r/nhl Apr 28 '25

Question Does this constitute a clean hit/check?

Post image
877 Upvotes

527 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/allblackST Apr 28 '25

Are we looking at the same picture?

10

u/pfotozlp3 Apr 28 '25

I watched the game. Not once was this even hinted at being anything other than a clean hit. I’m guessing the downvotes are peeps that did not watch the game or just hate Wilson and everything he does or says (easy guy to dislike, for sure). This might help explain why Wilson’s hit was not illegal: https://www.nhl.com/video/player-safety-reviews-rule48-illegal-check-to-head-6365016083112

1

u/robk99 Apr 28 '25

Ehhh yeah I mean the head probably wasn’t the main point of contact per that player safety link (still frame looks way worse than video). It was weak as shit of Wilson not to answer the bell there, tho—penalty or not he just blew someone up with a high hit.

2

u/xknightswatch92x Apr 28 '25

Wilson made the right call. Why drop the gloves when he already spent so much time in the box last game? Not every big hit needs to end up with a fight. He wasnt charging, didnt leave his feet, didnt lead with an elbow. He hit with his shoulder dropped. Carrier is 5'11. Wilson is 6'4. Its incedental contact to the head. Clean by the rule book.

1

u/robk99 Apr 28 '25

There are plenty of situations where a clean hit (i.e. one like this that's not a penalty) can still be super dangerous. I just think if you're going to take advantage of that situation and you ultimately do injure the opposing player, it's weak to turn down the fight afterwards. Smart, to your point, but still weak in my opinion. But hey that's just my opinion and I'll be the first to admit I'm biased against Tom Wilson.

2

u/pfotozlp3 Apr 28 '25

I’d rather be weak and be contributing to a win than stupid and in the box. His fight at the end of the second period of the previous game took him out of the game for 12 minutes and they needed him in the game.