From what I have read of the matter, I believe Walsh ended the game primarly because he did not agree with how the situation was being handled by those in authority i.e. the referees and the opposing coach. By not discussing the matter with him before allowing the offending player back on the ice in the third period, he obviously felt the matter should have been treated much more seriously, and therefore acted by ending the game in order to make a statement.
It could be argued that Walsh should have initiated a discussion with the refs and the opposing coach to clarify their decision, before ending the game (although this may have happened and I missed it).
In any case, I believe the decision to suspend Walsh for the full season was ill-advised, and will reflect poorly on the OMHA. And they should reconsider their decision and reinstate him as soon as possible.
|