I haven't read the whole thread, but the Flames should press the NHL to receive a compensatory 1st round draft pick (something like 31st overall) because they were without a player that should have been allowed to play. The Flames should have a case for something like that.
As for the reduction, I still think 10 games is too much - I think it should have been 0, but could have lived with up to 3, maybe 5 games. I think it's pretty obvious that the whole thing was accidental, and at that point, you determine if Wideman accidentally did something illegal (justifying a suspension of a few games), or accidentally did something legal (obviously no suspension can be given). Some have argued that it "looks" intentional, but if that were the case, what's Wideman's motive? Putting all the pieces together, this being an intentional act just doesn't make sense.
Like some above, I'm confused by the arbitor's ruling. I beleive he was only supposed to rule whether the NHLs ruling was within the boundaries of the NHLs law. If the arbitor ruled that there was intention, he shouldn't have been able to reduce the suspension. And if the arbitor thought the NHL didn't follow its rules, he should have thrown the whole thing out.
|