Mike Richards’ “Minor” Hit Deserved A “Major” Reaction, But Got Nothing

What did happen: Mike Richards accused the Sabres of getting away with murder, then himself committed mass murder when he boarded the living daylights out of Tim Connolly and sat for 2 minutes as punishment.

What should have happened: Mike Richards should’ve been given 5 minutes and a game misconduct for boarding, which would have found him shaking his head with regret in the visitors’ dressing room as the Sabres eliminated the Flyers from the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs instead of assisting on two series-changing goals.

Wait, what? Strap yourselves in, folks, because this is a long one.

With 6:09 remaining in the second period of game 6, Mike Richards grabbed Tim Connolly around the shoulders, rode him for a few feet, and intentionally drove the center’s head and shoulders into the plastic dasher at the top of the corner boards.

Jump to :03 in and watch the hit from three different angles at three different speeds.

Tim Connolly would skate off the ice under his own power but would not return to the game. He’s already been ruled out of participating in the Eastern Conference quarterfinal series’ pivotal game 7 with a rumored shoulder injury and no timetable has been set for his return to the lineup. The only thing that saved Connolly from a possible career-ending concussion was his right hand, which he raised at the last moment to pad the impact. He should be lucky he didn’t fracture one of his vertebrae, which is something James Mirtle fears is a definite possibility

http://twitter.com/#!/mirtle/status/62525698421702656

Mike Richards would be assessed a two minute minor for boarding. He would then assist on the Flyers’ game-tying and game-winning goals. After the game, he was hurried out of the arena before reporters could ask him about his hit. From The Hockey News’ Ken Campbell:

Did we really expect the league to suspend the captain of the Philadelphia Flyers for a Game 7, even if his egregious hit from behind on Tim Connolly deserved just that? How that penalty was not a major and a game misconduct boggles the mind and what made it even more distasteful was the fact Richards went on to assist both the tying and winning goals at a time when he shouldn’t have even been on the ice.

That’s right – the NHL’s disciplinary staff decided intentionally injuring another player isn’t a suspendable offense. What the league’s disciplinarians say, however, differs from the rulebook they’re supposed to cull their decisions from.

From the NHL’s rulebook, here is Rule 41.1 – Boarding:

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who
checks an opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to be
thrown violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon
the degree of violence of 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 vulnerable
position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a
responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a
dangerous and vulnerable position. 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 being
knocked into 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.”

The rulebok differentiates, as it does on many fouls, between minor, major, and match penalties based upon different factors surrounding the foul. These differentiations are:

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.

Rule 41.5, as referenced by 41.3 above, is:

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.

At the loosest application of the rulebook, Mike Richards’ boarding should’ve warranted at least a major penalty and game misconduct (Ed. note: So I was wrong about the misconduct rule. Turns out it should’ve been given a match penalty for attempting to injure with a boarding foul). At the strictest and most literal application of the rulebook, Richards’ boarding should’ve been assessed a match penalty for a foul causing injury. In the instance of a boarding major being called, Richards would’ve been ejected for the game and open to supplemental discipline. In the instance of a match penalty, Richards would’ve been ejected and definitely subject to supplemental discipline.

This is Richards’ second suspendable offense in this series alone, the first being the embedded-below intentional elbow to the face of noted baby-eater Patrick Kaleta:

At 1:43 of the above-embedded video, Richards can be clearly seen raising his elbow to strike Kaleta in the face instead of absorbing the incoming hit with his shoulder. For his elbow, Richards was assessed a major penalty under rule 45.3:

45.3 Major Penalty – A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee,
shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to foul an
opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for a foul
resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent (see 45.5).

The thing is, intentionally elbowing another player in the face – surprise! – should be assessed a match penalty, quoted from the NHL rulebook below as rule 45.4:

45.4 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 elbowing.

That’s twice in one series alone that Mike Richards deliberately attempted to injure an opponent, once with an elbow to the face and another with a shove into the boards, and succeeded once. In each instance, the black and white ruling on the play should’ve resulted in Richards being assessed match penalties for intent to injure. In this situation, Richards would be subject to additional discipline. He has received, and will continue to receive, none (more on that later).

Lost in all of this is the NHL’s oft-ignored checking from behind penalty, aka Rule 43.1:

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.

Was Tim Connolly unable to protect himself from the impending hit? Check. Did he not intentionally turn his body to create contact with his back? Check. Sounds like a clear-cut case of checking from behind to me. Let’s take a look at the minor, major, and match penalty variants on this foul:

43.2 Minor Penalty – There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking
from behind.

No provision for a minor penalty to be called? Uh oh.

43.3 Major Penalty – Any player 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.

The options left to a referee who assesses a checking from behind call are a major or match penalty, which both result in ejection from the current game (a major, by way of a game misconduct). The interesting thing here is that the NHL’s referees seemingly refuse to call the checking from behind penalty, as noted by Mirtle:

http://twitter.com/#!/mirtle/status/62525826167603200

http://twitter.com/#!/mirtle/status/62525194329272320

He even went so far as to link a story he wrote in 2010 about the dearth of checking from behind calls following Marian Hossa’s infamous hit on Dan Hamhuis in the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs, in which he references the checking from behind crackdown he tweeted about.

All of what has already been covered exists in black and white; in read-only ink or type. There are two gray areas that exist, however: the discretion of the referees and the pervading spectre of player status affecting discipline.

At every juncture above a minor penalty, the referee’s discretion is called into play when assessing either a major or match penalty. Major penalties are rarely called, and match penalties even less than that. There is an air of “let them play” that still permeates the National Hockey League and part of that is a seeming reluctance on the part of the on-ice officials to call penalties as severe as replays show them to be or to even call certain fouls in the playoffs or on players of a certain status at all.

The referees and linesmen “swallowing their whistles” is at the forefront as calling interference has gone out the window. Defenders are allowed to tie up forechecking players who dump the puck in almost unabated. In another instance of swallowing the whistle, it was especially highlighted by Jarret Stoll not being penalized for his hit on Ian White in the first game of Western Conference quarterfinal series between the his Kings and the Sharks.

Later, Stoll would be suspended for one game for the hit. Meanwhile, Richards – his team’s captain, a marketable player, and an individual lauded by the hockey punditry for his style – was merely called for a minor and will not be suspended at all for his injurious hit. While the on-ice official did assess a penalty on the play, the spectre of player status affecting discipline reared its ugly head yet again. A captain of a big-market team with game-changing talent was not given any deserving supplemental punishment by a league known to exempt star players (minus Alexander Ovechkin’s short suspension last season, but there was no avoiding that). The league’s decision mirrored the conclusion that TSN’s panel of analysts, comprised of some very respected former players and coaches, arrived at the night of the play. TSN’s chief analyst, Bob McKenzie, actually previously lauded Richards’ decision to elbow Kaleta, saying he would have done the same.

http://twitter.com/#!/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/60951411101405184

You read that right – he would have intentionally driven his elbow into the face of an incoming player despite being an illegal play. This is the kind of punditry that is held in the highest regard by the majority of hockey fans. This isn’t just coming from the dinosaur analyst élite, either. Elliotte Friedman pointed out today in his 30 Thoughts column that he was privy to a coach instructing his players to do the same thing to other skaters:

20) One NHL coach said two months ago he told his players to react exactly as Mike Richards did when Patrick Kaleta charged at him in Game 5 of Buffalo/Philly. “Put your elbow or stick up and take a minor,” he said. “Don’t kill the guy, but I’d be happy to take a penalty rather than see you get a concussion.” Richards got a major.

In a world where headshots and concussion are the hot-to-trot subject in both the media and league board rooms, hypocrisy runs rampant throughout television broadcasts and during game-time intermissions. Innumerable talking heads will preach the need to call these hits, whether by villain or by veteran, then turn the other cheek to endorse the kind of violence that is caused brain damage to Bob Probert and defending star players who dole it out. At the same time, the NHL’s continued employment of a former reckless goon (league disciplinarian Colin Campbell, he of compromised impartiality) as the man relied upon to hand out just and lawful punishment, is in a way a league-wide stamp of approval of disregard for player health.

A big part of the problem is the way the rules are written. There is too much left open to the interpretation of individuals in power. Fouls of a dangerous and injurious nature need to be re-written so as to remove the referee’s discretion, call for harsher punishment, and hopefully lead to a crackdown on plays of that nature. Until that happens, I don’t want to hear a single NHL or NHLPA (both bodies have refused strong penalty reform in the past) executive say again they’re concerned with player safety because it is an abject crock of shit.