Pittsburgh's Deryk Engelland faces a supplemental discipline hearing with the NHL's Department of Player Safety on Thursday morning.
Engelland delivered a blow to the head of Chicago forward Marcus Kruger during Pittsburgh's 3-2 victory at Consol Energy Center on Tuesday.
The video:
I'm not going to guess what the punishment might be, but it certainly seems like a suspendable offense, doesn't it?
Player hit in the head and the head was clearly targeted. In fact, it almost looks likie Engelland swept up the body making the head hit completely expected. The victim didn't make any sudden movements. The check was not minimized or avoided. The commentator said that he left his feet, but it was a minimum amount. This isn't like the other hits this season where players have checked into the glass, but the intention and such is certainly much more apparent here.
Engelland has not been fined or suspended since joinging the NHL in 2009, so there is no repeat status or history to consider.
I don't know. 2 games? That's not an official guess, but if I had to, that would be it.
One more thing to note: Downie was not suspended for leaving the bench to start a fight, but was fined $2500. He was declared to be on the ice as part of a legal line change, which is something we examined here in early December. The NHL said the fine was "for leaving the bench on a legal line change to become involved in an altercation in NHL Game No. 408 in New York on Thursday, Dec. 8".
To me, it still looked like he wasn't on the ice legally. But the powers that be say he was, and frankly I can see their point upon further investigation.
Rule 74.1 states that a player can be on the ice if the retiring player is within five feet of the bench. Now, while most of this rule applies to when a player can be on the ice, it doesn't necessarily address delayed "on ice". It was obvious that Downie was going to substitute for the retiring Callahan, he just didn't get the opportunity to before the goal. I was only looking at when the player actually went on the ice as the indicator of making a legal line change and not the intent nor window of legality, which could be what the NHL looked at.
The interpretation of the rule might have been that it would have been legal for Downie to be on the ice at that time. Whether or not he actually was is debateable. The official play-by-play record didn't have him on the ice. We never see him on the ice. But it was clear that he could have been by rule and actions and most likely would have been if it had not been for the goal. He may have actually stepped on the ice for a second, goal was scored, and Downie jumped up on the wall. The play-by-play didn't record him because the retiring player is listed as being the one "on the ice" until they completely leave (which had not happened). If that's true, it completely blows my argument out of the water.
He still should not have gotten involved with a fight clear across the ice though he legally made the line change. That was made clear with a $2500 fine.
I'm still learning. I have a great knowledge of this sport (at least I think I do), but I'm still grasping all these little details and odd situations.
