Vancouver Canucks defenseman Tyler Myers was assessed a major penalty for elbowing after the referees appeared to review a boarding penalty on defenseman Ian Cole.  Can they do that?

Not exactly.  Though that might not be exactly how it played out. 

During the third period of Saturday’s game, Myers hit Columbus forward Sean Kuraly along the boards.  As he delivered the hit, Myers turned his body, whipping his arm around and catching Kuraly with an elbow to the face.  Moments later, Cole hit winger Justin Danforth from behind, driving him into the boards. 

Refereee Michael Markovic’s arm shot up immediately. He headed over to the officials’ crease where he spoke with linesman Mark Shewchyk before making an announcement: “There is a major penalty on the play. It’ll be under review.”

 

 

While the broadcast indicated that the penalty was on Cole, it’s not apparent that the officials had initially whistled Myers or Cole.  It’s also possible that Markovic, based on his discussion with Shewchyk, changed the call on the ice before reviewing the play. 

The Linesperson must report upon completion of play, any circumstances pertaining to … (vi) Major penalties

Remember, on-ice officials are allowed to huddle and discuss a penalty – even changing the call – without the benefit of video replay. 

When it comes to the review, though, it’s limited to only what was called on the ice.  From Rule 20.6:

Referees shall review all plays that result in the assessment of any Major Penalty for the purpose of confirming (or modifying) their original call on the ice.

Such reviews will be conducted exclusively by the Referee(s) on the ice in consultation with other On-Ice Official(s), as appropriate, using the technology (for example, a handheld tablet or a television or computer monitor) specified in and provided pursuant to Rule 38.5. Communication between the Situation Room and the On-Ice Officials shall be limited to contact between the appropriate Game Logger in the Situation Room and the Referee to ensure the Referee is receiving any and all video they might request, as well as the appropriate replay angles they may need to review the penalty call. There shall be no other contact or consultation between the On-Ice Official(s) and the NHL Situation Room, or with any other non-game participant.

The Referee shall have the following options after video review of his own call: (i) confirming his original Major Penalty call; (ii) reducing his original Major Penalty call to a lesser penalty; or (iii) rescinding the original Major Penalty altogether.

Markovic relayed the ruling: Myers would be given a major penalty and a game misconduct for elbowing.

The NHL rule book covers Elbowing under Rule 45:

Elbowing shall mean the use of an extended elbow in a manner that may or may not cause injury. 

A major penalty must be imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent. When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for an infraction resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct penalty shall also be imposed.

Clearly an elbow; clearly an injury. That’s the right call. 

As far as how they got there, it would be extremely helpful to know what the original call on the ice was prior to video review. 

If the call was a major to Myers, they were right to review. If the call was a major to Cole, their only options would be to confirm the major, reduce it to a minor, or wipe it out completely.  NHL officials cannot call a penalty based on video review — they can only review the one they called on the ice. 

Assuming that Shewchyk or one of the other officials clarified that they saw the elbow as the major, and that was the play that was reviewed, they got the call right.  Almost.

Cole still deserved a minor penalty for boarding on this play.  Unfortunately, if it wasn’t initally called on the ice… they can’t call it in the review. 

 

UPDATE: The NHL’s Departmen of Player Safety has fined Myers $5000 for elbowing for this play.