Timo Meier’s recent ejection after being assessed a five-minute major penalty and a game misconduct has sparked intense debate among NHL fans and analysts. The call in question came after Meier’s hit on Martin Necas during a tightly contested game. While the play did not result in Necas missing any shifts, the referees deemed it severe enough to warrant the harsh penalty.

The Hit: Meier delivered what appeared to be a knee-on-knee hit as Necas carried the puck through the neutral zone.

Immediate Reaction: Necas went down briefly but was able to return to the game without visible injury.

Referees’ Decision: A five-minute major and a game misconduct were issued, citing the hit as dangerous and potentially reckless.

Player Safety: The NHL has made it clear that it prioritizes protecting players from potentially career-threatening injuries, such as those resulting from knee-on-knee hits.

Intent vs. Result: Even if unintentional, the reckless nature of Meier’s positioning could have caused significant harm, justifying the major penalty.

Consistency: Similar hits in the past have been penalized in the same way, maintaining a precedent.

Lack of Injury: Necas continued playing without missing a shift, leading some to question the severity of the penalty.

Hockey Play Gone Wrong?: Critics argue that Meier’s intent wasn’t malicious, and the collision could be chalked up to an unfortunate angle rather than recklessness.

Impact on the Game: A five-minute major and a game misconduct can drastically shift the momentum of a game, and some feel the punishment didn’t fit the crime.

Support for the Refs: “You can’t let dangerous plays like this slide, even if it wasn’t intentional. Player safety comes first.”

Criticism of the Decision: “It’s hockey. Collisions happen. This was a soft call that changed the game unnecessarily.”

Whether the call was “right” depends on perspective. From a player safety and league consistency standpoint, the referees made a defensible decision. However, the lack of injury and debate over Meier’s intent leave room for disagreement.

What do you think? Was the five-minute major and game misconduct the correct call, or should it have been handled differently?