- Thread starter
- #1
If that wasnt conclusive evidence, then how in the hell can they suspend anyone. I just dont get the explaination. It seemed obvious.
they seemed to have conclusive evidence of Nathan Horton squirting water at a fan and chose not to suspend him ... when a suspension precedent existed
they seemed to have conclusive evidence of Nathan Horton squirting water at a fan and chose not to suspend him ... when a suspension precedent existed
Squirting water is now complarable to biting? Seriously? I know you are a Nucks fan but seriously...
wheres the eyeroll smilie
point is they chose to not use the past suspension precedent there and they probably did the same here
I guess I am unaware of the squirting precendece, but to claim it is as severe as a grown ass man biting someone seems like a stretch even for the biggest of homers.
where did i say the acts were comparable in terms of severity
I wouldn't call jstew a "homer" but I disagree with him on this subject.
When you found it to be relevant to the topic.
i see
bergeron puts his fingers in Burrows mouth and you put words in mine
i see
bergeron puts his fingers in Burrows mouth and you put words in mine
Clearly a solid reason to bite someone...