Stop Biting Other Players

Seriously, NHL? Seriously?

The past few seasons, there have been several biting incidences that have done nothing but aggravated NHL players and fans. They all start the same way and they all end the same way (pretty much)

The way it usually starts is with some sort of post-whistle scrum.

One player "facewashes" his opposition.
Now imagine getting a sweaty, smelly hockey glove being forced into your face with no way of being able to get rid of it. That's when you decide to bite.

Facewashes happen all the time. It's truly shocking that biting incidences don't happen more often.

In last night's Montreal-Toronto game, Max Pacioretty face washed Toronto's Mikhael Grabovski. All of a sudden, you see a twitch in Grabovski's face and a sudden reaction from Pacioretty. You be the judge:

Now here's where things get tricky. As history indicates, supplemental discipline is not doled out for biting unless there is conclusive evidence. As in unless you see the teeth chomp down on the player's hand, there'll be no suspension.

Now, I know what you're thinking, why can't the NHL just put two and two together? They see a potential bite, they have bite marks on the player's hand, and you have clear video evidence of real time reactions to a potential bite.

But that's not how the NHL works. Like with a glove save which may have gone over the goal line, if they don't see the actual puck over the line, they can't rule it a goal. They can't make a decision based on an assumption that the whole puck went in.

So will this be a suspendable offense? Maybe.

But compared to recent occurrences, this one should be in the clear.

The most recent chomp happened in the 2011 NHL playoffs. In an altercation between Boston's Patrice Bergeron and Vancouver's Alex Burrows, Bergeron had his hand up by Burrows' face when it appears Burrows chomped down. And just like I was just saying now, the NHL came out and said "After reviewing the incident, including speaking to the on-ice officials, I can find no conclusive evidence that Alex Burrows intentionally bit the finger of Patrice Bergeron." The key word here was "conclusive" as in they couldn't tell without a doubt if there was a bite. So no penalty and no suspension.

Another famous bite was from January 2008 when Derian Hatcher of the Philadelphia Flyers bit Devils' forward Travis Zajac, causing Zajac to bleed from his hand and giving him a gash that even required stitches. Here you'd think it'd for sure be a suspension. Zajac was bleeding at the time of the alleged bite and even required stitches afterward. But, alas, then-disciplinary head Colin Campbell decided not to suspend Hatcher because Colin Campbell was a moron who never did anything right did not see any sufficient evidence in a video to point to a bite taking place. So no penalty and no suspension.

Finally we find a bite that warranted a suspension. In this video, there's still no conclusive evidence but the NHL did rule a two game suspension for Ottawa's Jarkko Ruutu when he bit Buffalo's Andrew Peters. This suspension seems to break the chain of not clear video evidence and a my-word-against-his-word battle that ultimately wound up with someone being suspended. Now, I don't know why this one was different but it was. (Another suspension I found for biting was way back in 2003 when Marc Savard received a game for chomping Darcy Tucker's digits. I couldn't find a video because youtube didn't exist yet, I guess)

So now let's look back. I doubt Grabovsky will receive any suspension. At most he'll get a fine. The fans overreact and the players overreact as well. Whenever a player bites someone else, it's just embarrassing for the league to deal with. True, they all are due to facewashing, which is an act I've always found absurd and childish but I doubt that will ever stop. Is biting bad? Yes. But we need to stop overreacting to it.