The atmosphere inside the Xcel Energy Center on Monday night was already taut, the kind of high-voltage tension that only arrives with a second-round Stanley Cup playoff series. When Josh Manson stepped back into the Colorado Avalanche lineup after an injury absence, the narrative was supposed to be about the return of a veteran anchor. Instead, the story became a contentious debate over the NHL rulebook and the thin margin between a four-minute penalty and a trip to the locker room.
In a flash of throwback violence, Manson found himself on the ice following a heavy check from Minnesota Wild forward Michael McCarron. As they tumbled, Manson maintained a grip on McCarron’s head and launched a jab with the butt-end of his stick toward McCarron’s neck. It was a sequence that felt ripped from the 1990s—an era when such plays were an epidemic rather than an anomaly. To the naked eye and to a fuming McCarron, it looked like a clear-cut case for ejection.
However, the referees’ decision to keep Manson in the game sparked immediate confusion among the Wild faithful and analysts alike. The ruling rested on a technicality of Rule 58, specifically the distinction between an “attempt” and “contact.” While the play appeared egregious, the lack of definitive visual evidence of the stick landing meant Manson avoided a game misconduct, remaining on the ice for the duration of the contest.
The Fine Line Between an Attempt and a Hit
To understand why Manson wasn’t ejected, one must look at the rigid architecture of the NHL rulebook. A “butt-end” is defined as an action where a player uses the shaft of the stick, above the upper hand, to check, jab, or attempt to jab an opponent. The penalty imposed depends entirely on the result of that action.
Referees Jean Hebert and Trevor Hanson initially called a major penalty, which triggered a video review to determine the severity of the incident. Upon reviewing the footage, the officials concluded they could not definitively confirm that the stick actually made contact with McCarron. This shifted the ruling from a successful butt-end to an attempted butt-end.
Under Rule 58.2, an attempted butt-end carries a double-minor penalty. If the stick had landed, Rules 58.3 and 58.5 would have mandated a major penalty and an automatic game misconduct, resulting in Manson’s immediate ejection. The difference is not merely a matter of minutes in the penalty box. it is the difference between a player remaining a tactical asset for his team or leaving them shorthanded for the rest of the night.
Josh Manson receives a double minor for butt ending Michael McCarron. pic.twitter.com/KQSm2lawIi
— Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) May 12, 2026
A Rare Application of the Rulebook
While the ruling was technically “proper” according to the laws of the game, it was historically anomalous. Former NHL referee and ESPN rules analyst Dave Jackson noted that the double minor is the correct call when officials cannot absolutely determine that contact was made, provided the attempt was clear.
The rarity of this specific call highlights how rarely referees lean on the “attempt” clause of Rule 58. According to NHL data, this incident marked only the fourth time a double minor has been assessed for butt-ending since the year 2000, spanning both the regular season and the playoffs. In most cases, officials either see a clear hit (leading to a major) or miss the attempt entirely.
| Ruling | NHL Rule Reference | Penalty Duration | Result/Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attempted Butt-End | Rule 58.2 | 4 Minutes (Double Minor) | Player remains in game |
| Successful Butt-End | Rule 58.3 / 58.5 | 5 Minutes (Major) | Automatic Game Misconduct (Ejection) |
The Human Cost and the “Dirty” Label
Beyond the technicalities of the rulebook lies the human element of the game. For Michael McCarron, the lack of an ejection felt like a failure of accountability. Speaking with P.K. Subban on ESPN during the first intermission, McCarron did not mince words regarding Manson’s reputation.
“You played against Josh,” McCarron told Subban. “He’s a dirty player. He’s always been. Surprised he only got away with a four-minute. I’m happy he’s still in the game.”
McCarron’s comment—specifically his sarcasm regarding Manson remaining in the game—underscores the psychological warfare inherent in playoff hockey. When a player feels an opponent has crossed a line into “dirty” play without receiving the maximum punishment, it often fuels a cycle of retaliation that can define a series. In this instance, the frustration of the Wild was momentarily channeled into a tactical advantage.
Immediate Fallout in St. Paul
The decision to keep Manson in the game did not save the Avalanche from immediate consequences. While the Wild struggled to capitalize on the first two minutes of the power play, they found success on the second half of the double minor. Rookie Danila Yurov redirected a shot from Brock Faber to net his first career playoff goal, giving Minnesota a 1-0 lead heading into the first intermission.
The sequence serves as a reminder that while the rulebook provides a shield for players like Manson, the resulting man-advantage can still swing the momentum of a pivotal Game 4. The Avalanche were forced to weather the storm of a motivated Wild team that felt the officials had been too lenient on a veteran defenseman.
The league’s Department of Player Safety (DoPS) typically reviews all major penalties and potential misconducts in the playoffs to determine if supplemental discipline, such as a fine or suspension, is warranted. While the on-ice ruling was a double minor, the DoPS has the authority to review the intent and the danger of the action regardless of the referee’s final call.
The focus now shifts to the next meeting between these two clubs, where the tension from this encounter is likely to carry over. The NHL is expected to provide any updates regarding supplemental discipline prior to the start of the next scheduled game in the series.
Do you believe the referees made the right call based on the evidence, or should the “intent” be enough to warrant an ejection in the playoffs? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
