Even as a Flames fan, I have a serious issue with the arbitrator's decision.
To start, he determines that "the proper penalty should have been that specified in League Rule 40.3", which states:
So, he's accepted that an interpretation that Wideman deliberately applied physical force was appropriate.
His issue with the initial decision comes from the "intent to injure" element of 40.2. After acknowledging that "intent to injure" in 40.2 includes "any physical force which a player... should have known could reasonably be expected to cause injury" he goes on to rule:
This I seriously disagree with.
First, I see no reason why this isn't taken as the reasonable person test. But even if you accept it's a person in Wideman's condition, and I acknowledge he was concussed, given that he:
- Got to his skates and skated to the bench on his own;
- Had the awareness to tap his stick for a line change;
- Wasn't displaying sufficient distress to have the team doctor pulhim from the game; and
- Played the rest of the game without displaying obvious impairment
you're not going to convince me he shouldn't have reasonably known that contacting an unsuspecting person from behind, with that degree of force, was likely to cause an injury without some compelling medical evidence. It's just too far a stretch, IMO.