ORLANDO, FLA – Game one of the Stanley Cup finals between the Boston Bruins and the Vancouver Canucks was a purist’s dream, a 1-0 Canucks win on Raffi Torres’ goal with 19 seconds left in regulation. With television ratings that were the best since 1999, the day-after buzz should have been all about the game and the performances of net minders Tim Thomas and Roberto Luongo.
Should have been.
Somehow, the main talker during Thursday’s day off was the strange appetite of Canucks’ forward Alex Burrows and the handling – or lack of handling – of an incident in which Burrows allegedly bit the finger of Bruins’ sniper Patrice Bergeron during a scrum at the end of the first period. The league announced late Thursday afternoon that following a review, Burrows would face neither a suspension nor a fine for the incident.
“After reviewing the incident, including speaking with the on-ice officials, I can find no conclusive evidence that Alex Burrows intentionally bit the finger of Patrice Bergeron,” NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy said in a release announcing the decision.
Murphy’s decision came less than 24 hours after the sudden announcement by Colin Campbell that he was retiring from his role as the czar of supplementary discipline in favor of former Red Wings star Brendan Shanahan.
Vancouver%27s Alex Burrows (right) looks like he he is biting the finger of Boston%27s Patrice Bergeron (left) while linesman Pierre Racicot tries to break up the scrum. (Photo by Mike Blake / Reuters)
What was strange – to Bruins fans and many others who watched the game – was the phrase “no conclusive evidence”. Based on what we all saw (or thought we saw), it looked like there was more visual evidence than when John Hinckley shot then-President Ronald Reagan in front of television cameras back in 1981. Or so we thought.
To set the scene, the first period of game one was as much a highlight reel for the goalies as it was a blooper reel for the skaters. Both teams took uncharacteristic penalties but were continually bailed out by Thomas on one end and Luongo on the other.
As the period ended, there was a meeting of the minds in Thomas’ goal crease. The meeting quickly turned into a rumble and everyone paired up with a dance partner (well, everyone except Zdeno Chara who started with one on each arm before settling on one opponent). The main event was Bergeron and Burrows with linesman Pierre Racicot stuck in the middle trying to break up the two warriors.
Each player laid out numerous face washes on the other with every successive facial getting more and more aggressive. Finally, Bergeron goes in for a full-on open palm wash, fingers extended. One of the digits appears to get close enough to (or quite possibly into) Burrows’ oral cavity. Maybe it was the early start or something else but Burrows appears to take a chomp down on said digit before dragging a gloved hand up and hiding his mouth.
At this point, Bergeron has no clue what to do and that allowed Racicot to split the pair apart. As the teams finally head to their locker rooms, the officials get together to sort things out. By this time Bergeron had removed his glove and saw blood dripping from his finger. He showed it to teammate Mark Recchi before skating over to the officials who wanted nothing to do with looking at the digit or the blood.
Mind you, most of what happened during the scrum was shot from a long angle so getting a good look was difficult. As for the post-melee stuff, the majority of that came during a commercial break (both NBC and Hockey Night In Canada had bills to pay as they normally do) so viewers had little idea what was happening. I can only imagine what the fans at the Rogers Arena were thinking although I doubt many were still in their seats once the fracas was over.
When NBC came back to the intermission, host Liam McHugh handed the discussion over to Keith Jones and Mike Milbury. The pair went bonkers over the isolated video which clearly showed Burrows and his appetite for “finger food” (it was from a reverse angle and also zoomed in quite a bit). Milbury was especially harsh in his condemnation of Burrows, suggesting that a suspension would definitely be forthcoming. Over on the HNIC broadcast, studio host Ron MacLean and Don Cherry had a good laugh over the incident but did not seem as ready to put Burrows’ head on the chopping block (the difference between one broadcast geared to American fans versus one geared to Canadian fans, maybe?).
The discussion didn‘t stop there. During his commentary stint for CBC Sports, former NHL referee Dan Marouelli dropped yet another verbal hammer on Burrows.
“I really believe that it’s worth a couple of games, I really do. I think they need to draw the line and hold players accountable for these types of actions that are really detrimental to our sport,” Marouelli said. “Will he get two? I’ll be surprised if he does, but I wouldn’t have any trouble giving him two games. That’s a dangerous act. You don’t go around biting people.”
Now, to me, this many people making the same comments tells me they saw the same thing I did. The fact that the “experts” were calling for Burrows to be jumped on made me feel like I might actually have this whole hockey thing down.
Then came Murphy’s pronouncement and that “no conclusive evidence” explanation. The investigation was conducted via a phone call to Burrows (what, no face-to-face with Vice Principal Murphy?) and consultation with the on-ice officials (we presume Bergeron was contacted for his side). Still, I figured that the television video “evidence” would come into play. Taking into account the opinions of people who have played or officiated in the NHL, Murphy’s dismissal of what Burrows appeared to have done makes the NHL look foolish and completely out of touch.
Back in 2009, Buffalo’s Jarkko Ruutu was nabbed for biting the finger of Ottawa’s Andrew Peters. Ruutu got to sit for two games but that was during the regular season. Is Burrows getting let off the hook because this is the playoffs and the general rule is that anything short of a homicide at this time of year is OK? If that is the case, why have we seen suspensions in previous rounds this year?
And what about the video evidence? What did Murphy see – or not see – that the rest of the hockey world did? How could so many people with hockey expertise be wrong?
Maybe this was payback for the Bruins. During last year’s playoffs, Marc Savard was accused by Philadelphia’s Daniel Carcillo during a similar outbreak of hostilities. The league couldn’t find any convincing evidence to sit Savard down although it was the second time the winger (and according to Colin Campbell “wimp” dating back to their time together in New York) had been on the delivery end of such an allegation.
Bergeron and the Bruins said Thursday that they have moved on following the incident and subsequent decision. Burrows and his teammates didn’t want to talk about it. But when even ESPN’s Barry Melrose says that “the league got it wrong”, you know we haven’t heard the last of “BiteGate”.
Here’s hoping that Shanahan has the stomach for his new job. He may just need it sooner than later.
Contact the author at don.money@prohockeynews.com
