February 13, 2024 by Josh Boulton

Toronto Maple Leafs’ defenceman Morgan Rielly has been offered an in-person hearing for his crosscheck to the head of Ottawa Senators’ rookie Ridly Greig on Saturday. Greig sealed a 5-3 win for the Senators by firing a slap shot into an empty net, which prompted this reaction from Rielly.

An in-person hearing opens up the possibility of a suspension of six games or more. What people digging in on justifying Rielly’s crosscheck aren’t realizing is there doesn’t have to be such a divide between themselves and those who want to throw the book at him. There IS a middle ground here where you can be both pro-Rielly and pro-suspension without contradiction.

I’m not even talking about the fact he could have just body checked Greig or punched him instead of crosschecking him to the head, even though that’s true. Taking it a step farther, I’m saying you can actually be pro-crosscheck to the head AND STILL be pro-six-10 game suspension.

It’s not up to the Department of Player Safety to determine how much a player “had it coming” and factor that in to punishment. The onus is on the Department of Player Safety to determine how often they want to see plays like this happen. Period.

Only RIELLY can make a judgement call on how much Greig had it coming. How much time he himself is willing to serve to send his message. If he thinks this deserves a crosscheck to the head and his coach supports him on that, so be it. Agree with him if you want. All the power to you. What you can’t do is argue he deserves less of a punishment based on whatever level of “he had it coming-ness” you rate this.

This should still be a six-10 game suspension. Every time. This will actually help all future players in similar situations. It’s way easier to judge what’s worth it if you know the stakes going in. If you know this is a six-game automatic minimum you can make a conscious choice in the moment. Is taking a clapper with five seconds left into an empty net really worth missing six games, and possibly up to 10?

If you want Rielly to serve less time because “no one slaps the puck in my net!” you’re hurting your own cause. You’re creating your own problem of inconsistency. When punishment for the same action ranges from nothing to a fine to three games and up to six games, players will continue to take chances hoping they’ll be the lucky ones instead of the scapegoats.

The game is more dangerous. The players are more frustrated when they do get dinged. The fans are more upset. No one wins. And those of you who do support Rielly and want him to get away with it also prove how the system would work so much better if he DID get a longer suspension. I love one tweet that said “call the crosscheck extreme if you want, but I guarantee Greig never shoots the puck into an empty net like that again.”

You want the punishment for taking a slapshot to be a broken jaw, and you recognize, spell out in your own words, that the more severe and outrageous the penalty, the less likely a player is to repeat the offense. And that’s precisely why the punishment for a crosscheck to the head, all crosschecks to the head, should be punished stiffly, so that we only see the ones that a truly justified and worth it.