In case you haven’t heard, Vancouver Canucks forward Raffi Torres landed a thunderous (and controversial) hit on Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Brent Seabrook in Sunday’s Game 3 match. The NHL decided he wasn’t guilty of an infraction that was worthy of a fine or suspension, meaning that Torres was only really guilty of incredibly poor timing since he landed that hit on his first game back from a previous suspension.
(You can read my thoughts on the hit here, Joe’s take in this post and reactions from both teams in this article.)
Now that you’ve had a chance to digest the basics of the situation, we can move on to the NHL’s explanation for their decision. The common Twitter snark revolved around word that players get more leeway with hits behind the red line, but league disciplinarian Colin Campbell didn’t mention that in his statement on the matter.“When Rule 48 (Illegal Check to the Head) was unanimously adopted by the General Managers in March 2010, there was no intention to make this type of shoulder hit to the head illegal. In fact, at that time, we distributed a video to all players and teams that showed a similar hit on a defenseman by an attacking forward coming from the opposite direction behind the net and stated that this is a ‘legal play’.
“This hit meets none of the criteria that would subject Torres to supplemental discipline, including an application of Rule 48: He did not charge his opponent or leave his feet to deliver this check. He did not deliver an elbow or extended forearm and this hit was not ‘late’.”
So this begs the question, particularly to those who thought Torres deserved to be suspended: is this a satisfactory explanation? If not, what else can the league do to curb these types of hits or at least make their process easier to understand? Let us know in the comments and check out one more clip of the hit below.