With the clock ticking on their season, down 2-0 to the Devils, the Rangers captain jumped into action. No, he didn’t dive in front of a puck to make a game-saving block or get the team what it was missing through two-plus periods of play with a goal. Instead, Jacob Trouba did something he’s become known for: an open-ice hit.
Advertisement
A hit like this tends to spark a ton of conversation because sometimes, by the rules, it is legal. But are legal hits necessarily clean? Is the onus on the player if the rules leave that gray area? And how much context around the situation should be considered a factor?
A penalty was not initially called on Trouba’s hit on Timo Meier in the third period of Game 7. While some plays have been called a major in the moment to give the officials a chance to review, especially when the result is a player seemingly injured from the play, this was immediately deemed a legal play.
And technically, by Rule 48.1, “Illegal Check to the Head,” it was. The rule states: “A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.”
Rangers' Trouba hit on Devils' Meier ruled legal. Head contact may be permitted if unavoidable or if player's body position contributed to the contact – which, with Meier bent over, leaning forward, did on this play. #NYRvsNJD pic.twitter.com/uuXrnlNYzy
— Scouting The Refs (@ScoutingTheRefs) May 2, 2023
Meier crossed the blue line with the puck on his stick when Trouba stepped up into the hit. The winger was leaning forward, so most players who would have collided with him probably would have made contact with his head. And that likely is why the call was made in the moment (and it’ll probably be left as such since the NHL doesn’t make any officials available after the game to explain the decision-making process, but that’s a can of worms for another day).
But then there’s a gray-area aspect when it comes to the rules: Was the hit unavoidable or did Trouba seek it out?
Advertisement
It wouldn’t be out of character for the player, who has earned a reputation for blowing up opponents with open-ice hits — especially with his team down 2-0 in a series-ending game. It wouldn’t be the first time the Rangers captain threw a hit like that to spark his team. Just look back to early December against the Blackhawks when he did exactly that. And on his way to the dressing room, he threw his helmet, which many view as a turning point of the season.
There’s a long list of borderline plays from Trouba over the past two seasons alone. Jujhar Khaira, Nathan MacKinnon and Andreas Athanasiou are all on the list. There’s the hit that took Sidney Crosby out of Round 1 last year, Seth Jarvis in Round 2, and controversial hits against Corey Perry and Ondrej Palat in Round 3.
Not every hit is necessarily malicious or illegal. The head isn’t always the primary point of contact. Some can have a purpose that translates to actual on-ice play. Take this hit on Tomas Nosek to separate him from the puck and keep play in the offensive zone.
But considering the reputation he has gained for hits that don’t have to do with the play, he doesn’t exactly get the benefit of the doubt on borderline plays — that’s something a player has to earn. Trouba hasn’t, and this is another example of why.
That’s why there’s going to be some doubt about whether the head contact was unavoidable. Sure, given Meier’s stance, a collision would have led to head contact. But did the defenseman need to step up in the first place, especially when other defenders were covering him already? Was he looking to play the puck or just make contact and change the momentum for his team?
Advertisement
Trouba’s hit on Meier in Game 7 isn’t the only time similar questions have had to be asked. Even if the answer, through all the gray, is that the player didn’t deserve the penalty by the rules, the conversation rightfully has to shift to whether the rule itself is the problem.
Because say the hit is avoidable, which may be the case in Trouba’s situation. The rule also states that “whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable” is a consideration for a penalty.
In this case, Meier was leaning, which put him in a vulnerable position to head contact. A player at the highest level in men’s hockey should have awareness of his positioning and surroundings. No one should ever be skating across the middle of the ice leaning over or looking down. Everyone knows the risks of playing the game, especially at this level with the speed and strength of players around them.
But can’t the same be true on the other side of the equation, instead of victim blaming? The player initiating contact is also playing at the highest level and needs to have some awareness of himself and his surroundings — and that means not targeting a vulnerable player. Should Trouba, who had a couple of seconds between getting off the bench, joining the play and lining up the hit, have noticed Meier’s stance and pulled back? If the rules were more stringent, the answer could easily be yes.
In some cases, given the speed of the game and the fact it’s played on a super-slippery surface, two players can collide regardless of situational awareness or vulnerable positioning. But those aren’t the plays that are sparking debates like this one quickly has.
So at the end of the day, it has to be asked why the rules exist in the first place. The easy answer for anything regarding contact to the head should be the health and safety of players. But with this much wiggle room within the rules, they can become more like guidelines than restrictions. And that’s why these plays happen and controversial conversations follow. That was the case when Matt Dumba hit Joe Pavelski just weeks ago in Game 1 between the Wild and Stars.
That isn’t to say all hitting needs to come out of the game. There are ways to effectively hit, to make contact that is not to the head in an effort to separate a player from the puck to change possession. But once there’s contact to the head, it’s not clean or legal. The severity of the check, the intent and the context of the situation can influence the level of punishment during the game, with a concerted effort to penalize all hits to the head. Starting with that change in-game, instead of waiting for potential supplemental discipline that doesn’t always come to clean up what’s missed, is a step in the right direction to prioritizing a player’s health and safety.
Advertisement
Borderline hits shouldn’t be acceptable because a player is able to return to play afterward or is glorified as a part of the playoff hockey environment. The victim’s positioning can’t absolve the player who initiated contact entirely, either. Maybe that was acceptable years ago, but the game has evolved and so do disciplinary systems to match it.
In today’s game, a legal hit isn’t always clean. But until the rules change, there won’t be a tangible separation that helps progress anything.
(Photo: Bruce Bennett / Getty Images)
ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57k21ucm9nanxzfJFsZmltX2V%2FcLbAnKabZaSnvLauwGaroqWfYrqmtcSrZKGhpGQ%3D