Max Paciorett..."/> Max Paciorett..."/>

No Suspension For Mikhail Grabovski – NHL Gets It Right


When you play with fire, sometimes you get burned.  It is laughable that Max Pacioretty thinks he can run around willy nilly and not have to own up for his actions.

Remember a couple of year ago when his career almost ended at the hands of Zdeno Chara?  Well I’m not saying Chara meant to nearly kill him, but he knew who he was hitting and gave him a little extra, because the last time they met, Pacioretty taunted the big Z after a Montreal overtime goal against the Bruins.

Feb 9, 2013; Montreal, QC, CAN; Toronto Maple Leafs forward Mikhail Grabovski (84) and teammateL eo Komarov (47) exchange blows with Montreal Canadiens players Max Pacioretty (67) and Francis Bouillon (55) and Brandon Prust (8) during the third period at the Bell Centre. Mandatory Credit: Eric Bolte-USA TODAY Sports

Now, I am not saying biting has any place in hockey, but look at the scrum that resulted in Mikhail Grabovski allegedly trying to get some very rare Hab forearm.  In a scrum started by Brandon Prust, Pacioretty reach around and put Grabovsky in a headlock to get him out of the scrum.  His arm went into Grabovski’s mouth, and he yanked back. Whether or not Grabovski bit down (and I don’t blame him if he did), he didn’t have much choice in the matter. He didn’t know what was grabbing him, who it was or anything like that.  He was engaged with a player in front of him, and he gets yanked from behind.

The theatrics involved in Pacioretty coming out today saying he got a tetanus shot is ridiculous and over the top.  Far be it from me to defend a member of the Maple Leafs, but what was Grabovski supposed to do?

Sometimes if you play with fire, you get burned.  And with Pacioretty, it seems to happen more often than with other players.  Play like a weasel, you get what you get.  Take responsibility for your own actions and the situation you put yourself in and move on.

The NHL got this one right, by not suspending Grabovski, even if the reasoning was that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.