NHL Suspensions: Inconsistent Penalties Putting a Black Eye on Postseason

Raise your hand if Brendan Shanahan and the NHL's handling of suspensions this postseason has made any sense to you.

Nobody?

That's what I thought.

I understand why players like Carl Hagelin of the New York Rangers (three games), Byron Bitz of the Vancouver Canucks (two games) and Matt Carkner of the Ottawa Senators (one game) all received suspensions.

They each most certainly earned them.

What I still don't understand is how Shea Weber escaped without a suspension after bashing Henrik Zetterberg's head into the glass. And what I still don't understand is why a culprit's punishment has anything to do with whether or not the player he hit ended up injured.

Shouldn't a dirty hit be punished regardless of the outcome? Isn't that a more proactive way of cleaning up the game rather than reacting once injuries occur? Isn't the precedent being set that players can get away with dirty hits so long as they don't cause injury?

That's a dangerous line to walk, in my opinion.

And where does intent come into all of this?

For one, Shea Weber sure looked like he was making a play with an intent to injure and a non-hockey play at that. This wasn't an aggressive check that crossed a line—it was a basic mugging (hence the hilarious Jim Ross commentary).

But Weber didn't get a suspension for this because Zetterberg wasn't injured. Shanahan's words, not mine.

Let's move on to Matt Carkner, who decided he was going to fight Brian Boyle whether he liked it or not.

Again, Carkner was out to inflict damage against an unwilling combatant, again not in the flow of the play. But Boyle wasn't injured, and Carkner had asked Boyle to fight off the faceoff due to a prior incident (Shanahan's words, not mine), so he only received a one-game suspension.

Then there was Byron Bitz. His hit was dirty and probably more dangerous given the speed he approached than either those of Weber or Carkner. But it was also a check within the flow of the game.

Bitz was given a two-game suspension because Kings forward Kyle Clifford left the game with an injury, at least in part. There's no questioning how dangerous or dirty this hit was, either. With or without an injury, a two-game suspension was appropriate.

Which brings us finally to Carl Hagelin, whose hit in my opinion was no worse than that of Bitz. In fact, I'd have given Bitz a longer suspension. The fact that Daniel Alfredsson contorted his body in such a way that made collision with Hagelin's elbow inevitable would have factored into the decision.

Now, Hagelin still deserves a suspension for having his elbow up. It's just dangerous. But just because Bitz made contact with both the shoulder and head, and the injury to Clifford was less severe, doesn't mean he should get less of a suspension from Shanahan than Hagelin did.

But those were the reasons he gave.

How Shanahan handles the hits doled out by Arron Asham (almost assured to receive a lengthy suspension) and James Neal (two separate hearings for incidents on Sunday, though no Philadelphia Flyers sustained injury) of the Pittsburgh Penguins remains to be seen.

My guess?

The penalties probably will be a bit confounding. That's been the theme of this postseason. And until dirty hits are punished whether injury is sustained or not, that murkiness won't subside.

Hit me up on Twitter—my tweets light the lamp like Danny Briere.