NHL sues NHLPA to vacate Wideman suspension

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

He found the decision was not based on substantial evidence. His remediation was that the evidence presented applied to another rule (in this case a 'guiding rule', just as the 20 game rule was). Of course, none of us were in the room, so we will never know if he actually "re-tried" the whole case or not.

Too lazy to dig it all back up, but summed up from memory:

10 game - deliberate action against an official without intent
20 game - deliberate action against an official with intent to injure

Bettman's evidence supported deliberate action, but did not support intent to injure.

I quoted the rule in my very post.

20 games is deliberate action causing injury or deliberate action with intent to cause injury.

As to the rest, I am not sure what you aim to accomplish by trying to re-argue the intent of Wideman's actions relative to other incidents given both Bettman and the arbitrator agreed that Wideman's action was intentional.

[powderjunkie]

The rule applied by arbitrator:

Any player who deliberately applies physical force to an official in any manner (excluding actions as set out in Category I), which physical force is applied without intent to injure. = 10 games.

10 games is also deliberate action, but instead of the vaguery of "with or without intent", it is specifically "without intent".

[Resolute 14]

And that rule explicitly excludes category I offences - which includes deliberate contact causing injury.

By logic and the rule book, the arbitrator's choices if he felt rule 40 was applicable was either 20+ games (deliberate contact causing injury) or 0 games (incidental/accidental contact).

Putting aside the problem of failing to consider whether Bettman had substantial evidence to support his decision, if the arbitrator wanted a figure other than 0 or 20+, he would have had to reject the rule 40 argument first and rely on another rule or clause in the CBA.