In a league where one decision can shadow a player for weeks, the most consequential part of Tuesday night’s controversy was not the hit itself—it was the paperwork. Avalanche coach Jared Bednar had already unloaded on the officials’ ruling, and now bednar sits at the center of a reversal: the NHL has rescinded Nathan MacKinnon’s major penalty and game misconduct from the collision with Edmonton goaltender Connor Ingram.
Bednar’s argument, the crease collision, and why the call was so explosive
The play unfolded during a second-period power play, with MacKinnon driving toward the crease to receive a pass. In one account, MacKinnon was attempting to receive a pass and crashed into Ingram after contact with Oilers defenseman Darnell Nurse; in another, MacKinnon drove near the right post for a cross-ice pass from Brock Nelson, and Nurse met him at the edge of the crease and made contact. The officials assessed a major penalty for interference and a game misconduct, then upheld the call after review. Colorado was forced to kill more than four minutes of short-handed time.
Ingram left the game due to the collision but later returned to action. The Oilers won 4-3, and the penalty sequence became a flashpoint largely because of how it was interpreted: a collision at the net-front that Bednar argued was created by the defending player’s contact, not by an intentional act from MacKinnon.
Postgame, Bednar did not hedge. “There’s no chance he hits the goalie if Nurse doesn’t run into him, ” Bednar told reporters. “I don’t care if (Ingram is) injured, not injured, if it’s a severe crash, not a severe crash — it’s not a penalty. If you put guys into your own goalie, it’s not a penalty. … The goalie’s hurt, so it’s five (minutes). Again, I really don’t give a crap if the goalie’s hurt. That’s on their D-man, not our guy. ”
What the rescission actually changes: the rulebook consequence, not the scoreboard
The NHL’s decision does not change the outcome of Tuesday night’s game, nor does it rewind the short-handed time Colorado had to survive. The material impact is forward-looking and procedural: MacKinnon’s “physical infractions” game misconduct count has been reset.
The policy is explicit in NHL rule 23. 6: “any player who incurs a total of two game misconduct penalties in the ‘Physical Infractions Category, ’ before playing in 41 consecutive regular season league games without such penalty, shall be suspended automatically for the next league game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty, the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game. ” With the game misconduct rescinded, MacKinnon’s counter is now reset to zero for the purposes of rule 23. 6.
That is why bednar’s postgame outrage ended up mattering beyond a single night’s officiating debate. Had the misconduct stood, MacKinnon would have been one qualifying game misconduct away from triggering an automatic one-game suspension within his next 41 regular-season games. Instead, the rescission removes that immediate risk and clears the administrative slate.
MacKinnon described the internal path to the review in straightforward terms: “I think (general manager Chris MacFarland) asked them to review it, from what I know, and they took it away, ” he said. “Mistakes happen. ” MacKinnon also emphasized he believed contact initiated the sequence: “I just assumed they wanted to review it and that’s why they gave the five, and then I thought I’d be back on the ice for a power play, ” he said. “I knew I got hit. There’s a picture of me with my skates going above the crease. So I got hit. Nurse made a good play on the puck and hit me after. There was nothing I could do. ”
The deeper ripple: credibility, accountability, and the line between review and reversal
The rescission places a bright spotlight on two parallel realities that can coexist uncomfortably in high-stakes games: a call can be confirmed after a “lengthy review” in the moment, and later removed by the league. For teams, that gap can feel like proof that the process needs sharper alignment. For the NHL, reversals like this can be framed as a form of institutional self-correction—yet they also raise questions about what, exactly, the in-game review is meant to settle.
From Colorado’s perspective, the reversal validates bednar’s central claim that the sequence should not have risen to the level of a major and a misconduct. But it also leaves an unresolved tension: if the league can later remove the misconduct, what does that imply about the threshold for confirming a major interference call when a goaltender is injured and the review has already taken place?
The NHL’s rule framework makes the stakes asymmetrical. A major penalty can immediately tilt a game; a misconduct can quietly alter a player’s next month and a half through the 41-game window embedded in rule 23. 6. That is why the rescinded ruling is less about relitigating a single collision and more about preventing a compounding punishment from attaching to a disputed moment.
There is also a roster and competitive context moving forward, even if the rescission is the headline. Colorado plays the Seattle Kraken Thursday night (ET). Defenseman Nick Blankenburg is set to make his Avalanche debut, and Colorado is expected to dress 11 forwards and seven defensemen because Ross Colton, injured Tuesday against Edmonton, is not available. In other words: the club is already balancing personnel constraints, and removing the looming “next-misconduct” suspension risk for MacKinnon meaningfully reduces one source of uncertainty.
One recent example illustrates how quickly rule 23. 6 can bite: Mikko Rantanen is the most recent player suspended under the policy after two game misconducts in a three-game span earlier this season, leading to an automatic one-game suspension for his team’s next contest. That precedent underscores why Colorado would treat MacKinnon’s record clean-up as more than symbolic. In that sense, bednar’s stance now reads not only as a defense of his star player but also as an attempt to prevent an administrative chain reaction.
MacKinnon entered Thursday tied for second in the league in points and first in goals, making any future automatic suspension scenario especially costly. The NHL’s reversal closes that door—for now—and leaves the larger conversation where it began: what standard should determine when net-front contact becomes punishable at the highest level? With bednar’s comments still echoing, the next contentious crease collision will test whether this episode was an exception, or a sign that the league’s process remains unsettled.
