I understand why the NHL would suspend him - his off-ice behaviour has adversely impacted the persona of the league and what it wants to represent. The suspension acts to punish players who harm the reputation of the league as an added deterrent (to the question of "why shouldn't I beat my wife?").
That's fine - I get it the rationale. Makes sense. Except for the part that no player who is about to beat his wife in the heat of the moment is going to be deterred by this policy because if they were thinking rationally, they wouldn't beat their wife in the first place. So whether its 1 game or 10 games or 1000 games, no player who is about to beat their wife is going to think in the moment about the possible suspension from their employer because they're simply not thinking.
But ignoring this obvious logic flaw, its still entirely subjective with regards to what a reasonable deterrent should be. So the NHLPA needs to fight this to make sure the subjective answer is properly answered and subjectively reasonable (to the NHLPA).
And then there's one lingering issue - this suspension actually punishes the victim. Say Watsons wife wants a divorce now...she's also losing income she'd be entitled to in a divorce court. So in a way she's getting punished for having gotten beaten. Also doesn't make a ton of sense either.
|