Quote:
Originally Posted by Super-Rye
I'm in the camp that thinks that Wideman's hit was an accident. I figured 10 games would be the right number. It would show that, yes the NHL saw it as an accident, but still be long enough to send a message to the players that says "Guys, you have to be aware of everyone when you're on the ice."
And seeing as Wideman has been pretty bad at times this year I didn't even care that'd he would be suspended. More play time for someone younger.
But 20 games is far too extreme. It basically says that the NHL believes that Wideman did this on purpose, and damn his past history, reputation and squeeky clean record.
The NHL isn't this hard on blockheads with bad reputations. (Carcillo straight up punched a ref got 6 playoff games)
I feel bad for Wideman. The man got caught in a bad situation that literally could have happened to anyone, and now his reputation is being dragged through the mud. That, in my opinion, isn't fair.
|
I agree with your opinion that it was an accident. I don't agree that a shorter suspension could have been imposed if the league saw it as an accident - in that case I don't think they could give him
any suspension at all.
Why do I think it was an accident? Wideman's history, the mindset that would have him get hit, not react strongly right after, skate slowly to the bench for a change and then suddenly hit an official not even involved in the play at all, the fact he didn't react to the hit (meaning he didn't even know about the linesman going down like that), the little sidestep he took (to me trying to get around), the overhead view, and his statement afterwards.
I acknowledge the rear-view video and the lifting of the hands, though in my mid not anywhere near being the conclusive proof some claim, makes for an arguable case for the opposite conclusion.