Commentary: ECAC Should Have Punished QU's Priskie

Senior Star's Actions Warrant More Than DQ

by Joe Meloni/Senior Writer (@JoeMeloni)

Chase Priskie kicked someone on Saturday night.

Now, in most circumstances, that wouldn't be acceptable. Kicking people is bad in most cases.

Making matters worse, as you likely know, is that Priskie plays hockey. For Quinnipiac. He's a star. The best player on one of the nation's best teams. And he kicked someone. During a game. With his skates on.

For his effort, Priskie received a 5-minute major and a game disqualification, meaning he's suspended for Quinnipiac's next game. The Bobcats, champions of the ECAC's regular season, received a bye directly into the league's quarterfinals. So Priskie's disqualification counts him out of the first game of that playoff series.

It's a start.

It shouldn't be the end.

Priskie deserves more punishment for his action. An additional pair of games would rule him out for either Games 2 and 3 of the ECAC quarterfinal series, Game 2 and an ECAC semifinal, or Game 2 and the first game of the NCAA tournament.

It appears, though, this will not be the case. I say "appears" because no one will comment.

College Hockey News reached out to all interested parties, including Quinnipiac coach Rand Pecknold, ECAC commissioner Steve Hagwell and ECAC Director of Officials Paul Stewart. All did not answer or declined to comment.

According to an ECAC source, the hit was under review as of Monday afternoon. Similarly, a source at Yale said the program firmly believes Priskie deserves additional punishment. No one from the ECAC has been in contact with anyone at Yale.

The league has a policy that all reviews must be done within a couple of days. There hasn't been an announcement, which suggests that no additional punishment was levied, though no one will confirm it.

The ECAC should have taken a stand here and demonstrated that it takes its players' safety and itself seriously. Even though it's a star player. Even though it's playoff time.

I wasn't at the game Saturday. I understand the tension in the building when Quinnipiac and Yale play. It's one of the better rivalries in college hockey. QU's dominance and both teams' playing styles tend to lead to some testy moments. But video of the fracas that led to Priskie's kick is unmistakably clear. He kicked Yale's Tyler Welsh in the chest just after Welsh fell to ice. Welsh's leg became tangled with Quinnipiac goaltender Andrew Shortridge's right arm the play. Priskie shoved Welsh just as Shortridge jerked his arm to disentangle Welsh. The Yale player's face hit in the ice, causing a cut. At that point, Priskie drives his skate into Welsh.

The shoves to the face, facemask grasping, and straight-up punches always seen during scrums are bad enough. Driving a skate into an opponent's chest is a gross display of recklessness that is so far beneath the player Priskie is and the program Quinnipiac is. The slightest shift from either player sends a skate blade directly into Welsh.

Aside from the league, Hobey Baker voters need to take notice. The senior, despite his unquestioned status as one of the nation's best, should be gone from the Hobey Baker discussion and the Lowe's Senior Class award for which Priskie is a candidate.

In so many instances, people misapply the Hobey Baker award's character clause. They use it to turn a bad hit or unremarkable grade-point average into a strike against a player — usually in favor of some perfectly fine forward with a bunch of assists that "aww-shuckses" his way to adoration.

This particular case, however, genuinely calls for the clause's invocation. We've seen other stars unofficially disqualified for the award for far lesser infractions and sillier reasons. T.J. Hensick in 2007 and Nathan Gerbe in 2008 both come to mind.

Other Hobey Baker candidates play in hotly-contested games against their rivals. They never used their shoe, which has a damn knife attached to it, to kick anyone facedown on the ice.

Priskie's situation is an admittedly significant variance from his usual on-ice conduct. The 15 penalty minutes he earned from the kick were more than he earned in the previous 33 games, more than he was assessed all of last season. College hockey media and coaches talk. We all know who the dirty players are. Priskie's name has never been anywhere near these conversations.

Saturday, Arizona State's Jacob Wilson leveled Minnesota's Sampo Ranta. It was a big, open-ice hit in which Wilson planted his shoulder squarely in Ranta's chest and made contact with his chin. He, like Priskie, received a major and a disqualification.

The WCHA, which handles discipline as it relates to Arizona State, an independent, gave Wilson an additional game.

Wilson's hit was bad, but it was, at least, a hockey play. Ranta had the puck. Wilson hit him. It's a brand of hit I'd rather see out of the game in 2019. Wilson, even without a previous track record of dangerous play, deserved more than he received.

Whether or not Priskie's kick injured Welsh doesn't change that Priskie kicked him. Basing punishment on outcomes excuses dangerous plays that don't result in injury when they're just as harmful to the game and could've just as easily injured a player. The degree to which others have tried to excuse the kick or minimize the action demonstrates the biggest problem with supplemental discipline at every advanced level of hockey. Punishing the injury outcome instead of the action lets plyers avoid punishment for blatantly dangerous plays.

Chase Priskie isn't a dirty player. Saturday, he was. He acted far beyond the scope of the sport in kicking an opponent laying face down on the ice. He demonstrated, at least in the moment, a complete disregard for an opponent's safety. He’s earned his status as one of the nation’s best players. He earned the next three games off just as well.