I’m of two minds regarding the suspension but I’d like to go back to the penalty that was called on the ice, as it drew a lot of anger from Habs fans. Many felt the hit was deserving of a match penalty, which would have prevented Myers from scoring the game-winning goal in overtime. Instead, Myers received a two-minute minor penalty for boarding, and was able to return on the ice for the dramatic goal.
First of all, let’s agree that the right call was made on the ice, that being boarding, as it was reinforced by Shanahan in justifying the suspension, but the degree of the penalty imposed on the call is really where I believe most are crying foul.
Let’s now look at the boarding rule in it’s entirety.
Rule 41 – Boarding
41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. 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 the 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 – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 41 and/or Rule 43, in either Regular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
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).
Confused yet? I’ll translate it for you.
First of all, the rule starts with a big fat disclaimer about how a lot of this rule is at the referee’s discretion, which basically spells out “Sorry when we’re wrong.” They then go on to give us a breakdown of what the difference is between what is deserving of a minor, major and match penalty, as follows.
- Minor Penalty: When you hit the player too hard into the boards.
- Major Penalty: When you hit the player much too hard into the boards.
- Match Penalty: When you want to hurt the player by hitting him into the boards.
If that’s not confusing enough for the referee, the rule goes on to say that if the player receiving the hit is injured to the head as a result of the play, that the player delivering the hit shall receive a game misconduct penalty. Aha! They got it wrong! I knew it! Oh wait. The rule goes on to say that in order for the player to receive that game misconduct penalty, he needs to have first been imposed a major penalty for the hit, and Myers only received a minor penalty.
Can we eliminate some of this gray zone NHL?
For argument’s sake, let me ask, was Scott Gomez not hit on the backside of his body, while unaware of the impeding hit? Well, it appeared to be the case on the replay. He made no attempt to protect himself so one can assume he was unaware. I’m leading you towards a different rule, checking from behind. Let’s look at this one for a second.
Rule 43 – Checking from Behind
43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.
43.2 Minor Penalty – There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind.
43.3 Major Penalty – Any player or goalkeeper who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on the playing surface (see 43.5).
43.4 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 checking from behind.
43.5 Game Misconduct – A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is applied for checking from behind.
43.6 Fines and Suspensions – Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 41 and/or Rule 43, in either the Regular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game.
If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).
Notice how although not perfect, this rule is much more clearly defined. There’s much less talk about referee discretion, as it only really applies in the case of a match penalty. In a nutshell, a checking from behind call is automatically a five-minute major penalty, and at his discretion, the referee can impose a match penalty if he feels there was intent to injure.
If you ask me, there is intent to injure behind every hit in the NHL, to a certain extent anyways, but I digress.
As someone who believes that boarding is one of the most dangerous types of hits in hockey, I really don’t see why the NHL shouldn’t adjust the boarding rule, to mimic that of checking from behind rule. That would mean that any player called for boarding would automatically receive a major penalty on the play, and it would remove a lot of this referee discretion which is clouding the ice surface.
How many times do you see an open-ice check from behind anyways? They all happen near the boards, and usually get called as that anyways. If the goal is to strongly deter hits from behind, by having a strict penalty, one which imposes a major penalty off the bat, and if we agree that many of those checks from behind happen near the boards, and get called as boarding calls, it only makes sense to me that the rules both have the same outcome or penalty.
So here it is for you NHL:
Problem:
- When a player is hit from behind, the penalty is minimum a major penalty, but when that hit from behind happens near the boards, it results in a boarding call, which at the referee’s discretion can be anything between a minor penalty to a game misconduct. This referee discretion adds a gray zone between both rules which leads to inconsistency in calls.
Solution:
- Impose the same penalty on a boarding penalty, that is currently being imposed on a checking from behind penalty, that being that the play automatically receives a major penalty, and only the game misconduct would be at the referee’s discretion.
Earlier in this post, I mentioned that I was of two minds regarding the suspension. I will explain.
In almost every hockey game, we are witness to the phenomenon known as the “make-up call.” This happens when a penalty is imposed on the player of a team, to make up for a bad call or missed call that negatively affects the opposing team. I believe it’s the case here with the suspension, being a make-up call for what should have been a major penalty on the ice.
Had Tyler Myers received a five-minute major penalty, which would not have allowed him to score the game-winning goal in overtime, I don’t believe Tyler Myers would be getting suspended today, or if so, perhaps for one-game only. He is not a repeat offender.
I do believe the hit, regardless of whether Myers is a repeat offender or not deserves the suspension and length imposed, however, I also believe this wouldn’t be happening had a stricter call been originally made on the ice, but it wasn’t.
Rule information: nhl.com