Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
He found the decision was not based on substantial evidence. His remediation was that the evidence presented applied to another rule (in this case a 'guiding rule', just as the 20 game rule was). Of course, none of us were in the room, so we will never know if he actually "re-tried" the whole case or not.
Too lazy to dig it all back up, but summed up from memory:
10 game - deliberate action against an official without intent
20 game - deliberate action against an official with intent to injure
Bettman's evidence supported deliberate action, but did not support intent to injure.
|
I quoted the rule in my very post.
20 games is deliberate action causing injury
or deliberate action with intent to cause injury.
As to the rest, I am not sure what you aim to accomplish by trying to re-argue the intent of Wideman's actions relative to other incidents given both Bettman and the arbitrator agreed that Wideman's action was intentional.