I don't think the NDA disagreed with the facts or applied his own interpretation of the rule, but he disagreed that you could prove intent and I think any reasonable person would admit that intent to injure wasn't a fact, but an opinion of the NHL. It's almost impossible to prove as a fact. The NHL tried with their text messages, but that was a really weak argument.
Here is what the arbitrator said:
Quote:
The Commissioner’s basic conclusion — that Wideman’s on-ice behavior resulting in Linesman Henderson’s concussion constituted physical abuse of an official calling for Supplemental Discipline for on-ice conduct — was correct. Also, the Commissioner’s use of League Rule 40 (“Physical Abuse of Officials”) as a framework for analysis was appropriate.
The Commissioner’s conclusion, however, that Wideman’s behavior constituted intentional action within the meaning of Rule 40.2, automatically triggering a penalty of not less than twenty games, is not endorsed in this appeal because, in my opinion, that conclusion is not substantially supported by the totality of the evidence presented to me at the NDA hearing.
|
It's not that the NDA made his own interpretation of the rule. He interpreted the rule as written, but had a different opinion on the conclusion that the hit was intentional (or that the evidence was conclusive in that respect).