Nothing comes easy in the National Hockey League and the proposed rule on blindside hits to the head is the latest example.

Coming out of the general managers meeting in early March, their proposal to ban them was to be adopted next season. But they realized that players would remain vulnerable for the remainder of this season, so they moved to fast-track adoption of the rule. They proposed making players subject to suspensions and fines in lieu of in-game penalties because the league said proper training of the referees on the new rules takes time.

The fast-tracking meant the N.H.L. competition committee, composed of five team executives and five players, would have to approve the proposal and then the N.H.L. Board of Governors would have to approve it, which is how rules are adopted according to the N.H.L.-N.H.L.P.A. collective bargaining agreement.

But the players refused to be rushed and one of them, Ottawa’s Jason Spezza, said on Monday that while this was a good quick fix for the rest of 2009-10, they wanted assurances they’d have a more thorough discussion and perhaps something stronger before 2010-11.

Instead, the Board of Governors Tuesday went ahead and unanimously approved the rule anyway which prohibits “a lateral, back-pressure or blind-side hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and/or the principal point of contact.”

The owners added, “The timing and details of implementation are being worked on by the N.H.L.’s Hockey Operations Department in conjunction with representatives of the National Hockey League Players’ Association.”

So now the fun begins.

The union was not pleased with this unilateral action. “Under the C.B.A., the league’s proposal cannot take effect until it first receives the support of the joint N.H.L.P.A./N.H.L. competition committee, and then is endorsed by the N.H.L. board of governors,” players association spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon told TSN.ca. “To date, the competition committee has neither agreed on a proposal, nor forwarded a proposal to the board of governors for its vote.”

And in a statement published in a Globe and Mail story by David Shoalts, the union added, “As we have previously stated, the N.H.L.P.A.’s competition committee members are finalizing their response to the N.H.L.’s proposal regarding blindside hits to the head and will be responding to the league this week.”

N.H.L. deputy commissioner Bill Daly had a different view. “As we have stated repeatedly in the past, the creation of the competition committee has not eliminated the role of the board of governors in passing and implementing rules that it deems to be in the best interests of the game,” Daly said, according to Shoalts. “While we are intent on continuing to work with the [NHLPA] and the competition committee as we have been doing for the better part of two weeks now, to the extent we do not receive a timely answer, we will have to make our own decisions in the best interests of the game and the players.”

Daly’s claim that the players association had “the better part of two weeks” to fully examine and discuss the proposal — something that the general managers and hockey operations department had developed and discussed over a four-month span — will certainly not sit well with the players. It’s a bit more difficult to canvass 750 players than 30 teams.

Sabres goalie Ryan Miller, one of the five players on the committee, told Pierre LeBrun of ESPN.com that the five were in the process of “making sure all of our members are aware of what the league is recommending. After everyone knows the options we will proceed. Even though it is the right direction we can’t ’surprise’ players with a rule while in season.”

Miller, like Spezza, also pointed out that the players had proposed stronger measures against head checks, including blindside hits, last year and the general managers dismissed them, saying new rules weren’t needed. Shoats wrote in The Globe and Mail earlier this week that he believed the players didn’t rush to embrace the fast-track as retribution for that shabby treatment, although he admitted that might be a cynical assessment. Not that anyone observing hockey’s class struggle in the last 53 years has any reason for cynicism.

But the process may be less of an issue to the players than what they perceive as the abrogation of process by the league. And that was on the mind of Shoalts in today’s Globe and Mail when he wrote that thanks to what became very fast tracking, “The prospect of a war between the N.H.L. and the players union increased last night.”

TSN’s Bob McKenzie on Montreal’s Team 990 Morning Show said earlier today that he also thought this was not a good development, reminding listeners that union has the option to opt out of the C.B.A. at the end of next season and this action would only inflame the membership. That membership, while currently lacking an executive director, could be (as reported by TSN’s Darren Dreger and The Post’s Larry Brooks) on the verge of hiring a strong advocate of player’s rights in former baseball union head Donald Fehr. That prospect is troubling for those who would blame Fehr for the significant labor strife in baseball because that is the last thing hockey needs just five years after the lockout

Fehr, who is currently an adviser to the N.H.L.P.A., is scheduled to make a presentation to hockey agents on Thursday.

And yet, from an image standpoint, the league’s unilateral action is a winner. The rule is a good one, if limited. Predatory players have been put on notice that Colin Campbell is waiting for them. That, too, is a good thing. And the league has painted itself as taking the initiative, even though it rebuffed the players on the same initiative a year ago.

In fact, the league looks so good that this morning on Toronto radio station The FAN 590, TV analyst Glenn Healy, the former N.H.L. goalie and former director of player affairs with the players association (who left when the current group of activist players running the association dismissed Paul Kelly as executive director) said of the new squabble, “This is getting like kindergarten stuff. I like what the league has done … they’ve done something, I think, that’s very proactive and positive. And it’s time for the players to respond and to get out of the sandbox, stop playing in the sandbox … and just do what’s right for the 750 members.”

In explaining the league’s motivation to LeBrun, Daly seemed to throw the player under the bus, saying, “Without trying to throw anyone under the bus here, let’s be real. This is a rule that’s intended to make the game safer for the players. It’s a no-brainer. The P.A. needs a hockey person, or at a minimum a player, who is willing to take charge, to step up and make a decision in the best interests of the game.”

That last sentence makes you wonder if the league office has some jitters that a baseball guy might end up as their adversary. It’s a strange thought coming from someone who was a football person and whose boss (Gary Bettman) was a basketball person.