Mar 22, 2013, 11:46 PM EDT
After an outcry from fans and media toward the National Hockey League for not suspending New York Rangers forward Rick Nash for a controversial hit on Tomas Kopecky, the league’s Department of Player Safety responded.
The league released a video explanation for why Nash was not suspended for a high hit on the Florida Panthers’ forward on Thursday.
It was stated during the video explanation that: “Although we do not think this was a legal hit, we also believe it does not rise to the level of supplemental discipline.”
It was also stated that Kopecky turned his back “just prior to Nash making contact, which contributes to the impact of the hit.”
The department deemed that Nash did not target Kopecky’s head and that it was not the principal point of contact.
Earlier in the day, the league’s disciplinarian, Brendan Shanahan, called the Nash hit “rotten” but that it was not enough for a suspension.
The Canucks released a statement Friday evening, saying the club did not agree with the league’s decision, but would not comment further.
- WATCH LIVE: Rangers at Lightning, Game 4 of Eastern Conference Final 0
- Fetisov wants to restrict young Russians from playing in the NHL 25
- All eyes on Lundqvist 10
- Quenneville opted for ‘fresh legs’ by inserting Nordstrom, Versteeg into lineup 10
- Video: Ducks hold off Blackhawks in Game 3 to take series lead 30
- (Video) PHT Extra: On Babcock, sticking to the process and housebuilding analogies 3
- Babcock predicts ‘pain’ for Leafs, who are a ‘massive, massive challenge’ 38
- Babcock wants to ‘put Canada’s team back on the map’ 47
- Flyers won’t trade Del Zotto, but ‘something will have to give’ on crowded blue line 21
- What’s wrong with Lundqvist? 70
- Reports: Sabres thought they had a deal with Babcock, aren’t happy (172)
- Leafs land Babcock with reported 8-year deal, estimated at $50 million (130)
- Russia to be punished for ‘completely out of order’ actions after Worlds final loss to Canada (91)
- Report: Sabres negotiating with Babcock (82)
- What’s wrong with Lundqvist? (70)