09-13-2018, 11:46 AM
|
#42
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
That's not a rationale. That's the point. You can't say "he assaulted his wife, therefore 27 game suspension" any more or less than you could say "he assaulted his wife, therefore tomorrow at dawn he will be burned at the stake".
Unless there's some basis - the rationale - for why it's the former and not the latter, or why it's 27 games and not 15 or 50 - then the punishment is arbitrary.
Thought I was pretty clear - I'm looking for whatever they used to land on this number. Only they can tell me what that is.
Yes - the implication being that it was too much and should have been less. You may respond, well, why should it have been less? They'll respond, well, why should it have been this much? The NHL dished out the punishment, presumably based on a process and rationale that it is able to explain, and it should be the one to answer.
|
So give me an example of the type of response you want to hear from the NHL.
Last edited by Jiri Hrdina; 09-13-2018 at 12:24 PM.
|
|
|