9:09PM: On HNIC, Glenn Healy said of the Nash hit “with all the debate about the hit, here is the thing I am looking for: the principal point of contact is clearly his back, not his head. Does he leave his feet and launch himself to make this hit…no… his feet are on the ice. It is not a suspension.”
Elliotte Friedman said that no matter the result, that is the kind of play that can’t be in hockey anymore.
The video, which was not narrated by Brendan Shanahan, stated:
Although we do not believe this was a legal hit, we believe that it doesn’t rise to the level of supplemental discipline. As the video shows, Kopecky turns right before Nash makes contact which contributes to the impact of the hit. Furthermore, Nash does not target Kopecky’s head nor is it the principal point of contact.
Instead, Nash makes initial contact with Kopecky’s shoulder and nameplate and as a result, his arm rises up Kopecky’s back causing him to lose his helmet and fall forward.
Kopecky turns right before contact
Kopecky’s head is not targeted nor is it the principal point of contact
Combining these factors, we believe that Rick Nash’s hit on Tomas Kopecky does not rise to the level of supplemental discipline.
At Puck Daddy, they report that Brendan Shanahan called Rick Nash on Thursday night and told him that the play he put on Tomas Kopecky was a “rotten hit” and probably should have been called a major penalty.
Shanahan told Puck Daddy that the reason Nash wasn’t suspended was because it was an “awkward, spinning collision between two players” where the majority of the contact was made when Nash landed on the back of Kopecky’s shoulders.
Shanahan said that there wasn’t much head contact at all and that when watching the feed that the Panthers provided, he could see that the principal point of contact is the back right shoulder and nameplate.
Katie Strang notes that the likely reason for no hearing was that the “principal point of contact” was not the head and that is the main reason why he avoided and supplemental discipline.
Scott Burnside tweets “Failure to suspend R. Nash in spite of overwhelming evidence it is warranted strikes at heart of competitive balance.”
Larry Brooks tweeted that it “boggles the mind” how the NHL goes about dealing with player safety and said that it is “simple a matter of incoherent standards.”
Damien Cox tweeted “If Lupul got two and Nash doesn’t even get a hearing the Leafs should and must file a letter of protest with NHL. This cannot be true.”
If someone can explain the decisions on what warrants a suspension and what doesn't, please let me and the rest of guys know..— Joffrey Lupul (@JLupul) March 22, 2013
Allan Muir of SI writes that “it’s hard to believe that anyone watching in real time or on tape wouldn’t recognize it as an egregious foul.” He adds “The replay didn’t show it, but Nash probably took Kopecky’s wallet and stole his identity as well. It was that bad.”
35% of people who voted in a Sportsnet poll said that the reason Nash wasn’t suspended was because the “NHL struggles to discipline with consistency.”