Perhaps I’ve missed something, but there’s nothing in the Boarding penalty rule that discusses whether the hit was from behind or not.
Without researching the entire history of NHL suspensions, I’m going to guess this isn’t precedent setting.
That's correct, boarding is simply defined as driving an opponent violently into the boards.
Seravalli seems to be echoing the twitter-speak of political reporters where seemingly every single government action or court case 'breaks precedent' and is 'the biggest/worst/first ______ in history'.
It's not even clear that the claim is true.
Who says there's never been a suspension like this before? What is that claim based on? An archival review of all boarding suspensions? Who did that level of homework? Seravalli? Someone else? Just a weird thing to go around claiming without evidence.