Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I am not sure why it is shocking that a player in a league which has never allowed players to play through appeals is not allowed to play through his appeal.
And, as I have noted previously, the only thing you get by changing the system is for players to abuse it by filing pointless appeals just to delay the start until after an upcoming big game.
Don't care how much it sucks for Wideman, giving the players the ability to massively cheat the system is the greater evil.
|
The reason of course is that until now the NHLPA has not seen a need to bargain for it. Expect to see the issue on the agenda during the next collective bargaining talks.
The rest of your post is particularly boneheaded (to be polite
)-- you argue that allowing a player to play while appealing "only" (your words) allows a player to game the system.
Not at all. While I am now of the view Wideman's 20 game suspension should probably be upheld, there are no (as in zero) grounds to believe, whatever happened in the past, the NHL into the future will always be a fair arbiter of player discipline-- that small group of NHL Executives and their department of safety, have a monopoly on what is fair and correct with their own rules. In this case in particular, I'd suggest that the league acted moreso because of the media outcry compared to what they would have done otherwise... even though I think in this case they got it right.
Also, Bettman rubber-stamped the initial decision and had one of the most expensive law firms in the world write the decision for him. This kind of power needs an independent arbiter to maintain the integrity of the system as a whole.
Its not "only" gaming the system, though that happening is certainly possible. The suspension becomes effectively irreversible for the team given the time it takes to get to an independent arbitrator... even if they win, they have lost the player for important games. A system that postpones the suspension pending final determination -- and that probably shouldn't be absolute, but perhaps, more fairly balances the interests of all involved.