Brandon Prust: Condemn or Commend?

Mar 21, 2015; Montreal, Quebec, CAN; Montreal Canadiens right wing Brandon Prust (8) before the game against San Jose Sharks at Bell Centre. Mandatory Credit: Jean-Yves Ahern-USA TODAY Sports

Why are referees the focal point of Game 2 between the Canadiens and Lightning? It’s because Brandon Prust spoke out after the game, calling out referee Brad Watson for verbally attacking him. And now, in the aftermath, it’s become part of the narrative of Game 2.

Believe me, I’d rather be talking about anything else but Game 2, because there was very little to salvage. And I’d much rather not be talking about the referees. But it’s a Topic now, and not likely to go away for a while, at least until the season is over. I’ve encountered those who have taken me to task for my stand on the issue.

So I’ve decided to shed some light on the issues surrounding The Issue.

Here are some points I’ve seen around the Twitterverse and Facebooksphere:

“You’re using the referees as an excuse.”

Okay, this has to be put to bed right now – at least as far as the write-ups found on this site. My own, Mat Germain‘s, and Rob Elbaz‘s have all approached the topic with clear-headed, logical and open-minded sensibility. It should be noted that Rob’s piece brings in a rich history of why Habs fans bemoan referees. And that Mat’s analysis calls into question that shadow of anti-Habs bias some referees have been accused of harboring, while offering solid arguments to support the suspicions.

I’ve been accused of using the Prust/Watson story as an excuse for the Habs losing the game, for the lack of discipline, and have been told I’m out of touch with reality. This, of course, from those who haven’t read my write-up – or anything I’ve written – and who have no intentions of doing so.

And that’s okay; Habs fans are angry at the team’s failures to win on home ice, they’re frustrated – we all share that.

But never have I stated that the Habs would have won the game had it not been for the referees. That’s just a lazy accusation. In fact, I approached the game with eyes wide open, in writing up my reaction to it.

And those who are level-headed analysts are also not pointing fingers at the referees. We’re talking about this issue because it is a serious one, and one that has caused a lot of talk around the hockey world.

“Brandon Prust shouldn’t have spoken publicly.”

We’ve all addressed this; sometimes the “Code” needs to be secondary to the integrity of the game. What Prust did was born of frustration with the game, and probably with himself, but I don’t doubt – for one minute – that his account is true. Those who know him speak to his heart and to his integrity.

For him to have spoken out the way he did was a risk; no question, our #8 will be wearing a target next to his name from here on in. Referees don’t like being exposed as fallible; who does? But referees are an important part of any sport, and when their ability to properly do their job is brought into question, it is a necessary evil for an athlete to bear.

Retired referee Kerry Fraser has spoken on this issue; he has defended the league’s Code, his fellow referees, and jumped on the “condemn Prust” bandwagon. To his credit, he has stated that he believes the referee’s body language, caught on video, is detrimental to the league and to refs:

"Granted, the optics caught on camera at the penalty box, demonstrating a stern finger-pointing lecture from the referee, did not look very professional."

But his stance is more on the optics of Prust speaking out. And I have to question why. Is he worried for those in the league whom he knows? Or for the exposure of long-standing misconduct by referees never before brought into the light? I’d wager the latter.

Next: Next Page: Should these issues remain unknown to the public?