Wideman totally planned getting hit and knocking his face into the boards. He then proceeded up the ice with his head "down" so he could "accidentally" smoke a linesman in the back. It was all a clever rouse as he knew it would be reviewed by the league. His weak attempt to jump out of the way and act surprised were all planned after getting up off of the ice and skating to the bench.
He is a wiley veteran after all. He should now be called CraftyDog.
I would really like to see the view from the other way - his eyes could have been looking down. But what it looks like is he is trying, at the last minute to get out of the way, by side stepping and his arms oome up in reflex to get protect himself (or even get out of the way more).
I understand why people think it is intentionally though - it looks awful.
Watch this video again (or for the first time if you missed it before)...
The Clifford hit on Neal (2:05) looks significantly worse than what Wideman did with a flying cross check to the face, but it was deemed accidental.
The Marleau hit on Burns (4:15) is very similar to the Wideman hit. Marleau is moving forward in a straight line, Burns is skating backwards. When Marleau realizes they're on a collision course, he tries to move out of the way and throws his hands up to protect himself. He ends up giving Burns a solid cross check from behind, knocking Burns to the ice as he skates away unharmed. Like Wideman, Marleau has no reason to take out Burns (assuming there isn't some unknown feud between them in the Sharks' room).
I think this is one of those blue dress/gold dress things. It doesn't matter how many times you explain it, or how clear the evidence is to your eyes, people just aren't going to see it that way.
I'd even point to how many people know that he was dazed. Not just people speculating, but people that can unequivocally tell that he was dazed. Which of course, means that the trainers, concussion spotters, coaches etc all missed it.
I think this is one of those blue dress/gold dress things. It doesn't matter how many times you explain it, or how clear the evidence is to your eyes, people just aren't going to see it that way.
I'd even point to how many people know that he was dazed. Not just people speculating, but people that can unequivocally tell that he was dazed. Which of course, means that the trainers, concussion spotters, coaches etc all missed it.
I'm convinced the concussion spotters are all CP Posters, posting from their devices from the comfort of their homes, bar, office, etc.
Fun fact: since this is not really a Player Safety issue, it is not the DOPS' or Quintal's responsibilty. That honour goes to everyone's favourite disciplinarian: Colin Campbell.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
I think this is one of those blue dress/gold dress things. It doesn't matter how many times you explain it, or how clear the evidence is to your eyes, people just aren't going to see it that way.
I'd even point to how many people know that he was dazed. Not just people speculating, but people that can unequivocally tell that he was dazed. Which of course, means that the trainers, concussion spotters, coaches etc all missed it.
No one should 'know' anything - on either side of this.
However, we do have the benefit of looking at video. THere is some fairly substantive evidence to suggest that he was dazed, including a lump and cut on his eye.
Conversely, the trainers did not have a video. The hit happened in the corner, and then he skated along the boards, while the play was already up ice. There is a good chance that no one on the bench saw anything. So when they asked him how he was, they would have only had his word to go on.
IMO you have to watch both angles before commenting in absolutes. When I saw only the angle from behind I though Wideman lost his mind....when you see the overhead it looks like an accident and way less severe.
__________________ This Signature line was dated so I changed it.
Watch this video again (or for the first time if you missed it before)...
The Clifford hit on Neal (2:05) looks significantly worse than what Wideman did with a flying cross check to the face, but it was deemed accidental.
The Marleau hit on Burns (4:15) is very similar to the Wideman hit. Marleau is moving forward in a straight line, Burns is skating backwards. When Marleau realizes they're on a collision course, he tries to move out of the way and throws his hands up to protect himself. He ends up giving Burns a solid cross check from behind, knocking Burns to the ice as he skates away unharmed. Like Wideman, Marleau has no reason to take out Burns (assuming there isn't some unknown feud between them in the Sharks' room).
Clearly Burns slashing him back shows there was a feud
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
This is such a crazy play to me. Despite having clear video evidence we are still split right down the middle, which to me just goes to show there is no way of truly knowing whether it was an accident or not.
We have our opinions, but Wideman is the only one who really knows.
So trying to think objectively, all I know FOR SURE is that Wideman belted an official.
The NHL does whatever they can to protect officials. With no concrete evidence either way, and it being able to be interpreted as intentional, I feel the wheel of justice lands on the side of the officials here. I voted suspension.
No one should 'know' anything - on either side of this.
However, we do have the benefit of looking at video. THere is some fairly substantive evidence to suggest that he was dazed, including a lump and cut on his eye.
Conversely, the trainers did not have a video. The hit happened in the corner, and then he skated along the boards, while the play was already up ice. There is a good chance that no one on the bench saw anything. So when they asked him how he was, they would have only had his word to go on.
I don't think there is any evidence he was dazed. At least not strong evidence. It is all guesses based on his actions. He makes it to the bench fine and we probably aren't talking about it. Lumps and cuts are not evidence of being dazed or a concussion.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
This is such a crazy play to me. Despite having clear video evidence we are still split right down the middle, which to me just goes to show there is no way of truly knowing whether it was an accident or not.
We have our opinions, but Wideman is the only one who really knows.
So trying to think objectively, all I know FOR SURE is that Wideman belted an official.
The NHL does whatever they can to protect officials. With no concrete evidence either way, and it being able to be interpreted as intentional, I feel the wheel of justice lands on the side of the officials here. I voted suspension.
This is a flames board though. I am sure people without any skin in the game are not as likely to give Wideman the benefit of the doubt.
No it doesn't. It speaks only to the fact that Wideman was so far behind the play that none of the officials saw it.
At least one official was directly involved though. I know linesman can't call all infractions, but it would seem ridiculous if they couldn't at least call an "abuse of an official" penalty when the abuse was on them, or least be able to report it to the ref to call.
At any rate, I am sure they can eject players based on video and they had access to the same reel that everyone else did, yet Wideman was not ejected.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
This is a flames board though. I am sure people without any skin in the game are not as likely to give Wideman the benefit of the doubt.
Have you read the thread. Probably at least half the people that say he should be suspended just want him off the roster. He isn't exactly popular these days.
There is a bias, but it's the opposite of what you think.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
