The difference is that it's not the outcome that needs to be deliberate - it's the actual action...
Which is precisely why I was careful to specify that players will also invariably always plead innocence as to the specifics of the hit, to assure that with regards to "the actual action" they never intended to contact another player with the elbow, knee, shoulder, etc. The point here being that decisions regarding intent are made all the time by the League with nothing better to go on than what has been documented on video.
Beyond this post, I should mention that I happened to hear Jamie McLennan speak on this topic this morning, while listening to the most awful sports radio show of all time: "Jake and the Pratt Man" on TSN 1040 in Vancouver.
McLennan said from his dozens of conversations with people in and close to the NHL at the ASG about Wideman's case, he is convinced that the suspension will be severe—in the 10–20 game-range. Add this to several other reports from former NHL players who have essentially said the same thing, and I think the writing is on the wall here.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
If you're polling people who follow the Calgarypuck Twitter account, how does that get the non-Calgarypuck view?
I get the tongue in cheek ...
but twitter certainly branches things into other areas better than a forum would. followers of followers of followers has a better reach than people logged into Calgarypuck and are members (allowed to vote)
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Which is precisely why I was careful to specify that players will also invariably always plead innocence as to the specifics of the hit, to assure that with regards to "the actual action" they never intended to contact another player with the elbow, knee, shoulder, etc. The point here being that decisions regarding intent are made all the time by the League with nothing better to go on than what has been documented on video.
Beyond this post, I should mention that I happened to hear Jamie McLennan speak on this topic this morning, while listening to the most awful sports radio show of all time: "Jake and the Pratt Man" on TSN 1040 in Vancouver.
McLennan said from his dozens of conversations with people in and close to the NHL at the ASG about Wideman's case, he is convinced that the suspension will be severe—in the 10–20 game-range. Add this to several other reports from former NHL players who have essentially said the same thing, and I think the writing is on the wall here.
I've said he should get zero (basically because I thought it was unintentional when I saw it, saw it on replay, and after he said what he said). But I'm guessing he will get something, just because. I'd bet, though, that it's substantially less than 10.
Again, if there's a rule that doesn't require deliberation - just carelessness, this changes everything.
Yes, as others have already mentioned, you don't have to prove deliberation to suspend a player. Kassian breaking Gagner's jaw was a perfect example. It's debatable whether he did it on purpose but nonetheless, his carelessness caused an injury and led to an 8 game suspension.
Just curious as to your opinion (as I believe you're feeling he shouldn't be suspended at all) - would you agree that Wideman was careless on the play? And if so, shouldn't a careless action resulting in body contact to a referree be suspendable?
Yes, as others have already mentioned, you don't have to prove deliberation to suspend a player. Kassian breaking Gagner's jaw was a perfect example. It's debatable whether he did it on purpose but nonetheless, his carelessness caused an injury and led to an 8 game suspension.
Just curious as to your opinion (as I believe you're feeling he shouldn't be suspended at all) - would you agree that Wideman was careless on the play? And if so, shouldn't a careless action resulting in body contact to a referree be suspendable?
Jeepers, you'd think I hadn't said it twelve times in this thread. The rule on player-official contact requires more than carelessness. It requires intent. Player-player contact is a useless comparison because (a) they usually intend the hit - just not the consequence and (b) there are several rules which penalize carelessness for that contact.
If you think there's a carelessness rule for "abuse of official"- please show it.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
Jeepers, you'd think I hadn't said it twelve times in this thread. The rule on player-official contact requires more than carelessness. It requires intent. Player-player contact is a useless comparison because (a) they usually intend the hit - just not the consequence and (b) there are several rules which penalize carelessness for that contact.
If you think there's a carelessness rule for "abuse of official"- please show it.
On the radio right now they are talking it doesn't fall under rule 40 which is the intent rule, but under supplementary discipline which covers all on ice actions.
Even if he claims he was dazed, he's still responsible for his actions.
Not really, though. I got a concussion during a soccer game and my response was to tackle someone and start (trying) to throw punches. I had no idea what I was doing. I could barely see, my vision was tunnelled and blurry. I could also barely hear anything. That kind of response was completely out of character for me having done nothing like it ever before or since. So I can understand the argument that IF Wideman was concussed and skating back to the bench he may have seen a figure in his way at the last moment and just kept going without too much of an attempt to avoid them or see if they were okay.
All we can really do as fans is watch the video and make a judgement despite not knowing what was going on in Wideman's head. Hell, he may not even know what was going on in his head at that time.
On the radio right now they are talking it doesn't fall under rule 40 which is the intent rule, but under supplementary discipline which covers all on ice actions.
No - it doesn't fall under player safety. But there still has to be an "offence" under supplementary discipline. The Paul Stewart article confirms this.
No offence - no punishment. So what is the offence, if not abuse of official?
Jeepers, you'd think I hadn't said it twelve times in this thread. The rule on player-official contact requires more than carelessness. It requires intent. Player-player contact is a useless comparison because (a) they usually intend the hit - just not the consequence and (b) there are several rules which penalize carelessness for that contact.
If you think there's a carelessness rule for "abuse of official"- please show it.
"since no physical- abuse-of-an-official penalty was assessed on the play, this incident does not fall under the jurisdiction of Rule 40.3 (which would carry an automatic 10-game suspension). It also does not fall to the Department of Player Safety, which I noted but did not explain. Put simply, because it was not a player-to-player incident, it is not a matter of player safety.
Instead, it will be reviewed under Rule 28 (Supplementary Discipline) which provides the NHL the authority to “investigate any incident that occurs with any Pre-season, Exhibition, League or Playoff game and may assess fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player…”.
Note: While the League can and might use Rule 40 suspension regulations as a guideline for its ruling, it is under no obligation to do so. The NHL can impose any suspension length -- or no suspension -- as it so chooses based upon the evidence."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"Instead, it will be reviewed under Rule 28 (Supplementary Discipline) which provides the NHL the authority to “investigate any incident that occurs with any Pre-season, Exhibition, League or Playoff game and may assess fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player…”.
He's talking about it not being 40.3. It still needs an "offence". That has to be one of the other offences under 40 because no one can show me another one.
No - it doesn't fall under player safety. But there still has to be an "offence" under supplementary discipline. The Paul Stewart article confirms this.
No offence - no punishment. So what is the offence, if not abuse of official?
What text just said is what they said on the radio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Instead, it will be reviewed under Rule 28 (Supplementary Discipline) which provides the NHL the authority to “investigate any incident that occurs with any Pre-season, Exhibition, League or Playoff game and may assess fines and/or suspensions for any offense committed during the course of a game or any aftermath thereof by a player…”.
"offence".
The offence is him drilling the official from behind.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
Not really, though. I got a concussion during a soccer game and my response was to tackle someone and start (trying) to throw punches. I had no idea what I was doing. I could barely see, my vision was tunnelled and blurry. I could also barely hear anything. That kind of response was completely out of character for me having done nothing like it ever before or since. So I can understand the argument that IF Wideman was concussed and skating back to the bench he may have seen a figure in his way at the last moment and just kept going without too much of an attempt to avoid them or see if they were okay.
All we can really do as fans is watch the video and make a judgement despite not knowing what was going on in Wideman's head. Hell, he may not even know what was going on in his head at that time.
Umm...my point wasn't that if you're concussed you won't be out of it and may act irrationally. I just said you're always responsible for your actions. In your example, if you jumped someone and started throwing punches and seriously hurt them, do you not think you could be charged with assault? And I'm sure you were red carded and thrown out of the game (and likely suspended). Is that not being held responsible for your actions?
I know this was posted earlier, but I just think hockey players can get a bit of tunnel vision. In this one Weber is coming straight towards Henderson and he explodes into him. I think there are definitely similarities.
Kind of funny that if you view this from the sportsnet video player the caption is that Henderson could not get out of the way of a charging Weber.
The interview with Mike Cvik was very interesting on this front. Kerr didn't want to directly ask what Cvik thought since Mike is still an NHL employee, but he was asking about history and generalities. The definite impression I got from Cvik's answers to indirect questions is that he is very unhappy with Wideman's actions. Said he had never seen an incident quite like that, and emphatically underscored the NHLOA's viewpoint that the officials are untouchable. He was far more consilatory toward's Lucic's actions when asked about that, stating that the linesmen know they are trying to get in between guys who are mad at each other. My impression is he viewed that incident as "accidents happen", but not Wideman's. If I had a guess, I would bet that is the viewpoint held by many officials, and by their union as well. That does not augur good for Wideman.
