The NHL has an interesting policy on wanting to know when things happened - you know, when evidence is present. An ejection from the game for a major match penalty? Nah. You don't need evidence at that moment... maybe the next day when you decide if you should rescind a penalty. Do you need evidence to know if a disallowed goal is a mistake? No. A high stick or a kicked in puck? Absolutely.
What about biting? Sure, you need evidence of that. Montreal Canadiens forward Max Pacioretty thought he had plenty of evidence when he sent in photographs that showed bite marks on his wrist and thumb. Sure, the video might not have been 100% clear, but his discomfort in the video was. Why would any of this be faked?
It doesn't matter if it was faked or not -- the NHL wasn't listening to any of it. It was impressive by itself that they had a phone hearing with Mikhail Grabovski regarding the incident. The league seems to turn its head whenever allegations of biting come up. Maybe it's like the rest of us and can't believe that grown men can resort to that playground behavior.
Honestly, ignoring it isn't exactly condoning it, but it might as well be.
|Like PDL on Facebook||Follow PDL on Twitter |||Email PDL|