Was Barzal's slash the right response for the Islanders to protect Mathew Schaefer?

Mathew Barzal has never been shy about standing up for his teammates, especially a teenager carrying the weight of being the No. 1 overall pick. But Sunday night in Columbus raised an uncomfortable question for the New York Islanders: did their star forward cross a line, and did the moment demand it?

Early in the second period against the Columbus Blue Jackets, rookie defenseman Matthew Schaefer was tripped when Mason Marchment extended a knee in the neutral zone. It was Marchment’s second penalty involving Schaefer, following a roughing call in the first period, and it immediately drew the attention of Islanders players on the ice.

What followed was swift and severe. Barzal retaliated with a two-handed slash to Marchment’s leg, a move officials deemed excessive. The star center was assessed a major penalty and a game misconduct, ending his night and putting the Islanders shorthanded at a critical moment.

The instinct behind Barzal’s reaction was understandable. The Islanders have been openly protective of Schaefer all season, and veterans have made it clear that opponents will be answered if they take liberties with the 18-year-old defenseman. In that sense, Barzal was reinforcing a message: Schaefer is not to be targeted without consequence.

Teams seem to be physical on Schaef, I like the response by Barzal.” head coach Patrick Roy said postgame. “We’re never going to blame a teammate defending a teammate.”

But there’s a fine line between sending a message and hurting your team. Barzal’s ejection removed the Islanders’ most dynamic forward from a tight game and handed momentum to Columbus, even though the Isles were able to kill the major penalty and gain some momentum for themselves as they carried a lead into the third period. However, it also raised the risk of supplemental discipline — a concern the Islanders can ill afford as they try to navigate a competitive stretch of the schedule.

Hockey culture often celebrates teammates who “step in,” yet modern NHL officiating leaves little margin for vigilante justice. Barzal could have chosen a different response — a scrum after the whistle, a hard but legal hit later in the game — options that make a point without putting the team at a disadvantage. The Islanders will always want their leaders to defend one another.

The lingering question from Sunday is whether this particular response helped prove that point, or simply went too far.