Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
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.
|
Well, I suppose first of all, how many suspensions in NHL history have been this long? What sort of behaviour were they for? What sort of punishment is generally meted out by employers in this area? If all of that lines up, you can justify the 27 games.
But I just cannot agree to you that the person asking why this was done the way it was done should be required to first demonstrate that it was done wrongly. It seems to me that the onus is on the NHL (or whoever's supporting their decision) to justify a penalty that it itself imposed. They arrived at that number, presumably for what they feel is a good reason. What was that rationale? As the party with all of that information in their possession they should explain how, and tell us why we should agree with the process and the outcome. That is, of course, assuming that the NHL
cares whether the public agrees with the process and the outcome.
Quote:
|
What is the downside of having harsh consequences in this area?
|
You've said this a couple of times. As I pointed out, the question is degree. A 27 game suspension seems like a harsh penalty. Being banned from the league also seems like a harsh penalty. Having his eyes burned out with hot pokers also seems like a harsh penalty. The
appropriate degree of harshness is precisely what (most) people seem to be debating, and my real issue is you acting as if even raising that as a live matter to be discussed is some horrible affront to morality, amounting to a defense of wife-beating. It's really not.