‘It Does Not Matter What Part Of The Player Was Impacted First’: NHL Department Of Player Safety Explains Illegal Check-To-The-Head Rule After Recent Incidents with Maple Leafs’ Ryan Reaves and Matthew Knies

After a handful of hit-to-the-head checks over the past week, the NHL’s Department of Player Safety released a video on X on Thursday that analyzed and further explained Rule 48 – the illegal check-to-the-head rule. The video stems from a series of hits including Los Angeles Kings’ Tanner Jeannot and Toronto Maple Leafs’ Ryan Reaves and Matthew Knies.

Breaking Down the Rule

In the five-minute video, the league emphasized that for a hit to be deemed illegal, two specific criteria must be met:

1. The head must be the main point of contact.

2. Determine whether the head was avoidable.

“It does not matter what part of the player was impacted first.” the video stated. “What matters is what part of the player absorbed the majority of the impact of the hit.”

The department reinforced that both elements are essential for determining the legality of a check, urging players to consider their timing and angle of approach.

“A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.”

Ryan Reaves Suspension

Reaves was handed a five-game suspension for a high hit on Edmonton Oilers defenseman Darnell Nurse last Saturday. The incident occurred in the second period when Nurse retrieved the puck behind his net. Reaves’ hit left Nurse bloodied and unable to return to the game.

Analyzing the hit, the department explained:

“On this hit by Reaves on Nurse, Reaves makes minimal contact with Nurse’s body and the head absorbs the brunt of the impact. Note the way Nurse’s head moves independently of his body and absorbing the force of this hit.”

The video further highlighted that poor timing and angle of approach helped make the play illegal, comparing it to a hit made by Jeannot, who received a three-game suspension. The department said that for both players, they “cut along the front of their opponent’s core rather than hitting directly through their opponent’s shoulder or chest,” leading to forcefully delivering direct head contact.

Related: ‘I Think It’s Pretty Obvious What’s Going On There’: Oilers’ Darnell Nurse Reacts To Maple Leafs’ Ryan Reaves Hit, Brother Jordan Responds To Comments On Instagram

Matthew Knies Injury, No Penalty

Conversely, Matthew Knies was on the receiving end of a controversial hit during Wednesday’s game against the Vegas Golden Knights. Defenseman Zach Whitecloud delivered a high hit at center ice that left Knies unable to return after the second intermission due to an upper-body injury.

Despite the head contact, no penalty was assessed on the play. The department explained why the hit was ruled legal:

“On the hit by Whitecloud, Whitecloud hits through the body of Knies,” the video stated. “While there is inarguably head contact here, we see Knies’ entire body stopped in its tracks and driven backwards simultaneously with his head in a way that indicates the body absorbed the force of this check.”

The department praised Whitecloud’s angle of approach noting that he stepped up directly through Knies’ core and avoided unnecessarily elevating into the hit.

“Whitecloud takes a good angle of approach, stepping up directly through Knies’ core. And while Whitecloud does come up off the ice due to the force of the contact of the hit, he does not elevate up excessively or unnecessarily to pick the head as he delivers the check. This means that the head contact on this play is considered unavoidable head contact on a play where the hitter is throwing an otherwise legal full body check.”

Related: Matthew Knies ‘Improving’ But Will Not Play Against Utah Hockey Club On Sunday, Max Domi May Return And Other Lineup Updates

The explanation for the series of hits is an attempt to provide clarity on the fine line between a legal and illegal hit, emphasizing here that intent, timing, and technique are among the critical factors.