May 29, 2024 by Josh Boulton

Jacob Trouba’s elbow on Evan Rodrigues in game 3 of the Eastern Conference Final has fan bases around the entire league talking. The officials initially called a five-minute major penalty to allow for a review, and then it was reduced down to a two-minute minor.

Presumably, the choice for a final call of minor penalty was based on the amount of head contact that resulted from the play, or the lack thereof depending on your stance. Supporters of the minor penalty repeatedly argue Trouba hit the shoulder pad. Supporters of a major penalty believe he hit the jaw. Many fans are also stuck in the middle, conceding some light head contact but clarifying he hit the shoulder pad first and then glanced up into the head.

For the call on the ice, maybe this angle of approach is valid. Maybe. NHL Rule 45: Elbowing says it shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause an injury.

I think at minimum we can at least all agree that happened here. If you can’t even admit that, you may as well stop reading now. Kevin Bieksa did try to rationalize this on the Sportsnet panel by saying Trouba was attempting a forearm check, but the end result of his action is his elbow became extended and he reached it out in a manner which could reasonably be expected to have potential to cause an injury. The debate isn’t whether this is a penalty, but whether it should be a minor penalty, or a major penalty.

The parameter for a major penalty under Rule 45.3 state a major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee,shall be imposed on any player who uses his elbow to illegally check an opponent. A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent.

This phrasing leads people down the wrong path. Ever since the NHL introduced Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head, fans have programmed themselves to believe head contact dirty, no head contact clean. We’re studying this clip like it’s the Zapruder film. Literally a fraction of an inch is swaying people between calling a major penalty and a game misconduct, and labeling this a normal hockey penalty. Does this not seem absurd to you?

Does whether or not he was able to reach that extra half inch really make this play any more or less dangerous? Do we really want to send the message that if as a defender you get beaten cleanly, it’s ok to overreach with a chicken wing extension and desperately flail your body so long as you get lucky on the outcome? I know players are going to instinctively try and grab or hook or do something to prevent a free lane to the net. That’s a normal reaction. Those would be a minor penalty. What Trouba did is only a normal reaction for someone who already has a habit of driving upward and outward with their forearm and elbow as a routine.

The main question to me isn’t “did he hit the head with his elbow or not”. The question is “how close was this to an attempt at using his shoulder or core to hit squarely through his opponent’s shoulder or core”. In other words, how close was this elbow to the only real legal hockey option he had in this scenario? I don’t know much further you need to get from the ideal hockey play than what Trouba did here before it gets to the level of major penalty.

It doesn’t help that it’s Trouba doing it. This could have been Martin Necas, or Ondrej Palat, or Jake Guenztel, or Sidney Crosby, or any number of other opponents he’s either actually hit in the head with his elbow or nearly missed hitting in the head.

Forgetting who this is, we shouldn’t want any player taking this kind of action. If this isn’t already worthy of a major penalty, head contact shouldn’t change that.

Punish the action, not the result.