Wideman Decision Expected Wednesday

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. He is talking about the amount of games and there being no minimum or requirement of a game misconduct to give a suspension of over 10 games (under player safety). He is not saying that the actual existence of an offence is not still required. Look at the relevant rules.

In other words, you can't just say "there is no rule broken but we will suspend you anyway".

If what you are saying is true, why has no one else said anything about it?

No one has reported anything close to what you're saying through this whole thing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If what you are saying is true, why has no one else said anything about it?

They have. And no one else other than in this thread has said he could be suspended for an accidental hit. Look closely at the Paul Stewart article. And the discussions about the Weber and Cujo hits on refs.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They have. And no one else other than in this thread has said he could be suspended for an accidental hit. Look closely at the Paul Stewart article. And the discussions about the Weber and Cujo hits on refs.

I think I havn't fully understood you. But now I think I have any we are on the same page now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If what you are saying is true, why has no one else said anything about it?

No one has reported anything close to what you're saying through this whole thing.

Paul Stewart was saying the same things.

In short, for Rule 40 (abuse of officials) to apply, the game misconduct penalty must have been called. Since it was not, the league is not bound by its mandatory punishments.

Rule 28 (supplemental discipline) explicitly says that it comes into effect for any offence, whether or not it was called on the ice. So the league has the ability to say that Wideman's actions constitute deliberate abuse of an official, and can suspend him under this rule. However, it could suspend him one game, ten, twenty or fine him $35, because this rule offers no set minimums.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Paul Stewart was saying the same things.

In short, for Rule 40 (abuse of officials) to apply, the game misconduct penalty must have been called. Since it was not, the league is not bound by its mandatory punishments.

Rule 28 (supplemental discipline) explicitly says that it comes into effect for any offence, whether or not it was called on the ice. So the league has the ability to say that Wideman's actions constitute deliberate abuse of an official, and can suspend him under this rule. However, it could suspend him one game, ten, twenty or fine him $35, because this rule offers no set minimums.

Right. But if they do say it was deliberate, I can't imagine a short suspension.

If they accept his explanation that it wasn't deliberate, then how do they suspend him at all? I don't buy a carelessness suspension.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Right. But if they do say it was deliberate, I can't imagine a short suspension.

If they accept his explanation that it wasn't deliberate, then how do they suspend him at all? I don't buy a carelessness suspension.

I think you are giving Campbell and the NHL way too much credit in thinking that they will apply that level of logic to this situation. This is a really weird circumstance. I don't think any past scenario is quite like it, and I don't really see this to likely happen again, so I don't think there is much to justify a "deterrent" factor. I do think they will call it careless/negligent and give him +/- 10 games.

Honestly, that might be about right in any event. I can't imagine 0 games. Twenty seems excessive, but could be the max. Split the difference would be an easy move.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Right. But if they do say it was deliberate, I can't imagine a short suspension.

If they accept his explanation that it wasn't deliberate, then how do they suspend him at all? I don't buy a carelessness suspension.

Well, the league does penalize careless use of the stick in high sticking infractions, so there is merit to such an argument. But I agree. I think it will be a long one, and everything I have heard from the talking heads on radio, print and TV suggests the same.

[GirlySports]

yeah it'll be a long one. Especially with all the US media jumping on it when it happened.

[taco.vidal]

Even Deadspin is getting in on this.

http://deadspin.com/report-dennis-wi...whe-1756617850

Wideman’s immediate comments after that game were that he had his head down, and didn’t see linesman Don Henderson until it was too late.

He will likely present a different explanation at today’s hearing, overseen by Colin Campbell (because it’s not a player safety issue). According to Elliotte Friedman, Wideman is expected to say he was “woozy” or “foggy” from a hit immediately preceding the check—that is, he was concussed and he didn’t know what he’s doing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, the league does penalize careless use of the stick in high sticking infractions, so there is merit to such an argument. But I agree. I think it will be a long one, and everything I have heard from the talking heads on radio, print and TV suggests the same.

I don't think that's a comparable because the high sticking infraction allows for a careless use penalty, whereas deliberate physical force on an official requires - well - deliberate force.

I've never seen a suspension for careless use of a stick either - just that it's not a defence when given a high sticking penalty.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Even Deadspin is getting in on this.

http://deadspin.com/report-dennis-wi...whe-1756617850

That's a dumb change in story IMO (if it's accurate). It makes the initial story less credible.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The "no tolerance" of any deliberate contact made with an official. In virtually all other instances, there is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that in each one, all contact with the official was either accidental or incidental. There is a lot more room for reasonable doubt in the Wideman case.


There is very little doubt that the contact between Joseph and the official was anything but accidental. The same cannot be said for Wideman and Henderson.

Cujo's actions that lead to the contact were very deliberate/intentional. Lucic's punch was very deliberate/intentional. Neither were trying to make contact with the official, but their reckless actions were deliberate. There is no evidence to suggest that Wideman's actions leading to the contact with the official were deliberate/intentional, but his split second reaction was reckless. Probably a bad analogy, but all three would likely fall into 'manslaughter' if the victim had died.

Even Deadspin is getting in on this.

Wideman is expected to say he was “woozy” or “foggy” from a hit immediately preceding the check—that is, he was concussed and he didn’t know what he’s doing.

Woozy/foggy does not always = concussed
Concussed almost always - woozy/foggy

I don't get how people don't understand this anymore.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Cujo's actions that lead to the contact were very deliberate/intentional. Lucic's punch was very deliberate/intentional. Neither were trying to make contact with the official, but their reckless actions were deliberate. There is no evidence to suggest that Wideman's actions leading to the contact with the official were deliberate/intentional, but his split second reaction was reckless. Probably a bad analogy, but all three would likely fall into 'manslaughter' if the victim had died.



Woozy/foggy does not always = concussed
Concussed almost always - woozy/foggy

I don't get how people don't understand this anymore.

He might also have been watery-eyed, which doesn't need a concussion.

Still, if woozy, he should have been checked for a concussion.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Woozy/foggy does not always = concussed
Concussed almost always - woozy/foggy

I don't get how people don't understand this anymore.

On the Fan 960 yesterday they were talking about this and it was more of:

Woozy/foggy does not always = concussed
Concussed almost always - woozy/foggy

If you are a player/athlete.

Woozy/foggy does always = concussed

If you are a Doctor.

[Resolute 14]

I think it was Friedman yesterday morning who said that while players and the league might buy the woozy does not necessarily mean concussed argument, medical experts would laugh at that.

Edit: What Weitz said.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

None of the officials saw the incident.

If you read what I said...officials are allowed to view incidents such as this AFTER the game and hand out a misconduct and automatic suspension.

What is their reason for not doing this? If they are now gonna argue for a long term suspension surely they have to answer this question.

[corporatejay]

The more I think about it, the more I think he gets at least 10 and probably more like 20 games.

What he did was pretty ridiculous.

[burn_this_city]

I thought originally he'd get nothing. Since the mob is enraged and the Official's Union is involved he's getting 20 games.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Even Deadspin is getting in on this.

http://deadspin.com/report-dennis-wi...whe-1756617850

Nice of them to show the 5 second clip on a loop

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by dino7c

If you read what I said...officials are allowed to view incidents such as this AFTER the game and hand out a misconduct and automatic suspension.

What is their reason for not doing this? If they are now gonna argue for a long term suspension surely they have to answer this question.

That's what I thought too. I am pretty sure I have seen them add misconducts at the end of the game based on footage, for the purpose of triggering automatic hearings and the such.

To me, it almost seems like the officials of the game were willing to give Wideman a pass, but then other officials (and their union) probably piped up.

At this point, I think it is all NHL politics. The incident itself is secondary to relationships of the NHL, officials and to a lesser degree, the players.

Also to anyone holding out hope that he isn't suspended, the NHL has already decided to suspend him by suspending him "indefinitely, pending a hearing". If there was any chance that he wasn't going to be suspended, they just would have set a hearing without making the statement that he was suspended in the meantime. Not that I necessarily agree with a suspension, but it's done. The only question is for how long.

Even though I think it was accidental, it looked bad and the NHL won't want to give an inch on this. It wouldn't take much for a less reputable player to push the issue by hitting officials, but trying to mask it as an accident, therefore they won't give Wideman the benefit of the doubt.

I am guessing he gets 12 games, then the NHLPA appeals, and they settle on ~7 games.