Wideman Decision Expected Wednesday

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

uh oh

Eric Francis @EricFrancis
Breaking: linesman Don Henderson was in hospital until 5 am following hit by Wideman, dealing w neck pain & nausea. Concussion protocol done

Oh dear. Hope he's ok, I've met him before and he's a great guy.

[Erick Estrada]

The size of the suspension really doesn't matter as the union will appeal and Wideman has a good case in that he was plastered before the hit and nobody can go into his head one way or another to conclude that he was 100% right in his mind at the time he collided with the linesman. The NHL could throw 20 games at him but I'm fairly confident that an appeal would greatly reduce it if not eliminate it completely.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Unless Henderson has eyes in the back of his head, he would have had no idea why the collision occurred. Especially because incidental contact can, and does, happen.



No, they can't. Much like with missed goals, once the next play started, they can't go back.

So you're saying that a player could theoretically hang back and deliberately slash, spear, cross-check, board, punch, or abuse an official, and as long as no official sees it happen with their own eyes, then they can't actually eject the player from the game?

I find it hard to believe that if a player was thought to be deliberately assaulting officials, that they wouldn't remove the player from the game regardless of whether it was behind the play enough to not be seen.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by pylon

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!"

You're only perceiving hypocrisy because you believe you know how myself and others would react to a situation you just created in your head.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The size of the suspension really doesn't matter as the union will appeal and Wideman has a good case in that he was plastered before the hit and nobody can go into his head one way or another to conclude that he was 100% right in his mind at the time he collided with the linesman. The NHL could throw 20 games at him but I'm fairly confident that an appeal would greatly reduce it if not eliminate it completely.

I can't say I've ever seen a 20-gamer ever get reduced to zero. That's a bit of a stretch.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So you're saying that a player could theoretically hang back and deliberately slash, spear, cross-check, board, punch, or abuse an official, and as long as no official sees it happen with their own eyes, then they can't actually eject the player from the game?

I find it hard to believe that if a player was thought to be deliberately assaulting officials, that they wouldn't remove the player from the game regardless of whether it was behind the play enough to not be seen.

Resorting to reductio ad absurdum is the surest sign you have lost a debate.

[PeteMoss]

Also considering Colin Campbell considering the suspension - I'd lean toward no suspension. He always leaned towards the offender when he was the guy handing out the suspensions for on-ice infractions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Here's an argument against suspension:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacr.../#375017d0902f

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Here's an argument against suspension:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacr.../#375017d0902f

That is exactly how I see the play.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Also considering Colin Campbell considering the suspension - I'd lean toward no suspension. He always leaned towards the offender when he was the guy handing out the suspensions for on-ice infractions.

Yeah, this is the same guy who gave Matt Cooke zero games for killing Marc Savard's career.

[HUSKER4FLAMES]

Horrible catch 22. He either pasted him because he was angry and the stick banging or he was woozy and recovering from the hit.

So suspension. Or how did the trainers not address concussion protocol on Wideman.

Either is bad and need to be address. Suspension 10 games is my opinion

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Resorting to reductio ad absurdum is the surest sign you have lost a debate.

I would argue that not being able to defend your argument in debate, is a sign that you have lost a debate.

I contend that if the officials thought that a player deliberately assaulted one of them, that they would have ejected the player. You obviously disagree.

[868904]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Kerry Fraser had a pretty in-depth look at it. Makes some good points.





http://www.tsn.ca/c-mon-ref-a-former...ident-1.429965

To me, this is really similar in essence to the goalie interference / goalie running penalty. A forward may get pushed or may have his momentum towards a goalie in the course of driving the net, but it doesn't mean the goalie is fair game. The player still has to make some effort to avoid the goalie and if he doesn't, he gets a penalty.

Wideman really didn't look like he made any effort at all to get out of the way or to lessen the impact on the linesman. It may be that Wideman was too dazed and thought it was a Predator or it could just be that Wideman is just really really stupid, and based on his decisions on the ice, I think that is entirely possible.

This is also similar to a careless high sticking penalty. Yes, the player may not have intended to high stick, but he is still responsible for this stick, intentional or not.

I don't think a 10 game suspension is warranted, but I think Wideman should get some kind of penalty for just carelessness or stupidity. Maybe a game or a fine.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by HUSKER4FLAMES

Horrible catch 22. He either pasted him because he was angry and the stick banging or he was woozy and recovering from the hit.

So suspension. Or how did the trainers not address concussion protocol on Wideman.

Either is bad and need to be address. Suspension 10 games is my opinion

The stick bang was for a line change.

[Poe969]

Not sure if this was asked earlier but it seems like the linesman suffered a concussion....right after the play he was still out there though. Shouldn't he have followed protocol for a concussion right after it happened too? If his first thought was to keep the game going and do what had to get done, couldn't that be the same reasoning Wideman had? Wideman skated to the bench and tried to doge the linesman at the last second and had to get off the ice as another player was getting on.

Again, I don't think he'll get suspended but I'm interested to see how this plays out.

[BigFlameDog]

Look...I get that he should have had to go through the protocol but can you guys stop with the hit in the head/dazed automatically means a concussion. It simply is not true, all head injuries should be taken seriously (and true concussions very seriously) but not every head smack is a concussion...and not every concussion is from a head smack.

Some of the worst concussions are from Whiplash where the head isn't even touched.

I am not arguing the good and bad of the protocol or the NHLPA and I am not defending Wideman. You can't watch a video of a guy hitting his head or looking dazed and say "that guy is CLEARLY concussed".

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

The stick bang was for a line change.

Yup, it a typical "replace me on the ice" signal.

I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to know this.

[dissentowner]

I can't see how he does not get suspended. 10 games.

[tvp2003]

400 votes and it's still a 55/45 split. When I went to bed last night it was almost exactly 50/50. Amazing.

Not expecting to change anyone's mind but I'll add a couple of quick comments based on some screen shots I've uploaded:



Notice that Wideman is approaching the linesman either directly to his back, or slightly towards his inside shoulder. If he continues in this path he likely hits him square in the back or slightly off-center (i.e. on the "9").



Instead, he notices him at the last second and tries to sidestep him (he won't make it around him against the boards, so he instinctively goes the other way). Unfortunately, rather than hitting him square in the back and pushing him forward, he effectively angles him directly into the boards.



Look at where Wideman is looking in photos 2 and 3. Not at the linesman, but at the bench/door and possible the oncoming Predators player who is rushing up ice with the puck -- see #20 in the photo below:



My best guess at his "intent" was that he was trying to get off the ice on the long change and was feeling the effects of the hit (either head related or neck/shoulder related or both). That is why he didn't bear hug the linesman (as Kerry Fraser suggests and what might have happened if the situation was different); he knows he has to get off the ice and is using whatever gas is left in the tank to do it.


P.S. The video of the Canuck player hitting the same linesman just goes to show he's not very careful on the ice and probably should do a better job staying out of the way next time

[Fan in Exile]

The best outcome I can see for Wideman is giving him the benefit of the doubt, he gets 10 games instead of 20. I don't think it's arguable that he didn't know he was going to make contact and he put his stick up and extended his arms. He cross-checked him in the neck from behind and it could easily be 20.
I would be shocked if he got off without any suspension and I expect that the officials' union would be extremely displeased to the point of some kind of action if Wideman were to get away with this one.