Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
...
Yes, it is your prerogative to disagree, but can we please stop ignoring the fact that the League's interpretation of the event is an entirely reasonable one—especially given their access to evidence and testimony that none of the rest of us has seen or heard.
|
I do get it and believe that the hearing was serious and diligent. However; most informed observers, including Friedman, believed that the punishment was going to be harsh and "politically-motivated" because of the need to send a message. Who was the intended recipient of the message is the question. I believe it was to the officials and I believe this was a wrong message.
Quote:
Sportsnet’s Mark Spector had an interesting take last weekend, writing that, in his opinion, a suspension of under 10 games could provoke blowback.
“Whether they work to rule, call everything the first night back, or call nothing, if the perception is that the game doesn’t have Don Henderson’s back the zebras will make it clear — for a period of time — that they don’t have the game’s back either,” he wrote.
|
Hopefully, either the team or NHLPA will appeal (not sure about the formal protocol of who has the appeal filing priority in these cases).
Friedman:
Quote:
|
Anything above six games creates the possibility of Wideman appealing to a neutral arbitrator. I’d be astonished by anything less than that, because it allows the league to say, “We held up our end and if the arbitrator drops the suspension, that’s out of our hands.”
|