Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
He certainly can if he views it worse than the league does.
|
I would certainly argue he
cannot based on the wording of the CBA:
Quote:
|
18.13(c) The NDA shall hold an in-person hearing and shall determine whether the final decision of the League regarding whether the Player's conduct violated the League Playing Rules and whether the length of the suspension imposed were supported by substantial evidence. The NDA shall issue an opinion and award as soon as practicable. The NDA shall have the authority to consider any evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the time of the initial Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct decision or at the time of the Commissioner's decision in connection with the appeal. The NDA shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter should he/she determine that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The NDA's decision shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review.
|
If the NDA finds that Bettman's decisions that Wideman broke a rule and the amount of punishment for that broken rule "were supported by substantial evidence" then he dismisses the appeal and Bettman's decision (which is actually defined as the "final decision of the League") stands.
If the NDA finds the decision "was not supported by substantial evidence" THEN he "shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter".
In other words, his power to impose his own alternative remedy is triggered by finding Bettman's decision not supported by the evidence. Finding the evidence is even worse than Bettman thought would simply confirm the decision was supported. I do not see any wording that would allow him to go higher.