Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is just such a weird argument.
You've already said we have limited information. If so, why are you so certain that 27 games are appropriately severe consequences? Do you have that much faith in the NHL's head office to get discipline correct that you'll take it more or less on faith?
An earlier poster said that the punishment seemed harsh in comparison with other punishments that have been meted out in other areas. Your response was effectively, "the punishment SHOULD be harsh". But he was only suggesting that it was TOO harsh - is the degree of harshness not something that can be questioned? Your position here would appear to apply equally had they cut his head off.
Last, asking why people are defending Watson isn't fair. No one is defending his actions. Some are questioning whether the punishment fits the crime. Unless you're taking the position that there is no punishment that could be excessive - and I assume you're not - asking whether this punishment is one of those that should be considered excessive is a reasonable thing to want to discuss, even if your answer is "no, for the following reasons". The issue there is that you haven't really given any reasons other than "this is really bad and he should be punished harshly and I can't believe people are taking his side".
In your view, do we just spin the wheel, land on a suspension number and everyone smiles and nods for fear that asking why that number is appropriate will lead to being accused of defending spousal abuse? Is that how you'd like this to go?
|
I have more confidence that the NHL gathered enough information, more than we have, to make a decision.
So if one is going to question or raise a point about that it is too harsh - there should be a rationale as to why.
What is the downside of having harsh consequences in this area?