By Eric Gall, Torch specialist

Hello, I'm Eric Gall, and welcome to "On the Contrary," where I examine the conventional wisdom concerning a generally believed train of thought in the wrestling industry each week. I then propose the "flip side" of the argument, outlining what I feel are reasons that the mainstream opinion may need a second look.

I encourage discussion and a free exchange of ideas, so send in you thoughts below or email me at ericgall@optimum.net. Last time, I discussed the viability of Ric Flair's return to wrestling as an in-ring competitor; this week, I examine the status of Friday night's new champ, Mr. Straight Edge, C.M. Punk.

The prevailing thought: C.M. Punk is definitely turning heel based on his cashing in his Money In The Bank title shot against Jeff Hardy and becoming champion. Wade Keller mentioned this the other day and seems to stand alone in entertaining the idea that it's still not a shoo-in that Punk's gone heel. The polls and fan reaction seem to feel that when using the MITB briefcase in such a fashion on a heel champion, such as Punk's cashing in against Edge last year to win the belt, it's seen as "turnabout is fair play." However, the use of the briefcase to cash in against a babyface champion at the end of the match, especially one who's been chasing the belt so long like Jeff Hardy, that would point to a heelish action.

On the contrary: Punk simply used his options wisely and within the rules. There are no heel actions going on here. The first argument to make is that Punk acted completely within the rules. Every holder of the MITB case that I can think of used the title shot option at the most advantageous moment possible (i.e. at the end of a long match or right after getting beat down). Punk is no different here. The stipulations of the MITB briefcase would almost suggest that getting the most value out of your option is to use it wisely, and that only someone worthy of the belt would use it when guaranteed to win. This is turn gives the Money in the Bank match more prestige, as it can be seen as giving the worthy and savvy the inside track to a title reign. The MITB shot is one of those x-factors that keep the ideas that "anything can happen in WWE" alive.

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that Punk actually did commit a heelish, less than noble act in cashing in the title shot against Jeff Hardy. Does one heel act make a heel? Granted, it's a highly visible one and the very last image one is left at the end of the PPV, but it's still just one act. Also, it's not as if he blasted Hardy with a chair before or after the match; he simply took advantage of an exhausted champion. More proof of heel behavior is needed on Punk's part before he should be labeled as a rule-breaker.

Here's a concept: innocent until proven guilty. Or remember those math questions in school, where one of the options was "not enough information?" That's what's going on here. Punk very well may have turned heel, but there is not enough evidence - at least not enough of what's been shown on the PPV - to definitively say that Punk is anti-Hardy, is now a sneaky opportunist, is showing his haughty Machiavellian ways or what not. The beauty of a finish like this is it gives the audience something of a moral cliffhanger: Did I just see Punk turn or not?

Lastly, this may be a testing of the waters for Punk. The company may be monitoring the reception Punk gets at the Smackdown tapings to decide which direction to take his character. This is a grey area, and if booked to be one, it's working well. Some people watching the show where I was thought this was the best way to end the show, while others felt the wind taken out of them. Either way, it was not a paint-by-numbers ending, and it got people talking. Perhaps Punk will be a "shades of gray" champion, getting cheered against the heels and booed against the faces, but unlike someone like John Cena, his reactions would be based off of his character's actions and words. Punk has the personality and verbosity to pull off a heel, face, or tweener character well; maybe his character is just being calibrated at this point in time.

My take: Punk may be turned heel, but his alignment may be purposely left undetermined as of right now. The deliberately vague and questionable nature of a babyface cashing in the title shot against another babyface is filled with all sorts of questions. This was probably done to get people talking. The most obvious outcome would be Punk becoming heel due to this. However, nothing other than his being the new champion is clear. Right now, the company has positioned Punk's status at a nice pivot point; if played well, this could be an angle in and of itself. Who is the real C.M. Punk? As the last two nights have shown, Friday nights just got even more interesting than Monday nights.

We suggest these recent related articles...

10/5 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Natalya vs. Paige, Owens vs. Cara, Stephanie McMahon, Sasha Banks, Xavier Woods

COLLECTIBLES COLUMN: The History of Foam Hands in Pro Wrestling

9/28 WWE Raw Hits & Misses: Kane's Split Personality, Divas Revolution, Heyman & Big Show, Reigns vs. Wyatt