Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Yeah, that's true. I just checked the CBA, and it does specifically refer to off-ice conduct. However, the rule for Supplemental Discipline specifically notes that it applies to any infraction, whether or not a penalty is called. So my read is that while Rule 40 doesn't apply because there was no penalty, the league still has the authority to suspend under Rule 28 for the same reason - the infraction is physical abuse of an official. This, I think is what Paul Stewart was angling toward with his piece. Because Rule 40 does not apply, the league does not have to follow the ten game minimum, though as Stewart notes, may still use that as a guide regardless.
|
Repeating myself, but it still requires the infraction, so all Rule 28 does is let you look at a rule-breaking that occurred before (whether a penalty was called or not). So that takes us back to "abuse of offical: which still requires a deliberate act.
The way they can go, if they want to suspend him, is to say they don't buy a complete lack of intent, he deliberately shoved Henderson, and then base the actual penalty on motive, wooziness, etc.
BTW, even if he says he meant to shove, but didn't realize it was the linesman, I think he still can have broken the rule.