Dude you need to check the definition of vicions/viciously, this was an accident, how can something accidental be vicious?
It was vicious in the way he swung the stick. He did not know the ref was there, but he was very deliberate in how he swung his stick. Distinguish between a vicious assault and a vicious high stick- this was the latter, not the former.
The NHL rule on high sticking makes intent irrelevant. High sticking is defined as high sticking regardless of whether it was an accident or not. If you were able to tell the ref that your high sticking was an accident, we would have many arguments for many minutes, and many hockey games would be delayed by such arguments to the anger of fans. A non-penalty high stick can be done verey deliberately.
en.wikipedia.org
"As a non-penalty foul, high-sticking the puck is defined in Rule 80 of the
rules of the National Hockey League. It may occur when a player
intentionally or inadvertently plays the
puck with their
stick above the height of the shoulders or above the cross bar of a hockey goal."
"As a
penalty, high-sticking is defined in Rule 60 of the rules of the National Hockey League. It may occur when a player hits an opponent's head, face, or neck with their stick in an action judged not to be the result of normal play".
This was a non-penalty foul since Mikkola did not hit an opponent but rather the ref.