The NHL's rule regarding what ensues when a player loses his helmet on the ice is misunderstood.
Sometimes, even by the players.
NHL Rule 9.6, first instituted in the 2019-20 season, begins with this:
"A player on the ice whose helmet comes off during play shall be assessed a minor penalty if he does not exit the playing surface."
The rule continues with the following.
" ... or retrieve and replace his helmet properly on his head (with or without his chin strap fastened), within a reasonable period of time. It is reasonable if a player who is making a play on the puck or who is in the vicinity of the puck and engaged in the play at the time his helmet comes off, takes the opportunity to complete the play before either exiting the ice or retrieving and replacing his helmet."
With that in mind, John Marino didn't have to make a beeline for the Penguins' bench when his helmet was knocked off in Thursday's Game 3 win over the Islanders.
He skated off with the helmet in his hand, either unaware that he could put it back on his head and stay involved in the play, or not believing he had enough time and space to do so on the ice.
What followed was Cal Clutterbuck's goal to bring the Islanders within one while the Penguins were essentially shorthanded, a goal that had the potential to really be a difference-maker in the game.
Now, the last part of the rule also says that "a player who intentionally removes an opponent’s helmet during play shall be assessed a minor penalty for roughing."
It does look a little bit like Matt Martin intentionally knocked off Marino's helmet, but it was ambiguous enough that it wasn't called. If the NHL isn't going call the penalty, then players could be motivated to intentionally remove an opponent's helmet to take him out of the play, either when they leave the ice or momentarily when they put their helmet back on.
I understand the intention behind the overall rule. Ideally, a player shouldn't be on the ice without a helmet for an extended period of time. That could be dangerous. But with the way the rule is currently worded, it can create situations like these, where a player's helmet can intentionally be removed to take him out of the play. And players are either confused by the rule or at least by the ambiguousness of what a "reasonable period of time is," that it has the potential to create game-changing situations like the Clutterbuck goal.
YOUR TURN: What should the rule be when a player's helmet comes off to eliminate any confusion and lessen the chance that a player gets his helmet ripped off on purpose?
