Today in old news...

I've watched the video of Chara driving Pacioretty into the stanchion between the benches over and over again since last Tuesday and have read what must be close to fifty articles from all the different sides in an attempt to figure out how exactly I feel about it.  I've come up with the following:

1. It is making me very sick to my stomach.
2. It was interference gone terribly, terribly wrong.
3. I have no idea what Chara's "intent" was, nor do I think it can be discerned from watching a video at top speed. As for slow motion and freeze-frames -- it is far too easy too take any individual moment and extrapolate some minute expression on Chara's face or placement of his hand to help indict him.

I have never supported the NHL dolling out punishment based on injury, as I believe that it is the action itself that should be punished. Slight differences to body positioning at top speeds can mean the difference between a hit knocking a player off the puck or knocking him out cold.

This is why I believe that if a player is performing an action that is deemed dangerous or reckless he should be penalized, even if the victim doesn't end up missing a shift. A high stick that knocks the back of a guy's helmet and a high stick that draws blood should be treated equally by league officials, as it is the action itself that is the problem. A stick in the air poses a danger to all the other players on the ice, which is why it warrants a penalty. No room for interpretation, no question about a player's intent, just the penalty that is outlined in the rules.*

(*Unless you're Tyler Ennis, apparently.)

Of course, situations like the Chara hit, much like the head-shot issue, are not quite as clear-cut. What Chara did was interference, and was duly punished on the play. He received a major and a game misconduct, likely as much to keep him out of the game to prevent a third period gong show than anything else.

This takes us to Wednesday, when Chara had his call with the league to determine supplemental discipline. The result, as I'm sure you're aware, is that there was none. The league called the injury sustained by Pacioretty an unfortunate result to a hockey play, but believed that Chara did not act with malicious intent, and thus chose not to suspend him.

I understand this; what Chara did was no more against the rules than any other routine interference call. Pacioretty's injury was a result of where the hit occurred on the ice -- the turnbuckle between the benches. Now, I would love to see some sort of rule put in place by the NHL that acknowledges the danger that this part of the rink poses to its athletes. However, the way the rulebook is currently written, Chara was making a defensive play to keep Pacioretty away from the puck because he knew he had been beaten by the guy's speed. It was an illegal play, yes, but it was still just interference.

The controversy over the hit stems from the question of intent on the part of Chara; did he or did he not intend to injure Pacioretty, knowing - and he did know, as he is a professional hockey player and has played in rinks with the exact same structure for 13 years - where he was on the ice. Chara claims he did not, Pacioretty disagrees, and everyone else is picking sides using completely identical videos and freeze-frames as evidence.

The NHL  shot itself in the foot when it decided supplemental discipline would be dependent on the "intent" behind an action, because there is absolutely no way to know a player's intent at any given moment of a high-speed hockey game. Did Chara want to take Pacioretty out with the hit? Well, I assume so. Wouldn't any defenseman hope to hit an opponent hard enough to keep him from getting to the puck? But did he intend to cause a severe concussion and fracture a vertebra? I doubt it. Chara knew exactly what he was doing and where on the ice he was when he hit Pacioretty, but I don't believe for a second he had any idea the full extent of the damage such a hit could cause. But here's the thing: none of that should matter.

The hit was reckless given where it occurred on the ice, and should warrant suspension because of that; not because of supposed malicious intent. A player got injured on an illegal play and Chara should be held responsible. The NHL needs to implement a rule that carries a specific penalty for a reckless play that puts a player in this sort of danger, without the caveat of whatever it is Mike Murphy decides is going on in the player's head at that given moment.

The room for interpretation regarding "intent" is the very reason Rule 48 is such a contested mess. It needs to be fixed going forward, and here's an opportunity for the NHL to show that even if it doesn't know how, it understands why.