Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan in Exile
There is intent to hit and intent to injure. It's far easier to impute intent to hit than to injure. When you look at the video evidence there is a rebuttable presumption that Wideman intended to hit the linesman. I don't think you can so easily impute malicious intent, and the circumstances and Wideman's history help in that regard.
You seem ready to accept Wideman's explanation that the contact was inadvertent but I think the fact that his stick and arms went up and he gave the linesman a shot to the back of the neck precludes that explanation being accepted. And that would be a 10-game suspension. I guess we'll soon find out.
I agree with you that if Wideman is found not to have intended to hit the linesman, then I don't see any grounds for a suspension or fine.
|
I agree, all that needs to be proven is intent to hit in order to suspend. Intent to injure carries the larger penalty. However, there is no rebuttable presumption in the rule.
And his stick and arms came up just like Weber's in the video that was posted, and for the same reason. Where I disagree is the "shot to the head". He certainly contacted Henderson, but I don't think he was delivering a shot.