[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

a full preseason and 27 game suspension? seems like a suspension number pulled out of a hat.
why this severe, why now? if Crobsy hits his a significant other, is his suspension going to be at least this much, or since he's a HOF player he'll only get 5 games?

After thinking about it for a minute, given the lack of precedent, what process would you want them to use such that the outcome doesn't appear random? That is, if you agree a suspension is warranted and it has to be some number of games, how do you get to a number that isn't pulled out of a hat in a case like this? I actually can't think of how I'd want this done.

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

There is absolutely no reason that any one organization cannot take a stand on a social issue. They are not dictating morals, simply stating their position and letting people know what this particular organization believes to be acceptable. How do you feel about the NHL's "You Can Play" initiative to include LGBTQ peoples? Do you also feel they are dictating morals in that case?

That's directly to do with participation in the sport. I'm also not totally sure I think they can't put themselves out there as a "morally good" force, in fact a lot of private entities do that for marketing reasons and just because they want to. Kids do look up to hockey players, so there's a sort of inherent responsibility here, and that's part of why I think he should be punished.

However, there is probably a line somewhere, where the league ceases to simply be advertising its own values and effectively usurps the role of actually punishing people for offenses that have nothing directly to do with the game. Dobbles does have a point - that's what law enforcement is for. But I don't know that I could say how many games you have to suspend a guy to get to a point where it crosses that line.

On the other hand, it's a private league. They could ban him forever if they wanted to and simply say "we don't want people like this here". I think you'd still have some people saying that's justified, and some people saying that there should be some understanding of human failings and mistakes, even terrible mistakes, and allow for second chances. Both positions are defensible, which is why my issue here is that one side of the argument is basically acting shocked that the other could possibly take any view other than your "off with his head" sort of righteous anger.

Quite frankly, we could use a lot more corporate responsibility on social issues. Instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "not my business" they can be effective agents for progress and change. They are still made up of people who have hearts and minds. It is not beyond them to create a collective position on a social ill.

I just don't necessarily trust the NHL to have any idea what's right in any given case, certainly not any complex issue. I frankly have very little faith that 98% of people are doing anything other than following their gut emotional reaction when addressing this stuff. I generally don't even trust my own intuitions on moral issues, so I certainly don't trust yours, or Gary Bettman's.