Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
The rationale is he assaulted his wife.
|
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.
Quote:
Comparing this to past suspensions isn't relevant. They aren't apples to apples. The only comparison is Voynov I suppose.
So what are you looking for?
|
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.
Quote:
|
And to be clear people aren't just asking why this was the suspension they have LITERALLY said that it seems harsh.
|
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.