The fact he played a regular shift for the rest of the game may work against him in his defence. Pretty hard to argue he was concussed or even feeling the effects of the hit if the medical staff saw no evidence on the bench and allowed him to continue play.
Players should be (are?) held responsible for their actions whether their is intent or not. I'm thinking a pretty lengthy suspension is coming, probably at least 10 games and maybe significantly more.
Intentional or not, you have to protect officials.
Absolutely I agree, as much as I like Wideman letting something like this go unpunished would set a bad example. It's not much different than when someone gets clipped by an accidental stick the offender still has to spend time in the box! I voted suspend
I listened to James Duthie on the TEAM 1040 this AM, and thought that he had a very good take on this. It was the morning show, which features the worst cast of clowns in the history of talk radio, David Pratt and "Bro Jake", so of course, there were ALOT of cringe-worthy moments.
Duthie said that Wideman is not intending to injure the linesman, and that the collision itself was probably accidental. However, he also said that the cross-check (and he called it a cross-check) is something that he expects will incur a suspension. Duthie believes that the shot Wideman delivered to the ref was instinctual, and I think that is probably right. The problem is, the league needs to take extreme measures sometimes to protect their officials, and whether or not the "collision" was accidental (and I think there is nothing to confirm one way or the other whether there was intent here), the up-high hit itself is something that should and will likely be punished. The league disciplines for dangerous plays that are unintentional. I don't see why they shouldn't also punish for a reactionary incident such as this one.
Apparently, Ray Ferraro has also come out strongly in favour of suspending Wideman. I haven't hear him yet, but have found that he generally has a pretty balanced and sensible view of things.
__________________
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?"
Here's what happened: he got his bell rung and wasn't seeing/thinking straight -- he thought the linesman was a Pred and gave him a shove. He played the rest of the game because players get concussed all the time and don't take themselves out of the game.
In my opinion concussion protocol should not be voluntary regardless. It probably will become this way after the concussion law suits are settled.
As for charges of hypocrisy they're true -- but that doesn't make us wrong; we know Wideman, we know it's out of character and something else must be going on. Sport fandom is the biggest exercise in hypocrisy on earth.
The Following User Says Thank You to sempuki For This Useful Post:
Bumps into him, no. Hammers him from behind like last night, yes.
So how would you enforce that? Based on velocity of the accidental contact? If the contact was deemed to be accidental (and again resolute, this incident aside), how can you suspend a player? I have seen ref's get nailed hard and have yet to see anyone argue a suspension. That's why your comment struck me as odd.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to united For This Useful Post:
Here's what happened: he got his bell rung and wasn't seeing/thinking straight -- he thought the linesman was a Pred and gave him a shove. He played the rest of the game because players get concussed all the time and don't take themselves out of the game.
In my opinion concussion protocol should not be voluntary regardless. It probably will become this way after the concussion law suits are settled...
I tend to agree with most of your take on the hit, but I also have a problem with setting much blame on concussion protocol as it pertains to this particular incident.
The hit Wideman sustained was right at the end of the play, and it is reasonable to think that virtually everyone missed seeing it. If no one on the bench saw it, then I don't think it is at all unreasonable that they did not implement any concussion protocol. It is too much to expect that players are going to do the responsible thing here, or even that they will be in the right frame of mind after such incidents to conduct an adequate self assessment.
So, all that to say, it is entirely understandable why Wideman and the Flames do not believe that he sustained a concussion, and also why there was nothing done about it at the time it occurred.
__________________
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?"
That is actually a rather illustrative video. Because while Henderson's head is pointed in the general direction of Weber, he clearly is not paying any attention to where he is. Just goes to show that the positioning of the head doesn't guarantee awareness in that direction.
The reverse angle of the hit has me moving in the direction of believing Wideman's argument, but James Duthie also makes a good point. And if the league feels the same, then that is probably a ten gamer under rule 40.3 anyway.
So how would you enforce that? Based on velocity of the accidental contact? If the contact was deemed to be accidental (and again resolute, this incident aside), how can you suspend a player? I have seen ref's get nailed hard and have yet to see anyone argue a suspension. That's why your comment struck me as odd.
I don't think everything can be classified as "intentional" and "non-intentional". Reactive and instinctive behaviour is not intentional, but it tends to carry with it consequences that assume some level of intent. Can we call this an incident of consequential contact?
__________________
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 just don't see how this is deliberate and a suspension, as a means to deter, should not come into play for something that is not plainly intentional.
If step 1 is determining whether or not this was an accident, I don't see how you move past this to step 2.
A suspension doesn't even make sense to me.
I was thinking about it this morning and came to the same place as Textcritic mentioned; the contact itself IMO was incidental. If they'd just collided it would have been fine. That it was a stick in his hands may make the difference.
If it was another player it'd probably be penalty worthy since a player should always be in control of their stick (i.e. an accidental stick to the face still results in a penalty, so would an accidental crosscheck).
That's the way I see a suspension coming out of this; intent being disregarded, it's a stick in the hands and should be controlled, it wasn't, combined with the desire to protect the refs...
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
So how would you enforce that? Based on velocity of the accidental contact? If the contact was deemed to be accidental (and again resolute, this incident aside), how can you suspend a player? I have seen ref's get nailed hard and have yet to see anyone argue a suspension. That's why your comment struck me as odd.
It's usually pretty simple to tell if the play is accidental or not. Especially if the player and/or official are looking in opposite directions, if a player simply falls, etc.
If you have a play like last night where the play had to be stopped as the official was in obvious pain laying on the ice and the footage cannot show if there was intent on Wideman's part or not I think err on the side of caution and hand out some sort of discipline.
There's no black and white answer. Look at this thread and poll, it's split pretty evenly. All I can do is comment on the hit last night and I would have no problem with the NHL handing out some sort of punishment in that instance.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
I was thinking about it this morning and came to the same place as Textcritic mentioned; the contact itself IMO was incidental. If they'd just collided it would have been fine. That it was a stick in his hands may make the difference.
If it was another player it'd probably be penalty worthy since a player should always be in control of their stick (i.e. an accidental stick to the face still results in a penalty, so would an accidental crosscheck).
That's the way I see a suspension coming out of this; intent being disregarded, it's a stick in the hands and should be controlled, it wasn't, combined with the desire to protect the refs...
In the video a couple posts above yours, Weber is going at a much greater speed and brings his hands up, and gets no suspension. Bringing up your hands to protect your face is a natural human reaction. I think it's really silly to base that as the reason for a suspension.
I am pretty confident in my belief the Wideman won't even be suspended for a single game, and if he is, I think he has a strong case for appeal.
LOL. I am getting a kick out of the hypocrisy of this thread. If this was any Canuck, Oiler, or Leaf, there would be so much faux outrage and calls for "OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!!1 NHL, threeve Biliionty gamez plz!"
Wideman should be suspended, and rightfully so. Just looks like dude had a little embarrassment tantrum to me.
I think the situation is so unusual it isn't reasonable to pretend to know how people would feel. But fill your boots.
For what its worth I have no idea if he'll be suspended, which is why I haven't voted. I find the sequence just to weird to try and figure out how they will handle it.
The Following User Says Thank You to JiriHrdina For This Useful Post:
No suspension, for a guy who had been suspended for dirty hits before.
It's a fast game, dazed, groggy, concust, doesn't really matter, things happen quickly on the ice, and not every single time, can a player get out of the way.
Wideman was making his way to the bench, head down, likely wasn't thinking "I should keep my eyes on the linesman, he may skate into my path blindly" he just took his line to the bench, last second realizes there going to be a collision, and reacts, no differently than any human would. Hands up, protect yourself.
Does it look intentional that he hit the linesman? Absolutely, and it should, that human nature. Does that mean he intentionally hit the linesman, I can't read minds, but I find that highly unlikely.
The Following User Says Thank You to wretched34 For This Useful Post:
I don't think he should be suspended but if he is, I really don't think it matters that much. If him being suspended gives them any kind of cap relief, I hope he's suspended otherwise it doesn't matter.
The passion some are showing would make some think that the Flames are in the thick of a playoff battle and he's our #1 defender.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
