Controversy Strikes NHL’s Department of Player Safety

The purpose of the Department of Player Safety (“the Department”) is to monitor on-ice conduct and provide supplemental discipline in order to preserve the integrity of the game.

The goal of supplementary discipline for on-ice conduct is to ensure the process is swift, effective, and consistent in matters that involve the use of excessive or unnecessary force and to deter reckless acts that result in injury.[i] When determining whether a player should face a hearing for supplemental discipline, the Department considers several factors.[ii] These include whether the type of conduct was an intentional or reckless violation of league rules, whether an injury occurred to the opposing player, the status of the offender, whether that player has a history with supplemental discipline, and the situation of the game in which the event occurred.[iii] Situational factors may include whether the misconduct happened late in the game, during a lopsided score, or following prior events in the game.[iv]

In the event an incident includes one of the factors listed above, the league will hold a preliminary review as soon as possible following the conclusion of the game.[v] This review involves gathering evidence, including video footage and reports from the on-ice officials about the incident.[vi] Certain infractions result in a per se suspension, meaning the player’s on-ice conduct automatically results in a one or two game suspension.[vii] For example, Florida Panthers defenseman Niko Mikkola received a five-minute major and a game misconduct for boarding Lightning forward Zemgus Girgensons.[viii] The incident occurred in the third period of game 4 when Mikkola checked Girgensons as he was falling into the end boards.[ix]

The Department has their hands full in the 2025 Battle of Florida playoff series. Lightning forward Brandon Hagel was suspended for one game and had to miss game 3 following a hit on Aleksander Barkov.[x] Hagel received a major penalty for interference after delivering a hit on Barkov, who did not have possession of the puck at the time of the contact.[xi] Since Barkov did not have possession of the puck, he was in a vulnerable position, making the hit an interference penalty.[xii]

Fast forward to game 3, there was another controversial play similar to the Hagel hit, yet this time, no supplemental discipline was issued. Many found it surprising that Panthers forward Matthew Tkachuk did not receive additional discipline for his hit on Lightning forward Jake Guentzel.[xiii] Although Tkachuk was assessed a five-minute major, the Department deemed that sufficient.[xiv] Their reasoning was that Guentzel had recently touched the puck and Tkachuk did not make contact with Guentzel’s head.[xv] Ultimately, the Department concluded that Tkachuk’s hit was with less force than Hagel’s and did not warrant further punishment.[xvi]

Many believe that the Department should have suspended Tkachuk, and it almost seems the Department strayed away from the factors they typically consider when determining whether to hold a supplemental hearing. Tkachuk has been suspended four times during his NHL career.[xvii] The hit on Guentzel occurred late in the third period while the Lightning held a 4-1 lead, and it followed the earlier controversy involving Hagel’s hit on Barkov. The difference between the two was that Barkov was forced to leave the game, whereas Guentzel was able to continue playing.[xviii] The Department viewed this distinction as sufficient to decline a supplemental hearing for Tkachuk.

With many more playoff games to come, it will be interesting to see what role the Department of Player Safety will play.

[i] https://www.nhlpa.com/the-pa/cba

[ii] Id. at 116

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/panthers-niko-mikkola-ejected-vs-lightning-for-boarding/

[ix] Id.

[x] https://www.nhl.com/news/topic/player-safety/lightning-brandon-hagel-suspended-one-game-for-interference

[xi] Id.