In the NHL, Not All Hits Are Created Equal

For those who don’t follow the National Hockey League closely, the manner in which supplemental discipline is dispensed often seems confusing and contradictory. Truth be told, it can be just as confusing for those who follow the league closely. The latest example occurred Friday night during Game One of the Western Conference semifinal between the Ducks and the Red Wings, when Anaheim’s Mike Brown leveled Detroit’s Jiri Hudler with this devastating blind side hit:↵

↵↵After clocking a player like that, you’d have to figure some sort of punishment was in the offing, and it was. Brown, known around the league as a pest, was assessed a five-minute major and a game misconduct. But after reviewing the play, the NHL judged that the hit wouldn’t be subject to any supplemental discipline, a decision that was met with some approval.↵

↵

↵

↵↵Now, you’d figure that a shot away from the play like that would have earned a penalty, but you’d be wrong. Instead of getting rung up for the hit on Betts, one that took him out of the series with a fractured orbital bone, Brashear got nothing more than a two-minute penalty for roughing for a post-hit tussle with New York’s Paul Mara. Yet, just one day later, Brashear found himself on the business end of a six-game suspension, five of which were apportioned for the hit on Betts.↵

↵↵If you’re not confused yet, you will be after you watch this last clip. It’s from the 2003 Stanley Cup Finals, when the Devils played the Ducks. It’s one of the most famous hits in the history of the Finals. As you watch, ask yourself this: If Brown’s hit was worth a five-minute major and a game misconduct, while Brashear’s was worth a five-game suspension, what would this Scott Stevens hit on Paul Kariya merit in today’s NHL?↵

↵

↵↵Stevens is in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Would he have been able to play the same game if he were still in the NHL today?↵

↵