View Single Post
12-18-2013, 03:10 PM
Grave Before Shave
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,334
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
The "burden of proof" is what is presented to Shanahan to make a determination; in every NHL case, that's video evidence. If he doesn't see a hit, how can he suspend a player without evidence that an illegal act was committed?
I think you are misunderstanding the term burden of proof. Burden of proof refers to what a party must show in order to be successful in their claim or in order to get a conviction. In a criminal case, for example, the prosecutor must show that every element of the crime has been committed. He has the burden of proof of proving every element, and the defendant can make his defense (i.e. that certain elements were not committed or that there was some reason for committing such elements). The judge/jury doesn't just look at the security tape or look at some evidence and say hmm...looks like he's guilty. Same thing in a civil case. If I represent someone that had property damage because you hit their property with your car, I don't just show the jury the bill for repairs and say you were negligent because you hit my crap so give me the money. You have to PROVE your case.

In the context of an NHL disciplinary hearing, there is no one proving anything to Shanahan. Shanahan and his guys look at the tape and say thumbs up, thumbs down. If they doesn't like it, it is a suspension.

There is no one there (unless I am missing something) on behalf of the NHL that has to prove something in order for a suspension to be handed down. It is simply Reviewed by Shanahan and his underlings and a decision is made. Hence, no burden of proof. A lot different than the legal system we have in the US (maybe its different in Canada, I don't know TBH). But again, are we really discussing this. It doesn't really have any impact on what I think is suspendable and what you think is suspendable.

What you think is an illegal hit may not be the same as what I think is an illegal hit.
Exactly. Doesn't mean I am right or you are right. We just disagree with what we think is suspendable.

And not all hits are created equal. So, in your example, the deciding factor (as employed by the NHL, to my satisfaction and clearly not yours) is that Player A is injured and Player C isn't.
Exactly. You are ok with that, I am not.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote