[sureLoss]

From the decision:

Some observers of the video have characterized the contact between Wideman and Henderson
as a cross-check, but this is inaccurate. A true cross-check would occur with the stick approximately
horizontal and with both hands somewhat widely separated with palms facing downward towards the
ice, thus allowing full pushing strength from arms and shoulders. Wideman’s configuration was much
different. His left hand was holding the end of the stick, left palm facing downward. His right hand
was eight-to-ten inches away with a reverse grip, right palm turned inward toward his own face. With
the stick at approximately at the one o’clock position, this would not appear to be a configuration that
would facilitate much pushing strength. Linesman Henderson testified that he felt as though he had
been hit by a bus.10
He described this feeling as due to have been hit “up in the shoulders” but it
seems much more likely that the hit that he felt (and the only hit that could have produced his
concussion) was when his head hit the boards on the way down.
Throughout this incident -- before, during and after the contact between Wideman and
Henderson -- Wideman’s head remained fixed toward the Flames’ bench. He cannot have seen
Henderson fall. Then as the gate giving access to the bench began to open from the inside, Wideman
steped into the doorway just as another Nashville player skated closely by. Wideman then sat on the
bench, did not think to close the gate, held his head down for several seconds, then raised it and looked
around. He testified that he had no idea at the time that he had hit Henderson.

My fundamental disagreement with Commissioner Bettman’s decision, is that, based on the
totality of the evidence presented to me, I do not think that Wideman’s behavior was animated by an
intent to injure Henderson, even taking into account the parenthetical definition of “intent to injure” in
Rule 40.2 (discussed below). My opinion on the question of intent is supported by an important piece
of new evidence, in the testimony of Stephen Walkom, the NFL’s Senior Vice President and Director
of Officiating. Mr. Walkom summarized his testimony as follows:
“My testimony is that he [Wideman] was upset, he’s skating to the bench, and he
made a mistake, and he cross-checked the Linesman, and he knocked him to the
ice with enough force to hurt him, even though he probably didn’t intentionally
mean to hurt him.”12
Commissioner Bettman states in his opinion that, “Mr. Wideman struck Mr. Henderson with
the shaft of his stick and caused him injury.”13
As is clear from my analysis of the video, above, I do
not share this interpretation of what the video shows. The Commissioner states also that, “Mr.
Wideman himself acknowledged in his testimony that his blow to Mr. Henderson’s back was the kind
of blow that can reasonably be expected to cause injury.”14
This, however, is not persuasive. The
Commissioner cites the following exchange between NHL counsel and Wideman at the hearing before
him:
Q. And when you couldn’t get around him, why didn’t you simply gab him
rather than do what you did?
A. Because I didn’t see him to the very last second, and it’s just a reaction to
go like this [motion]. When you’re going to run into someone, your
initial reaction isn’t to hug him. I was trying to get out of the way.
Q. Looking at the video now, putting aside what you actually did, you would
agree with me that striking somebody like that is the kind of conduct that
could cause an injury, right?
A. Right.15
This exchange, ending in a hypothetical, does not seem to me to constitute the acknowledgement that
the Commissioner describes.