Skip to content

Report: No disciplinary hearing for Avs’ Olver after Tarasenko hit

Feb 21, 2013, 11:17 AM EDT

Colorado forward Mark Olver won’t face any supplemental discipline for his hit on St. Louis Blues rookie Vladimir Tarasenko in the Avalanche’s 1-0 overtime win on Wednesday night, according to an NHL spokesman.

Here’s the hit in question:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!

The NHL’s reigning rookie of the month, Tarasenko left the contest immediately following the hit and didn’t return.

Tarasenko was then taken to a local hospital for examination, but was released after the game and rejoined the Blues for their flight back to St. Louis.

Olver wasn’t penalized on the play.

Update: Former NHL referee Kerry Fraser said Olver should’ve received a two minute charging minor on the play.

  1. wannabebluesplayer - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

    That’s pathetic. He clearly had intent to hit him and because Tarasenko turned around it was a hit to the head. If he doesn’t, Olver hits him in the back and it’s hitting from behind. Good job being inconsistent NHL. Backes gets match penalty for a hit that wasn’t a headshot and Olver recieves nothing for hitting a player in a vulnerable position. I hate to say it but next time these to teams meet, I hope Duchene gets blindsided by someone. Let’s see what happens.

    • wannabebluesplayer - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      I’m not saying I want Duchene hurt, but I want retribution. I mean he is bleeding from the mouth by getting hit from a shoulder to his FACE. Watch the video closely and you’ll see principal point of contact is the head and Olver had no intention of slowing down as Tarasenko turned.

      Player was in a bad position and Olver didn’t let up at all, how often has that been called an illegal hit. NHL = worst officiated and most inconsistent when it comes to discipline. Only protects certain teams/players.

      • ibieiniid - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        first off, you DID say you want Duchene hurt… even in the sentence where you said you don’t want Duchene hurt, you said you want Duchene hurt.

        second, the guy was coming in pretty slow when Tarasenko’s back was turned, he could have easily just bumped into him, not necessarily thrown a big hit to his back. he saw him turning, decided to lay the hit, and height was a factor for the shot to the head. he didn’t move his arms or body INTO the head, and didn’t leave his skates whatsoever. just kept his path.

        no intent to injure. good hit.

      • hockeywithdrawal - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM

        You said “and height was a factor for the shot to the head”…then you said “good hit”.

        I don’t think it can be both.

      • ibieiniid - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        and i don’t give a s— what you think

      • yotesfan61 - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM

        In the second view replay you can see Olver gliding in the entire way. It’s not like he was full bore. Penalize him for hitting a “vulnerable” player? So if a guy is coming through the neutral zone with his head down he’s not allowed to get hit because he’s put himself in a “vulnerable” position? It was a solid hit. Feet never left the ice. No elbow. Where’s the penalty? I dont see one.

      • wannabebluesplayer - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        No, Ibieiniid, I didn’t say I want Duchene hurt, I said retribution and gets blind sided. You can get hit hard cleanly and not get hurt. HURT is completely different. The hit wasn’t clean no matter if he was gliding or not. Tarasenko didn’t put himself into a vulnerable position, because if he DOESN’T turn, its a hit square to the numbers and thats hitting from behind. Tarasenko’s head wasn’t down, and he was paying attention to his play. Olver came from ACROSS the rink.

        Call it a good hit all you want, when someone’s shoulder hits the guy in the face as the principal point of contact, that’s a hit to the head and in the new NHL should be a suspension. I am sure if this was someone on your team, you would be calling for blood as well.

      • hockeywithdrawal - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        hahaha so Philly…


      • ibieiniid - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        nah it HAPPENED to someone on my team. Simmonds got hit in the head a month ago. Wasn’t dirty, wasn’t intended, I didn’t bit– about it one bit… in fact, the contact was a lot like this hit.

        and withdrawal… how are you not sick of yourself by now?

      • yotesfan61 - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM

        He never left his feet, and Tarasenko is actually 2″ taller then Olver….shoulder to head contact is Olver’s fault? Is he supposed to duck to hit the guy? And who’s to say he would have ran through the back of him if he didnt turn around. If it was my team, I wouldn’t be crying about anything. If Tarasenko shakes it off and skates away from this hit there wouldn’t even be an article about it. No discussion. Just a big, clean hit. But he’s injured…so Olver needs to be penalized!!

      • hockeywithdrawal - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM

        right, d-bag…when Simmonds got elbowed all the dirt in Philly caused an uproar and wanted Erskine out…and if you think for one second that you scum are allowed your opinions and no one else, then eff off.

      • ibieiniid - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        nonono you’ve got it all wrong. i don’t mind if other people have their opinions. yours are just routinely biased, unintelligent, poorly constructed, and in most cases, obviously 100% incorrect.

        so ya I care about everyone’s opinion but yours.

        also, I know you like generalizing about the entire population of Philadelphia, but don’t lump me in with whatever Philly fans you’re referring to. he said if it was MY team, I’d want retribution too… which I didn’t.

      • hockeywithdrawal - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        I don’t think my original comment was in any way biased.

      • sunderlanding - Feb 21, 2013 at 3:17 PM

        I don’t think you understand how the NHL rules headshots. You can make contact with the head so long as it’s not the principle point of contact. He clearly hits the whole body, head included. Principle point means the head was hit more than anything else. This is a full body hit.

  2. yotesfan61 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM

    Great hit. Unfortunate for Tarasenko though.

  3. chanceoffleury1 - Feb 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Right after the hit his eyes like roll to the back of his head and he looks possessed when he’s just laying there on the ice. This is a bad call by the NHL. Whether it be a fine or a suspension, it definitely deserves something.

  4. sjsharks66 - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:17 PM

    What a silly picture.

    • ibieiniid - Feb 21, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      i think this might be my favorite comment today.

  5. lsxphotog - Feb 21, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    He got jacked up on the hit. You could tell he was dazed big time when the play happened. I saw him just looking around randomly with blood coming out of his mouth…never a good sign. I don’t expect him to be back anytime soon at all.

    As far as the hit goes, it would have been a hit in a vulnerable position even if he didn’t turn around. Turning around meant that he was lit up and hit in the face. Was it clean? Not too sure. Like I said, when Olver made his commitment to hit Tatasenko, he was not in the position to accept a clean, legal hit. I don’t like the look of the play each time I watch it. It just doesn’t sit right that he went after Tarasenko’s number on his back, and he turns around last second and it’s legal.

  6. deeznutz3d - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    he had his head down and got rocked……that’s hockey.

  7. spavs412 - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:36 PM

    Man this is tough! I don’t have a dog in this fight but he is obviously bigger and that’s what cause the force to the head. I mean his arms down dude just turned with his head down a bit thus making the hit like that. I guess contact to the head is contact to the head and it needs to be black and white. He wasn’t head hunting or attempting to do so but fine him and move on..

  8. manchestermiracle - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:37 PM

    Quite a few bloodthirsty fans on here. A shoulder to the face is hardly a clean hit and certainly should have been dealt with more severely. If Tarasenko doesn’t turn at the last second Olver hits him in the back. Still a penalty but maybe Tarasenko doesn’t end up injured.

  9. gillette2112 - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:37 PM

    Haha what a joke wannabluesplayer it just mad your team can’t score on the 13th place team. Clean hit all the way.

  10. und77 - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM

    Looks like my cousin ricky at thanksgiving dinner… (Cuz has the downs though)

  11. misterchainbluelightning - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:44 PM

    Why would there be a hearing?

    A hockey game was played and a kid got hit

    Moving on……

  12. thehighcountrybear - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    Hate to see the young man get hurt! Tarasenko was clearly unprepared to take what was a routine hit, the force of which was greatly exaggerated when he went to turn without screwing his skates into the ice, leading with a stiff shoulder and high elbow, all under-pinned by driving up and forward from a firm base. Had he done so, Olver would have let up, and tried to sand-bag him instead. Tarasenko came within a fraction of an inch of being guzzled whole by Tootoo in their first game of the season; he’ll learn, if he doesn’t, his career will be spectacular but spectacularly short…

  13. kingsforever - Feb 21, 2013 at 1:55 PM

    Clean hard hit,

    Move on…

  14. aspinaci - Feb 21, 2013 at 2:01 PM

    Clean hit. Next

  15. mattyboy1763 - Feb 21, 2013 at 2:12 PM

    Good hit. Basics of hockey.. keep your head up…

  16. ninetyoneblues - Feb 21, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    Shanahan and the NHL disciplinary committee are the biggest disgrace out of any sport and that piece of garbage from Colorado better watch his back next time they come to st.louis !! He should have gotten a very minimum of 5 game suspension ! The problem with last nights game is nobody stood up for tarasenko , personally I would have made that Colorado player an example .

    • ibieiniid - Feb 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM

      lets be honest, that colorado player would have made you into banana pudding

  17. Plumber 65 - Feb 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

    91 blues. You sound like a pretty tough dog behind the glass

  18. flyboys12 - Feb 21, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    Just another reason to see why the game is moving away from how it was meant to be played. There was absolutely no intenitonal head shot. He made contact with Tarasenko’s whole body. He didn’t leave his feet, there was no charging. Player’s these days are using the NHL (Shanaban’s) strict rules on hits to hide behind. It just looks like the younger players are going into the corners/dirty areas along the boards and are not bracing themselves for any sort of contact. It is one of the first things you learn growing up when you hit Pee-Wee’s and start checking. Good hit, bad result for Tarasenko, but no fault on Olver for delivering a solid body check. Move on…

    • eggserino - Feb 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM

      I thought the rule was result, not intention. Contact with the head, regardless of intention, is illegal.

  19. nunan - Feb 21, 2013 at 6:29 PM

    People need to start understanding that just because there was an injury, in this case a bloody mouth and dazed Tarasenko, doesn’t me the player who hit him went in with intent to injure. I’m not trying to be ‘one of those guys’ by saying this but if you don’t understand that the game is fast and inherently dangerous, you’ve never played. I don’t know how else to explain everyone’s opinion that all these hits are intentional, targeting the head, intent to injure, etc. They’re NOT. You have to accept that before you can make a judgement on the play. It’s why so much of the media and many of the fans explode of nothing hits. They immediately jump on the ‘headshot’ or ‘intent to injure’ bandwagon. It’s so ridiculous. Nobody in this league, with the exception of a few players, is running around trying to injure another player or knock their head off. That’s the truth. Injuries may happen but 99% have zero intent. Learn that.

    • eggserino - Feb 21, 2013 at 7:09 PM


      “48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered.”

      The question is not intent but if head contact could’ve been avoided. When Olver extends his forearm into the mouth of Tarasenko, I believe that he did not attempt to avoid head contact.

      • nunan - Feb 21, 2013 at 8:27 PM

        He didn’t “attempt to avoid head contact”…He obviously wasn’t trying to hit him in the head. Players don’t skate around attempting to avoid head contact. My point is that most people here start their analysis with the assumption the guy meant to hit him high. Look at the first few comments. He obviously hit him in the head and he should be punished but he was going to make a big hit, not to injure someone. So, the question is intent when it comes to how I see most people arguing these hits. There was head contact, there will be a punishment, etc. There was no intent though. People just want to be angry about hits, even when there is nothing to it. Look at the article by Larry Brooks in NY, I believe his name is. He is blaming an absolutely run of the mill hit by Lucic a week ago for the Rick Nash absence. His analysis is ridiculous.

        My point is not the interpretation of the rule, it’s the pathetic way in which people look at these situations. Everything is ‘intent to injure’ or ‘targeting the head’ when that is clearly not the issue. As for that definition, the part that says ‘where the head is target’ is meant for hits like Cooke on Savard a few years ago or Torres on Hossa. Not for standard hockey plays where contact with the head happened to occur, like this one.

        Apologize for length.

  20. eggserino - Feb 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM

    I was awaiting someone with more knowledge of the rules to weigh in. This, from Fraser, is a good illustration:

  21. houseof666 - Feb 21, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    I wish it was the ’90 s, we wouldn’t be talking about this

    Clean hit, lets play hockey.

  22. wannabebluesplayer - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    This is the complete explanation from a former official. And for all those who didn’t pay attention, Olver skated hard across the ice until he was a few feet away and glided into hit. He still hit him with plenty of speed and Fraser goes on to say that at the time he made the decision to finish his check, which was when Tarasenko still had his back to the wall, Olver’s play was reckless and should have been a penalty.

    THAT’S A FORMER REFEREE! To all those who say people don’t understand the rules, we do. Respect others opinions, and don’t claim to know more. Research is always a good way of back up your opinion.

    Hi Kerry,

    What did you think of Mark Olver’s hit on Vladimir Tarasenko in the third period of Wednesday’s game between the Avalanche and the Blues? The four officials on the ice looked like they were talking about it and one of them gave some sort of an explanation to coach Hitchcock. Should the hit have been penalized? What could the officials have explained to him?

    Dave Young


    There isn’t a clear-cut, black and white answer as we look at Mark Olver’s shoulder check to the jaw of Vladimir Tarasenko. I suspect opinions will vary as to whether a penalty should have been assessed on the play. There are a few aspects of Mark Olver’s hit, beyond just the principle point of contact being Tarasenko’s jaw, which I would like to share and ask you to consider in determining if a penalty was warranted on this play, given your best judgment.

    I, perhaps like Blues coach Ken Hitchcock, would have preferred the assessment of at least a minor penalty for charging by one of the referees on this hit that went bad. Based on Tarasenko’s turn toward Olver immediately prior to contact, I do not believe that a charging major and game misconduct would have been justified in spite of the injury sustained to the St. Louis player’s face or head. Tarasenko’s turn also prevented the application of Rule 48 — Ilegal Check to the Head since contact did not result from a lateral or blind side hit, nor was the head targeted as the principle point of contact.

    It is my belief that the officials did not have a good look at this play from their respective angles, nor were they focused on the distance that Olver travelled through open ice as a potential secondary checker on Tarasenko.

    Avs defenceman Greg Zanon would have been the official’s primary blip on their radar as he approached Tarasenko from the goal line position. Zanon’s objective would be to contain the slick Russian rookie as he gained puck possession on a ring-around off the stick of Blues teammate Vladimir Sobotka.

    Tarasenko’s body position was square to the boards as he received the puck, therefore placing himself in a vulnerable position to be hit from behind, but wisely dished the puck back to Sobotka below the goal line prior to being checked by Zanon. Freeze frame this picture in your mind, folks and take on the visual focus that Olver would have had in this moment, given his incoming flight path.

    Olver approached with some speed (albeit gliding prior to impact) in a straight-line attack from a considerable distance and would/should have seen the numbers on the back of a vulnerable Tarasenko standing two feet from the boards and square to them!

    Red lights should have flashed for Olver that his opponent was not only in a vulnerable position but unsuspecting of the impending hit and would therefore be unable to protect or defend himself as described in Rule 43 — Checking from Behind. Without regard for Tarasenko’s vulnerable position, Olver made a conscious decision to finish his check.

    We can only speculate as to which type of hit would have rendered more damage to Tarasenko; either directly from behind or the shoulder pad to Tarasenko’s face once he turned immediately prior to Olver’s impending contact. Either way, we know that Olver made the decision to finish a hit on Tarasenko; a decision I deem to be reckless, dangerous and worthy of a penalty.

    Olver decided to steamroll Tarasenko whether it was from the back or the front on this play. Given Tarasenko’s vulnerability factor, it was a poor decision for Olver to make and should have been penalized in my judgment. It is very evident from Tarasenko’s eyes that he was in considerable distress after receiving the shoulder to his jaw. We can only hope that he is okay and returns to action quickly.

    Hitchcock was making his appeal to the officials, wondering out loud and with hand signals how it was possible for the four of them to miss what he felt was an obvious penalty after they had huddled at the penalty box. Now that you have seen the video along the perspective I have provided, the call is yours to make. I am going to stick with mine; two minutes for charging.

  23. thehighcountrybear - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    Fraser would know…? He confidently predicted Hansen would go unpunished, but the league stuck one game on his sorry back side…

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1957)
  2. P. Kane (1496)
  3. P. Datsyuk (1374)
  4. M. Richards (1241)
  5. M. Giordano (1212)