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?
McSorely got 3 games for his spear that he said he didn't remember. But I don't know if that was because they said "so what" or "I don't believe you".
What rule did he break? You can't just make up an offence. If they can't find a rule, any competent lawyer will win an appeal in 5 minutes.
Why didn't his lawyer appeal the indefinite suspension already then?
And this isn't a court of law where you hire a lawyer to argue a technicality. If a "lawyer" (which I assume you mean the NHLPA) appeals the suspension, the case will just be seen Bettman (if it's less than 6 games) or another mediator who will make a subjective ruling.
I know its been a while since this happened, but if you're the NHL how do you argue Wideman should be suspended when you didn't hand out punishment to Joseph?
What rule did he break? You can't just make up an offence. If they can't find a rule, any competent lawyer will win an appeal in 5 minutes.
No one is making up rules. Rule #28 in the NHL rulebook is broadly construed, and would include any seemingly intentional contact made by Wideman to the official that is not covered in rule #40. It states explicitly that any incident can fall under this ruling at the discretion of the commissioner.
The argument could still be made that this constitutes abuse of an official as it is broadly defined by rule #40.1: "Any player who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official." But that any disciplinary measures must be taken in accordance with rule #28, supplementarily in the absence of any infractions charged during or immediately after the game.
__________________
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?"
Why didn't his lawyer appeal the indefinite suspension already then?
And this isn't a court of law where you hire a lawyer to argue a technicality. If a "lawyer" (which I assume you mean the NHLPA) appeals the suspension, the case will just be seen Bettman (if it's less than 6 games) or another mediator who will make a subjective ruling.
They didn't appeal it because it doesn't cost him any money.
Who do you think the NHLPA uses in their appeals? Hint - it's lawyers.
Player Safety appeals of less than 6 games go to Bettman. Not sure about this one because it's not Player Safety. But Bettman is a lawyer himself, and will follow the rules. Now, if he doesn't, then even a "final" decision of an arbitrator can be challenged by reason of lack of jurisdiction (exceeding authority). Whether the PA would do that for a 6 game or less suspension is doubtful though.
I thought of that, but it's a pretty big stretch. I always thought that had to do with off-ice stuff.
Yeah, that's true. I just checked the CBA, and it does specifically refer to off-ice conduct. However, the rule for Supplemental Discipline specifically notes that it applies to any infraction, whether or not a penalty is called. So my read is that while Rule 40 doesn't apply because there was no penalty, the league still has the authority to suspend under Rule 28 for the same reason - the infraction is physical abuse of an official. This, I think is what Paul Stewart was angling toward with his piece. Because Rule 40 does not apply, the league does not have to follow the ten game minimum, though as Stewart notes, may still use that as a guide regardless.
No one is making up rules. Rule #28 in the NHL rulebook is broadly construed, and would include any seemingly intentional contact made by Wideman to the official that is not covered in rule #40. It states explicitly that any incident can fall under this ruling at the discretion of the commissioner.
The argument could still be made that this constitutes abuse of an official as it is broadly defined by rule #40.1: "Any player who deliberately applies physical force in any manner against an official." But that any disciplinary measures must be taken in accordance with rule #28, supplementarily in the absence of any infractions charged during or immediately after the game.
You bolded the wrong part.
As for Rule 28, again, that's a procedural rule allowing investigation and punishment of an on-ice offence. It specifically requires an offence to have been committed. Meaning a rule has to be broken. The only possible one someone has pointed to that doesn't expressly require intent is the conduct rule.
I know its been a while since this happened, but if you're the NHL how do you argue Wideman should be suspended when you didn't hand out punishment to Joseph?
What did the rule look like at the time of this incident?
Regardless of the answer, there are some clear differences than what happened in the Wideman case. Joseph fell down, and while falling also knocked the referee down. Moreover, maybe this constitutes a missed call that should have been made, and as such can't really be used to legitimate Wideman's actions or their outcome.
__________________
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?"
I know its been a while since this happened, but if you're the NHL how do you argue Wideman should be suspended when you didn't hand out punishment to Joseph?
The appearance of intent. Joseph wasn't trying to hit the official, he fell into him. Wideman appeared to deliberately hit the official.
Whether or not you agree that Wideman *did* try to make deliberate contact, it is the appearance of it that has him in trouble.
As for Rule 28, again, that's a procedural rule allowing investigation and punishment of an on-ice offence. It specifically requires an offence to have been committed. Meaning a rule has to be broken. The only possible one someone has pointed to that doesn't expressly require intent is the conduct rule.
I still think they can say it was deliberate and 9 out of 10 people would probably agree.
Yeah, that's true. I just checked the CBA, and it does specifically refer to off-ice conduct. However, the rule for Supplemental Discipline specifically notes that it applies to any infraction, whether or not a penalty is called. So my read is that while Rule 40 doesn't apply because there was no penalty, the league still has the authority to suspend under Rule 28 for the same reason - the infraction is physical abuse of an official. This, I think is what Paul Stewart was angling toward with his piece. Because Rule 40 does not apply, the league does not have to follow the ten game minimum, though as Stewart notes, may still use that as a guide regardless.
Repeating myself, but it still requires the infraction, so all Rule 28 does is let you look at a rule-breaking that occurred before (whether a penalty was called or not). So that takes us back to "abuse of offical: which still requires a deliberate act.
The way they can go, if they want to suspend him, is to say they don't buy a complete lack of intent, he deliberately shoved Henderson, and then base the actual penalty on motive, wooziness, etc.
BTW, even if he says he meant to shove, but didn't realize it was the linesman, I think he still can have broken the rule.
It doesn't really matter, since the argument for deliberation is pretty strong. Recall that this is contact in any manner, meaning that if Wideman deliberately extended his arms and contacted the official with them, then his actions qualify.
__________________
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?"
It doesn't really matter, since the argument for deliberation is pretty strong. Recall that this is contact in any manner, meaning that if Wideman deliberately extended his arms and contacted the official with them, then his actions qualify.
The appearance of intent. Joseph wasn't trying to hit the official, he fell into him. Wideman appeared to deliberately hit the official.
Whether or not you agree that Wideman *did* try to make deliberate contact, it is the appearance of it that has him in trouble.
Cujo fell into him because he was going ape-#### about a missed call and chasing after him...not like they just collided
Was in a different era though...Wideman wouldn't have got anything back then since the officials didn't give him a misconduct and it wouldn't have got as much attention
Cujo fell into him because he was going ape-#### about a missed call and chasing after him...not like they just collided
Was in a different era though...Wideman wouldn't have got anything back then since the officials didn't give him a misconduct and it wouldn't have got as much attention
Not a different era at all, actually. Only a few short years. In a way, I respect your dedication to the "Wideman did no wrong" argument. I don't respect at all the "this is only an issue because of social media" argument. If Dennis Wideman had done this 10 years ago, it would still have been a huge controversy, and it still would have resulted in supplemental discipline.
It sucks that Wideman is in this situation, but my definite impression is that tomorrow is going to be a sentencing hearing, not a trial. You might as well start accepting it now.
...It sucks that Wideman is in this situation, but my definite impression is that tomorrow is going to be a sentencing hearing, not a trial. You might as well start accepting it now.
For my part, I agree that it sucks that Wideman is in this situation. But if the hearing goes as it seems it will, and the result is a long suspension, I am also of the opinion that this is the right decision. While understanding completely that Wideman may not have intended what happened, it is important that the League not budge from their "no tolerance" approach to officials. The outcome should reinforce how important it is for players to be aware of and responsible for their actions on the ice.
__________________
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?"
Yup. I've wavered in my opinion of how much intent Wideman had, but I've always felt he is looking at 10 games. I don't see that changing much tomorrow, and it will be the right decision. Especially if the NHLOA is as pissed as it seems they are.
The appearance of intent. Joseph wasn't trying to hit the official, he fell into him. Wideman appeared to deliberately hit the official.
Whether or not you agree that Wideman *did* try to make deliberate contact, it is the appearance of it that has him in trouble.
I disagree that Wideman had intent. I view it as he saw him last second and the shove was reactionary and accidental. The same as how Joseph didn't intend to trip and hit the ref causing him to fall.
