Five Is A Start

I'm sure no one missed the announcement that Morgan Rielly's crosscheck to Ridly Greig's face following the slapshot empty-netter got him a five-game break courtesy of the NHL's Department of Player Safety. I've seen both sides on social media arguing that it's too many games versus it's not enough, but I'll say that I expected five games. If it had been more, it would be hard to justify the extra games, but five games for overreacting to a meaningless goal is a logical suspension. It's expected that the NHLPA will appeal, but this length of suspension for a blatent crosscheck to the head should be the standard moving forward. Let's hope that a precedent has been set that the NHL will enforce.

According to the statement released by the Department of Player Safety, they made the case that the crosscheck "was not a hockey play and added a strike to the head was easily avoidable." I'm not sure there's anyone who would disagree with that reasoning, but any penalty is technically not a hockey play based on the fact that there's punishment for committing an infraction.

"This is not the case of two players mutually jousting where both players could reasonably expect escalating contact or for both players' sticks to come up high," the narrator of the Department of Player Safety video states in justifying the decision. "This is also not an inadvertent or accidental use of the stick while leveraging for body position or for other hockey purposes. This play occurs well after the goal has been scored, late in the game with the score out of reach and for the sole purpose of retribution."

That five-game decision seems pretty cut-and-dry in the reasoning, so the only reason that I can see for the NHLPA to appeal this decision is that Morgan Rielly has yet to be suspended in his eleven-year career. I know that this lack of being in trouble with the league is built into the CBA so that players who make a mistake aren't punished as harshly as repeat offenders, but I think this is a different case based on the NHL's reasoning for the suspension where they stated "for the sole purpose of retribution."

I get that in the heat of battle and with the speed at which the game moves that there could be a crosscheck that is delivered to someone's head inadvertently or without malice. One would hope there wouldn't be many of these infractions, but to lump them all into the same basket is a slippery slope that I don't think the NHL wants to tackle. However, if there's a clear crosscheck delivered with malice to an opposing player's head after a play is over, five games should now be the minimum standard handed out for a suspension. If you want that kind of crap that Rielly showed gone from the game, make sure the message is clear to everyone that the break will be costly.

Where this should be enforced in its entirety and not reduced for any reason is during the playoffs. While I get that a five-game suspension eats up 71.4% of a potential seven-game series for a player, the key here is any crosscheck delivered to the head of an opposing player well after a play has ended and "for sole purpose of retribution" should get the full punishment as set by this precedent. It's an act of violence, not a hockey play, so punish the offender fully.

We'll wait to see where the appeal process goes, but, being that this is a five-game suspension, it will only be heard and ruled upon by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. As it stands, Rielly's five-game break will cost him over $195,000 in pay, but the appeal could get some of that back if it's reduced by Bettman. The hope, for this writer's view, is that it won't be reduced because garbage like the crosscheck that Rielly gave to Greig has no business being part of the game.

You did the crime, do the time. Let's hope the NHL upholds this precedent-setting suspension period moving forward so moments of utter stupidity like Rielly showed is reduced to zero.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!