Morgan Rielly’s crosscheck to Ridly Greig not only overwhelmed spellcheck programs worldwide, but also inflamed social media with hockey hate, insults and opinions. Personally, I’ve gone from being called a “narc” by Leaf fans for tagging the Department of Player Safety in my original tweet, to being labelled “soft-on-crime” by Senators fans who think I’m nuts for not believing this deserves an in-person hearing. Ah well, that’s life in the big city.
In all seriousness, Tuesday’s hearing has massive implications, and I’ve got no great feel for where we’re going. A look at the stakes and what to expect:
FOR TORONTO:
Auston Matthews has 42 goals, but you can make a serious argument Rielly is Toronto’s most indispensable player. They cannot afford to lose him. He leads the Maple Leafs in ice-time, playing 2:37 more per night than second-place TJ Brodie. He’s second in assists, fourth in scoring — the next-highest defender (Jake McCabe) 26 points behind.
Suddenly, Toronto’s postseason position looks slightly tenuous. They have games in hand on Tampa Bay, Detroit, New Jersey and the Islanders, but nowhere in the Marvel multiverse do they want multiple games without Rielly. That math could change real quick, and the Maple Leafs know it.
I went through in-person hearings, looking for situations where a player was suspended fewer than six games. I found two — Dmitry Kulikov for clipping Tyler Seguin in 2015 (four); and John Moore for a 2014 hit to Erik Haula’s head (five). Another manager pointed out that Toronto GM Brad Treliving was in Calgary when Nikita Zadorov avoided any supplemental discipline after being called on the carpet for a 2022 playoff hit to Luke Glendening, also rare. But that was a phone hearing, not in-person, not as severe.
A six-game suspension means that if Toronto appeals, it goes to Gary Bettman first, then, if necessary, to an independent arbitrator. But it’s a looooong process. In 2018, Tom Wilson’s 20-game suspension was reduced to 14 games after he’d missed 16. In 2016, Dennis Wideman’s 20-game suspension was reduced to 10 after he’d missed 19. The only recent example where the player benefitted was Jason Spezza, who got a reduction from six games to four in 2021, which was time-served. But there’s little control for team and player.
So, odds of avoiding major punishment from an in-person hearing are poor. That’s why I’m interested to see what role Brendan Shanahan plays in Rielly’s defence. He ran the Department of Player Safety before joining the Maple Leafs. Is there some precedent he can use on Rielly’s behalf?
We’ll get to the specifics of their defence soon. But first…
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLAYER SAFETY:
You need a thick skin for this job. Thirty-two organizations/fan bases distrust and dislike you. Blocking out the noise is essential, but it’s borderline impossible in this case.
I’ve heard from several sources that DoPS is a little rattled by the appeals to its rulings. Bettman backed George Parros in all three (although David Perron still can get money back from the independent arbitrator). Rasmus Andersson and Charlie McAvoy appealed punishments of fewer than six games, meaning Bettman was the final authority.
That never used to happen, because everyone felt it a waste of time. What it did, however, was remind Parros and company to make sure everything had strict precedent. All rulings need to be defensible by previous punishment, because challenges are coming more often. This case will be no different.
If Parros does choose a lengthy suspension, logic dictates he’ll go hard on the themes of retaliation and retribution. He hammered first-time offenders Perron and Spezza for six games after they tried to avenge injured players (Perron got the wrong guy).
Rielly wasn’t doing that, but he was retaliating against an act he disliked. That’s the cleanest line Parros can draw. Revenge for slapping a puck into an empty net is not as heroic as standing up for an injured teammate.
I would also expect Parros to point out Rielly did this after the play was over, behaviour the league wishes to stop. A GM said Parros might argue Greig was an unsuspecting victim because of this, but others disagreed. As one said, “Parros, Stephane Quintal and Ray Whitney (who work in Player Safety) were tough, honest players. I can’t imagine they’d think anyone in Greig’s position wouldn’t have suspected someone would come after them.”
That’s fair, but I do think that it happened after the play was over will be a factor.
Some brought up Dale Hunter/Pierre Turgeon in 1993. I have T-shirts older than that, so I’m not sure it is relevant. Turgeon missed six playoff games and clearly wasn’t himself upon returning. Greig was back at practice on Monday.
CROSSCHECKS:
I spent waaaaaaaaaay too much time looking at cross-checking over the past seven/eight years. This — and the lack of a serious injury (thankfully) — is where the Maple Leafs are going to push hard in Rielly’s defence.
Over the past eight years, I found 61 cases of supplemental discipline involving crosschecks. Only 18 ended with suspensions; 43 were fines. Some that resulted in fines were pretty nasty, so you can expect Toronto to make comparisons with what Rielly did. Since Saturday, there were examples of crosschecks that got zero punishment shared on social media, and the Maple Leafs probably saw those, too.
The lengthier ones (four-to-six games) involved three repeat offenders — Nazem Kadri (twice), Gabriel Landeskog and Evgeni Malkin — plus a serious injury (Robert Bortuzzo to Viktor Arvidsson).
And Perron.
That’s the longest one. Going to be interesting if the NHL argues this is the new precedent.
Some fans didn’t like it when I mentioned this, but the NHL has made it very clear (the Blake Lizotte suspension is an example) that where the crosscheck connects does matter. A “ride-up,” where the initial contact is with the arm and moves up the body is not considered as serious. Whenever there is a crosscheck, that’s the first thing I look for, because it’s been mentioned to me several times. Rielly gets Greig first on the arm, before it rides up.
Perron’s was direct. So was Rielly’s teammate, Matthews, who got a two-gamer for a shot to Rasmus Dahlin’s face in 2022.
There is another angle I’m curious about. Head coach Sheldon Keefe said Monday the Leafs “get more attention and more hype that tends to lead to this.”
Is that going to be part of Toronto’s defence? If this happened somewhere “quieter,” would there be an in-person hearing? Is that fair? Thought about that after reading this quote.
THE BATTLE OF ONTARIO:
Boy, did the Senators lean into this. Sunday morning, their social media accounts proclaimed Greig “Performer of the Game” and, on Monday, made him the face of their Valentine’s Card promotion. (“Ch-ch-ch-choose me.”)
Their fans loved what he did.
But it’s the same for Rielly, who showed the kind of fire Maple Leafs Nation feels their lineup is sorely lacking. He had more to lose, and no doubt regrets he’s put himself in this position, but none of their fans are going to be mad at him.
This re-ignites a rivalry that got stale as Toronto dominated the past few seasons. No one loses in that.
CONCLUSION:
I thought Rielly would be suspended, but I was surprised at the possibility of six games. It flies in the face of what the NHL’s ruled about cross-checking, but you don’t want injuries out of this dead-play scenario.
Parros has the hammer, and Toronto knows that’s trouble. The worst-case is he goes long, it gets tied up in the appeal process, and the Maple Leafs lose their most important player for an extended period.
Toronto hopes for a Valentine’s miracle, that they convince him to drop it below five games. There is a non-insignificant number of people across the NHL who can’t believe the penalty will even be that high, but I’d be shocked at anything low now that this is an in-person hearing.
If that happens, Toronto will celebrate like Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift.
