being hit to avoid those dangerous situations. Vanek was not stationary or even worse, moving toward the boards when he was hit. He was skating at a good clip parallel to the boards and toward Gauthier. Vanek is not responsible for getting hit, but he is responsible for putting himself in a dangerous position. As it is, the conventional wisdom and the arbitrary NHL rules place all the responsibility on Gauthier, and that's too bad. Nobody cried foul when Umberger was hit by Campbell, as well they shouldn't have. Umberger put himself in that position. The problem is really with the NHL policies and practices regarding this sort of thing, not referee interpretation or on-ice play. Through the existence of the rules regarding near-boards contact, the NHL is dictating their effort to protect the health of players. A shortcoming is that it's a cause-based solution that only addresses isolated situations. Over the years, we've watched guys like Kariya, Kozlov, Lindros, Primeau, and others get physically hurt with open-ice hits. Yet the NHL institutes no preventative campaign to try and reduce these sorts of injuries. We all say "boy, Lindros should really keep his head up," but the NHL just shrugs its shoulders and replies "it's a part of the game." It's the NHL that should be using contact like the Campbell and Gauthier hits to stress personal responsibility from all players, not just those initiating contact.

------------------------------

As for the insinuations that either Gauthier or Vanek acted with forethought or intent, they can probably be characterized more or less as absurd. Vanek was looking for the puck and Gauthier was going for the hit. It was an instinctual encounter. I think Vanek's "somersault" was the momentum of the contact sending him in that direction. If he's good enough to act in a premeditated manner in a nanosecond, he's wasting his talents playing hockey.

For though not affiliated with HF, I'm stanley.

joshjull 04-28-2006 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stanley
I thought the hit was clean. Vanek was moving from the defensive left corner to right. His skates were parallel to the boards and moving toward Gauthier. Anywho, when I read Bob McKenzie's op-ed piece the day after, I was really disappointed. It was the standard company line, and it didn't discuss inconsistencies and contradictions with League policy and how it does and does not protect players. Heck, even Gauthier's comments were the standard company line. Brainwashing and public pressure will do that to you. It's too bad the NHL hasn't also brainwashed players who potentially receive big hits to avoid dangerous sitautions. What I expected out of someone in McKenzie's position was something more introspective. Maybe the dog wasn't available to kick when he wrote the piece.

To expand on that a little, the NHL places little or no responsibility on players being hit to avoid those dangerous situations. Vanek was not stationary or even worse, moving toward the boards when he was hit. He was skating at a good clip parallel to the boards and toward Gauthier. Vanek is not responsible for getting hit, but he is responsible for putting himself in a dangerous position. As it is, the conventional wisdom and the arbitrary NHL rules place all the responsibility on Gauthier, and that's too bad. Nobody cried foul when Umberger was hit by Campbell, as well they shouldn't have. Umberger put himself in that position. The problem is really with the NHL policies and practices regarding this sort of thing, not referee interpretation or on-ice play. Through the existence of the rules regarding near-boards contact, the NHL is dictating their effort to protect the health of players. A shortcoming is that it's a cause-based solution that only addresses isolated situations. Over the years, we've watched guys like Kariya, Kozlov, Lindros, Primeau, and others get physically hurt with open-ice hits. Yet the NHL institutes no preventative campaign to try and reduce these sorts of injuries. We all say "boy, Lindros should really keep his head up," but the NHL just shrugs its shoulders and replies "it's a part of the game." It's the NHL that should be using contact like the Campbell and Gauthier hits to stress personal responsibility from all players, not just those initiating contact.

------------------------------

As for the insinuations that either Gauthier or Vanek acted with forethought or intent, they can probably be characterized more or less as absurd. Vanek was looking for the puck and Gauthier was going for the hit. It was an instinctual encounter. I think Vanek's "somersault" was the momentum of the contact sending him in that direction. If he's good enough to act in a premeditated manner in a nanosecond, he's wasting his talents playing hockey.

For though not affiliated with HF, I'm stanley.

Great post, you should read the link I have above to what Gauts said about the incident. He said he basically had a brain fart and deserved whatever he got for it. He also commented on the Dumont incident. Basically said they were friends and he didn't try to hurt him. He sounds very upset in the artcile with the rep he is getting. He says those incidents are "brain farts". His words not mine. I almost felt bad for him. Relevant quotesBy MIKE ZEISBERGER

PHILADELPHIA -- Denis Gauthier calls them "brain farts."

The definition of a brain fart, if we are to understand the explanation of the controversial Philadelphia Flyers defenceman properly, is when he momentarily loses his sense of logic out on the ice and does something "dumb."

Like when he tried to drive diminutive Maple Leafs forward Kyle Wellwood through the boards and into the first row of the Wachovia Center stands three weeks ago with a vicious hit from behind.

Gauthier was slapped with a two-game suspension for picking on a kid who barely stands as high as the cross bar.
."


That was Brain Fart No. 1 of the month.


Brain Fart No. 2 occurred in Game 2 of this Eastern quarter-final against the Buffalo Sabres on Monday night when he wallpapered rookie Thomas Vanek in the back to earn a game misconduct.

Vanek, like Wellwood, is hardly a goon who needed to be taught a lesson. His 72 penalty minutes during the regular season aren't exactly Bob Probert-type sin bin numbers.

"That was stupid," Gauthier admitted yesterday. "I deserved whatever I got for that."



Fri, April 28, 2006

Denis Gauthier is quick to admit he has done some stupid stuff on the ice, but claims his spear on J.P. Dumont was incidental contact



The definition of a brain fart, if we are to understand the explanation of the controversial Philadelphia Flyers defenceman properly, is when he momentarily loses his sense of logic out on the ice and does something "dumb."

Like when he tried to drive diminutive Maple Leafs forward Kyle Wellwood through the boards and into the first row of the Wachovia Center stands three weeks ago with a vicious hit from behind.

Gauthier was slapped with a two-game suspension for picking on a kid who barely
stands as high as the cross bar.

That was Brain Fart No. 1 of the month.


Brain Fart No. 2 occurred in Game 2 of this Eastern quarter-final against the Buffalo Sabres on Monday night when he wallpapered rookie Thomas Vanek in the back to earn a game misconduct.

Vanek, like Wellwood, is hardly a goon who needed to be taught a lesson. His 72 penalty minutes during the regular season aren't exactly Bob Probert-type sin bin numbers.

"That was stupid," Gauthier admitted yesterday. "I deserved whatever I got for that."

After reviewing the evidence, it's difficult to overlook a track record like this.

But that's exactly what Denis Gauthier wants you to do.

Sitting in his cubicle at the Flyers practice facility yesterday, Gauthier was pleading his innocence to about 30 reporters concerning his most recent controversial incident, the apparent spearing of the Sabres' J.P. Dumont in Game 3 on Wednesday night.

Gauthier claims it was incidental contact. According to the replays, he wasn't even looking at Dumont when his stick nestled into the gut of the Sabres player, he argued.

And to those that doubt him, Gauthier insists this was not Brain Fart No. 3.

"He's a friend," said Gauthier, who has played golf with Dumont in Quebec during the off-season. "If I'm going to do that, I'm going to do that to someone I hate, not my friend.

"Listen, I'm not going to deny I've had some brain farts in my career. I did some hits that weren't so good, but it's not because I'm trying to go out there and kill somebody."

How reassuring.


Thanks to Gauthier, Darcy Tucker no longer is public enemy No. 1 in western New York for the hit that sidelined Jochen Hecht several weeks ago.

That role belongs to Gauthier, one he feels is not deserved.

"I'm a different guy off the ice,"Gauthier said, obviously seeking the sympathy vote. "I have two boys, four and one. I feed them. I change the youngest one's diapers."

Back in the pre-season, Gauthier, then with the Phoenix Coyotes, crushed the Los Angeles' Kings Jeremy Roenick, leaving the veteran forward with a concussion. Kings motormouth Sean Avery responded by saying it was an act "typical of most French guys in our league with a visor on, running around and playing tough and not backing anything up."

Your response, Mr. Brain Fart?

"It's not like I look for s--- to happen,"Gauthier said. "It follows me around and knocks on my door."

Gauthier's uncles are the Fabulous Rougeau Brothers of WWE fame. They

stanley 04-28-2006 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodrev
[snip]

complaining about people going after Campbell is asenine, its like when ottowa complained when we went after havlat when he tried to mcsorley recchi and they wouldnt put him on the ice, if you are afraid to own up to your actions and take responsibility you should never set foot on the ice.

For the record, I don't think Campbell has done or said anything that should really irritate anyone. The hit and anything I've heard from him afterward have been above board.

On the other hand, I agree that it's silly to complain about the Flyers pursuing Campbell. Regardless of how legal his hit might have been, there's no rule against making an opposing player's life difficult. If the Flyers can make him think twice and gain momentum, then they should do it. They have to decide when they're not focusing on the goal of scoring more than the other team for themselves. In Game 2, I'd say they had given up on the big prize and were searching for momentum. I think Campbell would have sent his own message by dropping the gloves, and would more or less have taken the air out of the Flyers' balloon. That was a big hit, but one could argue that it only helped rally the Flyers in the last game. It's really all about strategy, not a moral exercise. The goal is to be the first team to win four games.

Personally, I think it's more or less a waste of time to target Campbell. He captured lightning in a bottle with that hit. I think that it's always wise for any team to target smaller "skill" players of the other team. Nobody's going to gain momentum by checking the snot out of the Mike Griers and Derien Hatchers of the world, but will instead only play into the opposition's hands.

Mellifleur 04-28-2006 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshjull
Here are Gauts comments on the issue http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Hoc...55064-sun.html

Thought you guys would like to read it. Enjoy

A nice article. One thing that he and we should remember is that if indeed he is public enemy # 1 for for Sabres fans that it stays in the hockey world and does not leak over into personal life. Whether or not you like him as a player fans should not affect judgement of the person in the real world. In turn don't take it on a personal level that you could be public enemy # 1. Especially when it comes to something as intense as the playoffs.

I can understand brain farts, my friend pulls them in hockey. He is so focused in on the puck that he goes after them even high in the air in an attempt to pull them to him and really scares anyone around him with that high waving stick...

Though he may have not seen Dumont (which I buy) and did not intend to 'spear' him ultimately you are responsible for your stick and where it ends up, whether it's in somebody's gut, in somebody's face or in their skates.

Olias of Sunhillow 04-28-2006 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowOni
Though he may have not seen Dumont (which I buy) and did not intend to 'spear' him ultimately you are responsible for your stick and where it ends up, whether it's in somebody's gut, in somebody's face or in their skates.

While I agree with the sentiment of your statement, I disagree with your assessment of the foul. If I'm not mistaken, a spear has to be intentional to be a foul, while a stick to the face or an accidental trip can be called regardless of intent.

bungle 04-28-2006 12:31 PM

I think Gauthier's reputation preceedes him. The hit on Wellwood ealier this month gave alot of people the idea that he is a dirty player, which I personally don't think he is. He might be overly enthusiastic with his checks, even clumsy, but I honestly don't think the guy is out there to injure other players on purpose. The Vanek call was not 100% clear cut, with Vanek's acrobatics making it look far more dramatic than it was. Likewise the Dumont incident was just bad luck. Admittedly, if Gauthier's stick had been on the ice instead of up in Dumont's ribs there would have been no issue at all, but it wasn't like he rammed it home.

jcab2000 04-28-2006 12:36 PM

Here's the thing. The people who go on and on about how players should play with their heads up so they don't get clocked like Umberger did are the same people who don't think that players who get checked into the boards have any responsibility to protect themselves.

If a player turns at the last second to face the boards before getting hit, it shouldn't be a penalty. He should take responsibility for himself and trying not to get hurt, JUST like players who should play with their head up so they don't get shouldered in the face.

Dig Out Your Soul 04-28-2006 12:58 PM

I think the OP is right and I've thought so all along. It was a bump from the side and Vanek just did a summersault head-first into the boards, which was his own doing from his reaction to the hit.

GoneFullHextall 04-28-2006 01:09 PM

the "spear" on Dupont isnt even a issue. even Dupont said it was an accident. Of course Lindy Ruff is probably still crying about it. he *****es and moans every time someone comes near one of his players.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.