.jpg)
1 hour ago
2
Charlie McAvoy’s slash on Zach Benson was reckless, emotional, and fully deserving of supplemental discipline — but the NHL Department of Player Safety’s handling of the entire sequence once again exposed just how inconsistent and difficult to decipher player safety can be when precedent, context, and retaliation collide.
The league announced Tuesday evening that the Bruins defenseman will serve a six-game suspension to begin next season after his late-game slash on Benson during Boston’s Game 6 elimination loss to the Buffalo Sabres. McAvoy was assessed a major penalty and game misconduct on the play with less than 90 seconds remaining, effectively ending both his night and the Bruins’ season in one ugly moment.
There is no real argument that McAvoy should have escaped punishment. You cannot swing your stick down on an opponent in retaliation, no matter how heated the situation becomes. The NHL had to respond, and six games falls within a range that feels reasonable.
In fact, considering McAvoy’s history, it honestly could have been worse.
This marks the third suspension of his NHL career, following previous bans for illegal checks to the head against Josh Anderson and Oliver Ekman-Larsson. Repeat offenders are supposed to face escalating discipline, and given that background, the Department of Player Safety easily could have justified pushing this closer to eight games — maybe even more.
When Frustration Becomes The Real Infraction
But what complicates the conversation is the sequence that led to the retaliation in the first place.
Benson’s slew foot on McAvoy was dangerous. There is really no softer way to describe it. Slew footing leaves players defenseless as their legs are taken out from underneath them, often sending them crashing backward with little ability to protect themselves. It is one of the more dangerous plays in hockey precisely because of its potential to cause head, neck, or back injuries.
And yet, Benson largely escaped meaningful punishment.
MORE: Bruins' Charlie McAvoy Suspended Six Games For Slashing Sabres' Zach Benson
He received a minor penalty for tripping and moved on, while the retaliation that followed became the centerpiece of the league’s disciplinary response. That imbalance is where frustration around this incident starts to build, especially from Boston’s perspective.
None of that excuses what McAvoy did. Veteran leaders are expected to maintain control, particularly franchise players wearing letters on their jerseys. But it is also not difficult to understand why emotions boiled over in that moment when a dangerous play appeared to receive little more than a shrug from the officials.
The NHL’s Inconsistency Problem Comes Into Focus
That gray area is exactly where NHL Player Safety consistently loses credibility with fans and players alike.
The league insists every incident is judged independently, but once you start stacking comparable cases together, the pattern becomes harder to ignore.
Take Alex Pietrangelo, for example. His two-handed slash on Leon Draisaitl in a late, frustrated playoff moment earned just one playoff game. Compared to McAvoy’s six regular-season games, it immediately raises the long-running question of how the league truly weighs playoff discipline versus regular-season suspensions.
Then there is Duncan Keith, who received a one-game suspension for a violent stick swing during the 2012 Western Conference Final that left Jeff Carter requiring 20 stitches. In that case, the on-ice damage arguably exceeded what McAvoy inflicted, yet the punishment was significantly lighter.
On the other end of the spectrum are the true outliers that define the extremes of NHL discipline. Chris Simon received a 30-game suspension for stomping on Jarkko Ruutu, while Marty McSorley was handed 23 games for striking Donald Brashear with his stick. Those incidents sit in a completely different category of violence, but they still help frame how far the league has historically gone when stick-related conduct crosses a certain line.
Even the middle ground remains messy. Keith Ballard received a four-game suspension for a retaliatory slash on Matt Martin. Auston Matthews received two games for a cross-check/slash combination on Rasmus Dahlin. And players like P.K. Subban have swung between fines and suspensions depending on timing, context, and interpretation.
Put it all together, and the McAvoy ruling doesn’t feel wrong — but it doesn’t feel fully consistent either.
Six games are defensible. That’s the uncomfortable truth. McAvoy crossed a line, and the league had to respond meaningfully.
But the broader issue remains unchanged: similar actions continue to produce different outcomes depending on timing, history, optics, and who happens to be making the call.
MORE: Radko Gudas’ latest dangerous hit puts NHL Department of Player Safety to the test
Take some examples for this year’s post-season. Ridly Greig was given just two games for a sucker punch to Sean Walker, who was already tied up with another player. The punch left Walker bleeding, and it came at a moment when the Ottawa Senators were down and out against the Carolina Hurricanes. Additionally, Arber Xhekaj of the Montreal Canadiens and Josh Norris of the Sabres threw some questionable punches in Game 3 of the second round and went unpunished.
Even Anaheim Ducks’ Radko Gudas was given fewer games for ending Toronto Maple Leafs’ Auston Matthews’ season with a brutal knee-on-knee hit.
Until that part of the system becomes clearer, every ruling like this will sit in the same uncomfortable space — somewhere between justified discipline and educated guesswork.
More NHL News
- 2026 NHL mock draft: Maple Leafs, Sharks win big in draft lottery
- 5 items Maple Leafs GM John Chayka must address this summer
- 3 winners and losers of the 2026 NHL draft lottery
- Following a slew of bad news, the NHL draft lottery win is a shift in momentum for the Maple Leafs
- 3 NHL trade fits for Dallas Stars' Jason Robertson
English (US)