I’ll finish by saying two things:
1) It’s amazing how many people disagree with me wanting context and the full discussion before making up my mind.
2) How many people post about me instead of about my post.
Have a great day, enjoy your righteous indignation.
A big part of the issue is that you're asking for a level of evidence that you know can't possibly be provided, and you're entrenching into that demand.
You have been given all the existing evidence. All of it is consistent with a single interpretation: Peel deliberately made a soft call for the pure sake of ensuring that Nashville had to kill a penalty early in the period, and said so out loud.
Still, you're ignoring the that evidence and demanding standard of nonexistent absolute proof. While there is always the possibility that
everything is being misinterpreted -- perhaps Tim Peel waits till post-retirement and gives us an alternate explanation that makes perfect sense and, against all apparent odds, somehow doesn't involve him making a deliberate soft call for the sake of creating a Nashville PK -- that is also a possibility that exists in the very small minority of likelihood.
Taking that contrarian stance is not a rational high ground. We can reserve the right to adjust our opinions in the event that new evidence is introduced, while still basing our current judgment on the evidence that is actually available to us.