Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bozek
I think these groups are misunderstanding what "intent to injure" means in the context of the arbitration and disciplinary hearings. I think the arbitrator would view "intent to injure" as either a planned attack like the Bertuzzi-Moore incident, or an injury perpetrated by a repeat offender who has a history of apparent deliberate attempts to injure (e.g. slimeballs like Cooke or Torres).
Whether or not one believes Wideman was concussed and wasn't in full control of what he was doing, I don't think anyone would suggest that Wideman planned the attack, nor does he have any history of being a player who goes out of his way to hurt people.
|
Yeah, intent was never proven in this case. Bettman tried to make it sound like there was intent by releasing that text message, but fortunately, the arbitrator isn't stupid and didn't buy it.
I think there is at the very least, reasonable doubt that it was intentional. While the NHL isn't a court of law, it's still a logical principle to use when handing out a punishment.