Further to my above post, it seems the PA is still banging the drum that this was a pure accident due to concussion. I have to wonder how an arbitrator can cut it down the middle. How do you accept the PA's argument it was an accident caused by a medical incident, yet, still punish him 10 games which is a very heft suspension? Doesn't jive. Either you believe it was an accident or you don't. He should have tossed out the entire suspension if he really believed it to be an accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegypticus
So if you were to read the ruling and agree with my personal assessment that the arbitrator thinks he did do it on purpose but reduced the suspension to 10 games because he doesn't think Wideman hit him with intent to injure (this is a pretty gross simplification), would you still think they should go to the courts?
|
I don't believe that is the case. I only say that because TSN is wording and quoting the ruling differently. However, if that is the language of the ruling, I would suggest the NHL has little recourse