Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
They don't create a case for a conspiracy, no.
If Wideman intentionally injured an official, 20 games is the minimum he should have gotten, per the rule book. This line of argument is a dead end for you. You should stick to arguing it was incidental/accidental.
Partially. Many predicted this was were we would end up. But I would note that you have been vehemently arguing that Wideman's actions were completely accidental and that he did nothing wrong. The arbitrator most certainly has not validated your position any more than he validated Bettman's.
|
This is true. The Arbitrator is clear that this was intentional (not an accident).
Leaving your post now - It's also true that the arbitrator uses the word "opinion". They both agree that Wideman made intentional contact. They disagree in that Bettman feels (his opinion) it was with intent to injure and the arbitrator feels (his opinion) that there was no intent to injure. Just because the Arbitrator is the last person in the chain of people allowed to rule on it does not make him right - nor does it make Bettman wrong. He just gets to decide after Bettman and by his own words gave his opinion.
The length of suspension each man gave is in alignment with the CBA. I disagree that this makes Bettman look bad. His reasoning is sound if you agree that Wideman intended to injure (which some do and most here don't). To say that this clearly shows Bettman is an ass/incompetent/whatever is to put total infallibility with the neutral arbitrator. If that's the case why not just go directly to arbitration for all discipline? It's not, but it's convenient for a lot of the arguments being made.
It will be interesting to see if any more comes of this. The jackass in me is waiting for the first player to figure out that if they reverse their grip and put their hands closer together as they put the lumber to someone that is apparently not a crosscheck.