Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
He wound up with both arms, stick in both hands, and f-ing smoked him dead center, in the back, at maximum impact. Perfectly timed. Target. Deliberate.
|
Wow. This wasn't even close to what happened. Wound up? False. Stick in both hands? True. Smoked him dead center (not sure how to answer that, so 'sure'?), maximum impact? Yeah... NOOO.
Take a look at the video again. You are GREATLY exaggerating the incident to fit your narrative that Wideman is some evil person who was hell bent on seeking vengeance not against the guy who hit him, but for a LINESMAN (who doesn't call penalties, btw) for a hit that occurred.
It is one thing to not believe Wideman in that the hit made him dazed (though looking at his skating and his reaction immediately before the incident seems to fit, though nobody will know for sure), and therefore he wasn't sure what was happening as he hit the linesman. It is something altogether to make it seem like he was winding up from the blueline with Henderson's number at full speed trying to 'break his neck'.
Look at Wideman's speed
Look at how Wideman actually slowed down at the last instant.
Look at Wideman's skates and how they were positioned.
Look at Wideman's grip on his stick - is that how NHL players crosscheck?
Your narration is grossly misleading. Maybe Wideman did intentionally hit Henderson - but that was without question NOT an intent to injure. Not when you actually take a look at the crosscheck, speed and positioning.
I would agree with Rick and Kelly as Wideman appeared 'dazed'. It looked like to me that at the last second, he saw the linesman, got his hands up to protect himself and push away, which seems likely with how his skates were positioned.
Even if you don't agree with that take, I don't see how in the world one looks at that and thinks "That was a deliberate, malicious intent to injure". Watch any hockey game to see what a crosscheck looks like - crosschecks that don't even result in penalties - and get back to me.
For me, it was either 'dazed' and innocent (and if you have ever had your bell rung, you would know what it means to have that dark tunnel vision where you aren't really seeing anything) or at most some frustration with the linesman in his way.
Either way, your exaggeration is grossly misleading. Take a look at the video again, and tell me that it isn't the case.
Look at this crosscheck for comparison - Phil Kessel on Dorsett. Look at the skate positioning, hand positioning on the stick, how Kessel is using his weight to help with the crosscheck.
Compare once again to Wideman's hit on Henderson. You might argue that Wideman knew what he was doing and that he hit Henderson on purpose - and you may even be right. But tell me again how that was a vicious, intent to injure type of incident. I don't see it, no matter how many times I look for it. It simply isn't there.
The way you describe it is simply a gross exaggeration. Add to the fact that Wideman has had an incredibly clean record right up until that point, and your explanation would actually be comical, if it wasn't for Henderson actually sustaining injury.