Nashville's Watson suspended 27 games (domestic abuse) upd: reduced to 18 games

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,870
Sin City
Predators' Austin Watson suspended 27 games by NHL


From PR statement
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman levied the suspension under Rule 18-A of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Commissioner's ruling came following an investigation by the League and an in-person hearing in New York on Friday, Sept. 7. The investigation and hearing were conducted, pursuant to the CBA, to determine the relevant facts and circumstances relating to a June 16, 2018, incident involving Austin Watson and his domestic partner. The incident ultimately resulted in Watson pleading no contest to a charge of domestic assault on July 24, 2018.

"I have determined that Nashville Player Austin Watson engaged in a physical confrontation with his domestic partner," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said. "Today's ruling, while tailored to the specific facts of this case and the individuals involved, is necessary and consistent with the NHL's strongly held view that it cannot and will not tolerate this and similar types of conduct."

CBA at work.

Don't see any response from Predators (yet).
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
So the NHL has decided on 1/3rd of a season for domestic abuse as the penalty standard. Not surprised at all, I was guessing 25 to 35%.

I’d presume that is now the minimum bar for Voynov if he chooses to follow the reinstatement route. I’d also guess Voynov’s suspension would be the same 33%, maybe slightly higher, but not much more. The NHL doesn’t want to get into adjucating the severity of domestic violence.
 

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,168
8,512
Acton, Ontario
Can I get a capologist here decipher the CBA section regarding salary lost due to suspensions for off-ice conduct? (CBA 18-A.2)

CBA 18-A.2 said:
For the purpose of calculating compensation forfeited due to a suspension under this Article, the Player will forfeit all Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and Bonuses, but not Performance Bonuses, commencing on the effective date of the suspension through the completion of the last game or date of the suspension, inclusive of all intervening days.

Typically there are two ways to generated the fines from suspensions.
First time offender: divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by games lost
Repeat offender: divide the player's AAV by the number of games in the season, and then multiple by games lost

I cannot tell if this off-ice clause is saying "use days", as in treat all suspensions due to off-ice conduct as if conducted by a first time offender OR if it is suggesting something entirely new.

To me, it can also be interpreted as "divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by the number of days spanning the games lost"




Let's put that in to the context of Watson, and see an example of my confusion.
Since Watson is a repeat offender and we know he will be suspended without pay, you could tell me Watson is losing four very different amounts of money and I'd believe it each one.

The facts:
Watson AAV = $1,100,000; days in season = 186; games in season = 82; days between the start of the season (when Watson would first start generating pay) to the last day of his suspension (day of game 27), inclusively = 60

Scenario 1: Ignore repeat status and use games; divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by games lost
1,100,000/186 * 27 = 5913.98 * 27 = $159,677.42

Scenario 2: Ignore repeat status and use days; divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by the number of days spanning the games lost
1,100,000/186 * 60 = 5913.98 * 60 = $354,838.71

Scenario 3: Repeat offender and use games; divide the player's AAV by the number of games in the season, and then multiple by games lost
1,100,000/82 * 27 = 13,414.63 * 27 = $362,195.12

Scenario 4: Repeat offender and use days; divide the player's AAV by the number of games in the season, and then multiple bythe number of days spanning the games lost
1,100,000/82 * 60 = 13,414.63 * 27 = $804,878.05



My best interpretation is Scenario 2 - ignore repeat status and multiple by days spanning suspension.
And whatever it turns out to be, doing more research into this, it appears players suspended for violating the Substance program lose salary similarly.
 
Last edited:

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
Can I get a capologist here decipher the CBA section regarding salary lost due to suspensions for off-ice conduct? (CBA 18-A.2)



Typically there are two ways to generated the fines from suspensions.
First time offender: divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by games lost
Repeat offender: divide the player's AAV by the number of games in the season, and then multiple by games lost

I cannot tell if this off-ice clause is saying "use days", as in treat all suspensions due to off-ice conduct as if conducted by a first time offender OR if it is suggesting something entirely new.

To me, it can also be interpreted as "divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by the number of days spanning the games lost"

There is no concept of "repeat offender" for off-ice conduct. That's only for on-ice conduct.

Let's put that in to the context of Watson, and see an example of my confusion.
Since Watson is a repeat offender and we know he will be suspended without pay, you could tell me Watson is losing four very different amounts of money and I'd believe it each one.

The facts:
Watson AAV = $1,100,000; days in season = 186; games in season = 82; days between the start of the season (when Watson would first start generating pay) to the last day of his suspension (day of game 27), inclusively = 60

Scenario 1: Ignore repeat status and use games; divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by games lost
1,100,000/186 * 27 = 5913.98 * 27 = $159,677.42

Scenario 2: Ignore repeat status and use days; divide the player's AAV by the number of days in the season, and then multiple by the number of days spanning the games lost
1,100,000/186 * 60 = 5913.98 * 60 = $354,838.71

Scenario 3: Repeat offender and use games; divide the player's AAV by the number of games in the season, and then multiple by games lost
1,100,000/82 * 27 = 13,414.63 * 27 = $362,195.12

Scenario 4: Repeat offender and use days; divide the player's AAV by the number of games in the season, and then multiple bythe number of days spanning the games lost
1,100,000/82 * 60 = 13,414.63 * 27 = $804,878.05



My best interpretation is Scenario 2 - ignore repeat status and multiple by days spanning suspension.
And whatever it turns out to be, doing more research into this, it appears players suspended for violating the Substance program lose salary similarly.

It's scenario #2. He loses 60/186 of his salary this season.**

Whether the Preds receive 60/186 of his cap hit I'm not certain on. CF appears to think there's no cap hit for the missed games. The CBA doesn't say that though.

**Technically the money is still paid by the Preds and forfeited by Watson. It goes into the player emergency assistance fund.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stumbledore

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,168
8,512
Acton, Ontario
There is no concept of "repeat offender" for off-ice conduct. That's only for on-ice conduct.



It's scenario #2. He loses 60/186 of his salary this season.**

Whether the Preds receive 60/186 of his cap hit I'm not certain on. CF appears to think there's no cap hit for the missed games. The CBA doesn't say that though.

**Technically the money is still paid by the Preds and forfeited by Watson. It goes into the player emergency assistance fund.
Thanks mouser!

That helps a lot!
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
I hope we get a full copy of the arbitrators ruling. Very curious to see what standards and precedents he applied to arrive at 18.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Sorry if it might sound like a hot take, but...

The NHLPA should have given the finger to Austin Watson and dared him to file a claim in Breach of Duty of fair representation (or wheatever the equivalent).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebels57

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,742
18,870
Sin City


So, she's blaming that old devil liquor for her actions which Watson reacted to and gave the appearance of domestic violence.

And this didn't come before Bettman made his decision? :dunno:

And Watson plead no contest?

Doesn't sound like the full story/stinks.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->