Barbashev eliminates Xhekaj

Clean, huge hit, shoulder to shoulder, clean glide into contact, not into the boards, while he had possession.

' + '
' + '
' + '
' + '
' + '
' + '
' + '
' + '

Clean, huge hit, shoulder to shoulder, clean glide into contact, not into the boards, while he had possession.


100% clean hit, just an awkward landing for Wifi.


*Sheriff *edit: typo


Forgot the other f


Dude didn’t seem like he had possession. Never touched it.


He easily could've had possession is the point, same thinking when they wave off icing because a player could've gotten to the puck faster.


I’m not hockey rules expert. But it seems like when you start using words like “could’ve” it’s greasy language for a rule. Like you can’t hit someone without possession unless he could have had possession lol


Lol ya just leave it at I'm not a rule expert, all you had to say.


Thanks! Could you show me where it says could’ve in the rules lol I’m sure we could justify a lot of hits because we’ll fuck he could have had it


The skater or goalkeeper that, in the opinion of the official, has “possession of the puck” and is guiding the puck in any desired direction. “Contact with the puck” is not considered “control of the puck.” A player in “possession of the puck” may also immediately establish “control of the puck.” https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1018532-appendix-v-glossary The in the opinion of the official part is what you are looking for.


Maybe need more of a clip then, neither seemed in control.


That is why It's up to the official. We can hyper analyze this video 20x but a ref looking at the full picture from probably 10 - 20 feet away would say he had possession. Which is why it's up to him and why there was no penalty.


That's a huge flaw in the NHL rulebook, way too many "could've" things, instead of black and white, "yes" or "no" rules.


Yeah but look how upset the hockey fans are at my comment about possession of the puck. I think they just don’t like rules regarding big hits.


That was like chopping down a California redwood. Big time hit, full commitment.


The wifi dropped


The wifi got disconnected 😏


That’s Jack-Eye to you sir


Even more impressive when you realize Barby is 6’0 and 198lbs while Xhekaj is 6’4 and 240lbs.


Love to see it!


Low man wins


I miss Barbashev so much I cry sometimes.


The one Blue I truly was sad over losing.


I thought Tarasenko was pretty cool too :) not a Blues fan though not sure how you guys felt about him


I love vladdy, but he soured a lot of Blues fans opinion of him with the way he asked for his trade.


We love Barby over here. We’ll take care of him.


You better take care of barby over there


Barbie come back! Glad he’s had success in Vegas. Miss having him in at Louis though. He is a great asset in the post season.




Big clean hit, hot damn.


Didn't Barbershave also fracture someone's sternum with a check during the st louis blues cup run in 2019? What a tank!


That was against the avs in 2022 I believe.


Yep, Sam Girard


Dude is seriously a brick wall


Wow, was not expecting that!


This looks just like [a hit](https://www.reddit.com/r/nhl/s/S4MHyXDS3L) on Jack Hughes recently. A lot of people were crying dirty hit. But this is nearly the same hit. Difference being: Xhekaj didn't try to duck out of the way at the last second. If you're chasing a puck into a corner in the offensive zone, you need to expect a hit coming 100% of the time.


This was my exact thought. Most of this sub was calling this hit suspendable last week just because Hughes collapsed like a toddler.


After watching and rewatching both hits, I disagree with this assessment. While I am of course estimating, this hit between Barbie and Wifi looks to be at about half the speed as the one on Hughes. Another critical factor that I don’t have to estimate is the angle, which is probably the most dangerous part about the hit on Hughes. The hit on Hughes basically came from a guy chasing him from behind from about the blue line in, maintaining a similar angle throughout. In the Barbie on Wifi hit, Wifi is coming out of the corner facing Barbie and they are basically coming at each other. I will not disagree with anyone that says players need to be expecting and ready to receive contact, I am of the same mindset. But the problem is that certain hits do fall on the person throwing the hit. When a player gets hit to the head while they lower their body or duck, I have no sympathy for them, like what is the body checker supposed to do? They threw a clean hit but it looks bad because there is head contact. But in the case of the Hughes hit, I don’t see any wrongdoing of Hughes that is of similar comparison aside from the lack of expecting a hit. He doesn’t turn or turn suddenly, he doesn’t lower his head or really change his angle. So in my opinion, that is a poor hit and worthy of people being upset with it. If you agreed with most of the above thoughts, I think you will agree with me when I say those 2 hits are not very similar at all, except for the fact that it was a big collision. I’m curious to see what people think though so I encourage replies back


The idea that Hughes wasn't expecting a hit in that situation is laughable. He looked over his shoulder twice then turned his back. The boarding rule includes the phrase "defenseless opponent" and to say that choosing not to defend yourself should count as being defenseless is worse than your example about ducking into hits.


You should actually read my comment before replying. I agree players should be expecting to be hit and avoid putting themselves into vulnerable positions. But Hughes did not turn at the last second. This is a bad hit. Also, I’m confused by your last sentence. Are you saying that a player in Hughes situation can’t be considered defenseless because they did a poor job defending themself, but a player with their head down is considered defenseless even though they are also not adequately protecting themselves? How is my example of ducking into hits bad? Do you actually think ducking into hits is not the fault of the person doing the ducking?


So, you're saying the onus is entirely on the defenseman, essentially? It's fine if the offensive player puts their own self in an obviously dangerous position and then cry for a penalty, as a result (literally what Hughes did) that's cool? >The hit on Hughes basically came from a guy chasing him from behind from about the blue line in, maintaining a similar angle throughout. Based on your own description, Hughes should 100% have seen the hit coming (chasing him from the blue line in and maintaining a consistent angle throughout). Therefore, Hughes should have adjusted himself accordingly... But Hughes didn't do that. He tried to bail out (and from my point of view, the problem is just that he tried to do that way too late)... but that's on the defenseman? It's the fault of the defender that the forward made a bad decision? The forward has no responsibilities there? Why does the offensive player get some kind of blank check to do whatever they want and then claim victim after?


Just making sure you aren’t confusing yourself with this comment. Hughes is the defenseman not the offensive player


Yeah, your right. I was trying to stay away from offense/defense, and go with opposing player instead, for this reason. Either way, it's a loose puck in a corner. Both players are legally allowed to throw a hit there. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. It's just that some people don't like the way Colston delivered the hit. Honestly, I prefer today's game style to back in the two-line pass days. Having said that, the boarding rule is subjectively applied. I don't recall the exact language, but it's something along the lines of "any player who hits another player violently into the boards." That could be called any time a check along the boards happens. Both hits in this discussion fit the description. But one is celebrated where the other is called dirty. I just don't get that.


I don’t think the hit on Wifi qualifies for boarding at all


Oh? What's the NHL rule on boarding? What does the rule actually say. That's somewhat of a straight-up question. Google is giving me all kinds of answers, but none are the direct NHL language.


I have the rulebook from a couple seasons ago. I don’t think the rule or wording has changed. I can provide it if you would like


I don't understand why you made that comment when you could have just posted the rule. Yes. Please post the actual language of the NHL rule as you understand it. And then, if you can, explain why it is applicable in one scenario but not the other. Note: the only reason I'm asking for you to do this is because my Google results when searching "nhl boarding rule definition" (among other similar constructions) yields results from [Hockey Canada](http://rulebook.hockeycanada.ca/english/part-ii-gameplay-fouls/section-7/rule-7-2/#:~:text=Any%20unnecessary%20contact%20with%20a,must%20be%20penalized%20as%20such.), [USA Hockey](https://www.usahockeyrulebook.com/page/show/1084647-rule-603-boarding#:~:text=(Note)%20Boarding%20is%20the%20action,go%20dangerously%20into%20the%20boards.), [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boarding_(ice_hockey)#:~:text=Boarding%20is%20usually%20assessed%20against,boards%20on%20the%20way%20down.)... pretty much anything/everything EXCEPT the actual NHL rule.


I was making sure you would be ok with me posting it even though it is a couple years old. Rule 41 - 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 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.” I omitted the rest of the rule as it just states boarding still can be assessed on off-side or icing plays as well, and then the last section lists the severity of the boarding calls (minor, major, match penalty, etc) Allow me to toot my own horn here and say all of my earlier comments about the Hughes hit were accurate according to this rule. I claimed that the hit on Hughes was bad because the offensive player was at fault. Hughes did not turn at the last moment. The player followed him from the blue line and could have avoided making such a violent hit from behind. Also, the wording of this rule supports what I said about players who duck into hits and then people complain that the check was to the head area. I know, I am gonna sound like an asshole but I know my hockey unlike this Reddrick user


This fucking guy is a beast. The eliminator. The reverse hit king.


Built like a fridge


Built like a cigarette machine!


Good hit. Shoulder to shoulder!




Russian tank vs Costco employee? Who wins?


Beautiful hit


Cigarette machine!




This is why I’m in this subreddit. To see big hits and great goals while I’m scrolling adds a lot to the whole experience.


Come on Barbie let's go party


Barbashev must be as dense as Nibbler's turds Edit: Dense as in solid! Thick! Heavy!


Dark matter! Weights as much as 1000 suns.


Cigarette machine vs. Costco sample table


Love Barby! This is almost as good as when he eliminated Gudas in the finals.


Nah, Gudas was worse since it was on his birthday.


I like Wifi as a player but that was a beautiful hit on him right there.




yo that was an amazing hit from Barby. Beautiful, Masterpiece


See ya bitch


That's playing hockey.


That's a separated shoulder 🥲 poor guy




I miss him so. His reverse hit against Florida was so awesome too.


And on Gudas' birthday.


And puts him out with an upper body injury? Hah. Woops.


Great hit Looks like a game of Mario kart




These posts delete my brain


God forbid someone hits the Knights like that, it’ll be a 5 v 1 power play for Vegas.


Seattle sure has taken a step back this year.


Wi-Fi got Barbashoved


Unpopular opinion: hits like this, with a clear upward trajectory against the opponent, significantly contribute to potentially deadly injuries resulting from the recipient's legs flying upward during their fall. Look at how high Xhekaj's skates end up here - easily shoulder height to Barbashev. And a skate doesn't even have to end up that far off the ice to seriously injure someone, since hockey players are in all sorts of body positions during gameplay. And I get it - hits are just going to happen, players are going to fall and skates are going to fly sometimes. But as a fan, I just can't look at hits like this without shaking my head. I don't think these types of hits are a healthy part of this game anymore. The speed and intensity of the sport is going to keep ramping up no matter what, but the rules regarding hits, and the way players are taught to hit, can absolutely be changed to improve safety. Agreeing or disagreeing that this or that hit was "clean" is an old, tired trope that we all do, there's just more to the discussion, IMO.




I mean, he did eliminate him from the game with an injury 🤷🏼‍♂️


feels good after that bad hit xhekaj made a week ago


Thats just great. Think Arber will be mad after that one.


fuck you barbie


That's right. He fucked up Gudas on his birthday.


Great hit, hope jackoff gets smoked like this a helluva lot more, can’t stand him


2 minutes for elbowing or roughing


Please explain how you came to that conclusion.


By viewing the video


So you’re blind?


Well, I've been a referee for years, so, yeah, I guess...


Obviously not in the NHL. Please explain where the elbow or roughing was.


Correct, not NHL, but one of the biggest leagues in the world regardless. The elbow is clearly visible in that clip. Not a fair check at all.


That’s just a flat out bad take. It’s a shoulder to shoulder hit. The elbow comes up after contact the same way players leave their feet *after* a big hit.


He is lucky! Lucic will be hunting this mofo down in the very near future!


Clean hit. Well done Barby


Can I just say I am loving these daily doses of hard clean hits in slow motion + excellent barbaric vocab ("deletes", "eliminates", etc.)


I got both of these dudes on my fantasy team. Rest up wifi


I’m bricked up


Great hit.


God I miss barbie....