Did they say why they weren’t suspending him? To me it looked like there was some head contact in the hit. It did look like he glanced away for a second, but is that why Richard’s didn’t get the suspension?

Posted by Eric on 10/25/09 at 12:16 PM ET

I finally saw the hit today, and I have to say the way everyone talked about it I thought it would be much worse.  All Richards did was essentially skate into him at high speed.  Booth’s chin hit the back of Richard’s shoulder and that’s what knocked him out.  No elbow, and no leaving of the feet until he after the contact was made.  There shouldn’t have even been a penalty called on the play, it was a split second after Booth passed the puck.  Another example of the refs reacting to the outcome of the play, and not the actual play.

Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 10/25/09 at 01:17 PM ET

Seth at Empty Netters outlines why this ruling is a joke.

NHL came out and said that hits like this could result in suspensions.

They list the criteria, of which both “Hit unsuspecting player in the head” and “repeat offender” apply to this hit, and they say that “If any or all of these factors occur, you run the risk of getting suspended.”

They then go on to show some examples of illegal hits, and show Colby Armstrong hitting Trevor Letowski in a very similar hit. So please tell me why this hit is clean?

Posted by Kstewy16 on 10/25/09 at 07:58 PM ET

According to NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy, who was in charge of making the final ruling, there were a number of reasons that led to the decision not to suspend Richards: he did not target Booth’s head; he did not leave his feet to deliver the blow; he did not hit an unsuspecting player; he is not a repeat offender; and he did not hit Booth late, as it was determined the blow was delivered less than a half-second after Booth passed the puck.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 10/26/09 at 06:03 AM ET