As far as hockey clichés go, Montreal Canadiens forward Brandon Prust didn’t do a very good job of leaving it all on the ice last night. In the process he upset the hockey gods as well, or at least one who he considered a pretender to the role. According to Prust, his first period unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was a result of referee Brad Watson trying to “play god” and control the game.

“He kept provoking me,” said Prust to media after the game. “He came to the box and called me every name in the book. He called me a piece of you know what, a mother-f’er, coward, said he’d drive me right out of this building.”

Brandon Prust Did the Right Thing By Calling Out Brad Watson

Prust is right, he sure got called every name in the book last night. Social media, as it is apt to do, was quick to brand him a “whiner,” a “crybaby” and a “sore loser,” among other less publishable names.

Whether or not he is any of those aforementioned names depends on where one’s opinion lies between the two polar opposite scenarios the incident presents.

The first is that Prust took a dumb penalty, made it worse by not shutting his mouth, ran Tampa Bay Lightning goalie Ben Bishop, beat on Bolts defenseman Braydon Coburn and then threw an elbow pad into the Lightning bench. He tried to deflect all this by exaggerating, or fabricating, what Watson said to him and is a coward himself as a result.

Then there is Prust’s side of the story. To use a courtroom scenario, Watson was a judge who repeatedly aggravated the accused until he lashed out. When he did, the judge charged him with contempt of court. That’s not justice; it’s a vendetta, and Prust claims not to have lashed out at all.

Why shouldn’t Prust be believed? There is no reason for him to make something like this up and he will be punished for what he said whether he is right or not. Where there is smoke, in this case smoke coming out of Prust’s ears, there is probably fire. Prust has 977 career penalty minutes, complaining about them to the media isn’t his style.

Not that complaining to the media about referees in this way is anyone’s style, because making it personal is dangerous. Look no further than the Alex Burrows/Stephane Auger incident in January 2010. Burrows has carried a reputation from that incident ever since.

However, if what Prust said is true, then it was absolutely worth saying. Hockey culture says to keep your head down and not say anything; what is said on the ice should stay on the ice. For the most part that is true, but when someone with authority treats a player this way it is an obligation for him to say so.

Referees are handled with rubber gloves by the league. Any fault by a league official acknowledged by a player or coach is seen as a black eye and the league hits back without hesitation. Often it’s better to look internally and understand why you were hit instead of just taking a swing right away.

The league needs to look into this and Prust’s comments will likely put just enough pressure on them to make it happen. Whether Watson has over a thousand games of NHL experience or not is irrelevant, if Prust’s story is true the league’s action should be more internal than external.

Watson is human after all, and like everyone else is far from perfect. Being angry at someone is human, as is holding a grudge. But when someone unfairly uses their power to punish someone they are angry with they are no longer using that power responsibly.

Surely more details will emerge on this incident soon. But before they do, calling Prust names or guilty is unwarranted and born of stigmas in hockey culture.

After all, the men who blow whistles for a living should understand the importance of a whistleblower. A bit of legitimate criticism will only help the league’s officiating.

Main Photo: