Skip to content

Stars’ Garbutt to have in-person hearing for Penner hit (Update: Penner responds)

Oct 21, 2013, 1:33 AM EDT

Dallas forward Ryan Garbutt will have an in-person hearing with the NHL’s Department of Player Safety regarding Sunday night’s high hit on Anaheim’s Dustin Penner, according to TSN’s Bob McKenzie.

Garbutt delivered the blow during the second period, but went unpenalized. Penner left the game and didn’t return.

“It was tough seeing him groggy getting up,” said Ducks coach Bruce Boudreau. “You always worry about your players when they’re knocked out, or close to being knocked out, but he seems fine.”

Here’s the hit in question:

It capped off an eventual evening for Garbutt, who — in addition to the headshot — also scored his first goal of the season and further drew Anaheim’s ire by kneeing Matthieu Perreault and slashing Ryan Getzlaf (both instances happened prior to the Penner hit, and earned Garbutt minor penalties).

Garbutt’s in-person hearing allows for the possibility of NHL discipline czar Brendan Shanahan to levy a suspension of more than five games but, as McKenzie points out, it doesn’t mean the suspension will automatically be five-plus.

Last week, St. Louis forward Maxim Lapierre had an in-person hearing for his check from behind on San Jose’s Dan Boyle, and received a five-game suspension.

UPDATE 1:51 a.m. ET

Following the game, Penner took to Twitter to voice his displeasure about the lack of a penalty call:

Penner also got into it with a few folks on Twitter as well. Check out his account @Dustinpenner25 to see it all.

Related: Ducks say Penner was briefly ‘knocked out,’ now fully mobile

  1. packerswin96 - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:39 AM

    20 games minimum, if the NHL were serious about getting rid of these kinds of hits, but they aren’t!! sigh!

    • sabatimus - Oct 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM

      I forget who it was, but there was a PHT commenter who said that, during any suspension of this type, the offender’s team ought to have to dress one less man for each game the offender is suspended. I think THAT would open some eyes.

      • c9castine - Oct 21, 2013 at 12:56 PM

        i dont oppose that view at all. makes sense. you suspend the guy why not make that a whole in the lineup. maybe punishing the players isn’t getting the job done and we need to go deeper and punish the teams and force them to coach this type of stupid play out of their players.

  2. Anoesis - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:42 AM

    Kneeing, slashing, head-hunting. Garbutt’s a fine piece of work, ain’t he? And how do both refs fail to issue a penalty on that hit? It isn’t like it happened away from the puck. Guess they were busy looking for tucked sweaters.

  3. stinkpretty1 - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:45 AM

    Hard to see when he left the ice though, almost looks like it was right after the contact was made, instead of a charge. Pro’s are really good at the upward hits now.

    • hockeydon10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 6:55 AM

      Charging is any violent check. Leaving the ice is irrelevant.

      • upper90cheese - Oct 21, 2013 at 7:42 AM

        So any big hit is considered charging? Maybe Penner should keep his head up. This head shot hysteria is nauseating.

      • joey4id - Oct 21, 2013 at 8:09 AM

        upper90chese, any hit to the head is considered illegal be it with the shoulder or the elbow whether charging or not. Period.

      • hockey412 - Oct 21, 2013 at 8:11 AM

        Upper90, no. Hockeydon is saying that leaving the ice is not the only criteria for charging (but it actually is covered under the charging rules). The charging rules haven’t changed for quite some time, and are available to anyone that wishes to learn them.

        42.1 Charging – A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

        Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

        42.2 Minor Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

        42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

        42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

        42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

        This hit clearly fell under 42.4/42.5 in my opinion, but there’s really no way to argue that it didn’t at the very least fall under 42.2. To me it’s ridiculous anytime a player builds speed, comes from across the ice, with no intention of playing the puck (enter Rinaldo discussion).

      • imleftcoast - Oct 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

        412, that does clarify it. It’s not the worst hit I’ve seen, but he was targeting the head. I’d say 5 games min.

  4. jhaegs - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:33 AM

    There is no such thing as “might of”. It is might’ve (might have)…

    • 50shadesofdistrict12 - Oct 21, 2013 at 2:55 AM

      That bothers me too, but seeing as how he was knocked silly, maybe we should give him a break on the grammar, hmm?

    • pxland - Oct 21, 2013 at 8:22 AM

      Keeping us safe from the evils of improper english!

      Thank you Brendan Grammarhan!

  5. aventador12 - Oct 21, 2013 at 3:46 AM

    There shouldn’t be any question in the first place because how in the world would a 6ft player hit a 6’4 in the head with an elbow? He clearly launched himself to deliver the hit. And for the blind-zebras to not see the incident, that should be the big question that needs action in mind.

  6. hockeydon10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 6:58 AM

    Teams need to be punished as well. The length of Garbutt’s suspension should match the number of games the Stars play with one less player on the bench. As it currently stands, teams tell marginal players they have to do anything they can to stay with the team. While that’s not the same as telling a player to go out and head-hunt, it’s damn close.

    • sabatimus - Oct 21, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      Ah, you beat me on the one less player on the bench point by about 5 hours :).

  7. joey4id - Oct 21, 2013 at 7:37 AM

    unpenalized….. What a joke? They guy traveled a log distance and instead of driving his shoulder into the chest of Penner he targeted his head. We’re seeing too many of these hits early in the season. Clearly the NHL’s policing on head shots is not very effective. You can’t remove a player from the lineup to punish the team. No way teams can play with one less player. A team’s schedule is too grueling to do that.

  8. dutchman1350 - Oct 21, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    One less player on the bench during the suspension will force teams to police their own players. Plus GMs won’t sign these goons. Got to fix from within.

    • hockeydon10 - Oct 21, 2013 at 9:31 AM


      Plus, when the cap first went in the Flames played with a short bench during the 2008-09 season for weeks. They still managed just fine.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1814)
  2. P. Kessel (1391)
  3. M. Richards (1181)
  4. N. Backstrom (1091)
  5. M. Giordano (1038)