Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
a. I never said there was a concussion.
b. There wasn't much force, other than he's a 200 pound guy going one direction and Henderson wasn't expecting him.
c. What doesn't make sense to you seems to be a pretty big category. maybe it's not the world, maybe it's you.
d. Injury to the "opponent" isn't a factor in this kind of a suspension. And they have to pass the first hurdle - establishing that he's lying.
e. See above.
Zero games, easily, IMO. And if they ignore his own testimony (with no other contrary evidence) any lawyer will have a field day in the appeal.
|
a. Fine.
b. Did you measure the force? I didn't, but for you to outright deny it - I mean it was enought to injure him.
c. I thought this was about Wideman?
d. The NHL can interpret the rules any way they like.
e. I can't judge that.