[News] Bettman upholds 20 game Wideman suspension. NHLPA files appeal to neutral arbitrator

[dino7c]

Widemans best chance are the guys who obliterated officials in the past and got ZERO games. The one from the pre-season in Vancouver that is accidental but the guy puts his hands up as they collide and smokes him...same official wasnt even looked at

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

How so? If the arbitrator decides to find a balance so everyone can get on with things how is that a perversion? I don't think that will happen though, I think he will let the NHL govern how they handle this suspension.

I specifically have a problem with saying that the arbitrator would just "rule it as time served." To me that's saying that the time Wideman has already missed could have an impact on how guilty he is. It just seems bizarre and wrong to say that if, for example, he misses 14 games before a decision is made that he's exactly 14 games guilty.

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Think the best case scenario for Wideman at this point is 15 games.

Doubt the arbitrator comes back with no suspension - the pure optics of the hit are too ugly. Especially with the softness of the concussion argument and the texts to a teammate.

This is related to what I'm talking about. I don't know what factors the arbitrator is supposed to take into account for his decision, but should length of time missed and optics really play into things? They have nothing at all to do with the merits of either side's argument.

Here's a question that might help clear things up: does anyone know if the arbitrator is supposed to use Bettman's decision as the basis for his decision or do things go back to square one? Is there a new hearing with the info from the previous hearings presented as part of the proceedings?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

Here's a question that might help clear things up: does anyone know if the arbitrator is supposed to use Bettman's decision as the basis for his decision or do things go back to square one? Is there a new hearing with the info from the previous hearings presented as part of the proceedings?

Here's all i could find:

"A subsequent appeal right to a neutral arbitrator will be available for suspensions of six (6) or more games. The neutral arbitrator shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter. The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of violation of the League Playing Rules and the penalty imposed were both supported by substantial evidence."

[codynw]

Does the arbitrator have the ability to increase the suspension if he wants? Or is that only Bettman who can do that?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by codynw

Does the arbitrator have the ability to increase the suspension if he wants? Or is that only Bettman who can do that?

I thought I heard that he could bump it up, but I might be wrong.


I don't suspect that will happen at this point.

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Here's all i could find:

"A subsequent appeal right to a neutral arbitrator will be available for suspensions of six (6) or more games. The neutral arbitrator shall have full remedial authority in respect of the matter. The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of violation of the League Playing Rules and the penalty imposed were both supported by substantial evidence."

So by that wording, it sounds like the arbitrator is specifically ruling on Bettman's decision. Is that what everyone else gets out of that?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe a stupid question, but from a legal perspective, how is the neutrality of an arbitrator established? Everyone has personal biases. Even a non-hockey fan is going to have a bias (and likely not in favour of Wideman since most non-hockey fans wouldn't understand the physics of the game and one of the biggest complaints from non-hockey fans is that the game is too violent).

Is it just a matter of taking an oath?

Also, are precedents for punishment important here? I think the NHL can easily argue that they wants to set a new precedent, therefore old ones don't apply.

The CFL let an Eskimo season ticket holder be an arbitrator.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=...f-79784e3d9b05

[Geeoff]

The wording of the abuse of official rule makes it difficult to reduce suspension, since it explicitly says 20 games. Would have to be all or nothing I think.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by troutman

The CFL let an Eskimo season ticket holder be an arbitrator.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=...f-79784e3d9b05

CFL is a joke league though

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

So by that wording, it sounds like the arbitrator is specifically ruling on Bettman's decision. Is that what everyone else gets out of that?

Yes, he will be evaluating if Bettman's judgement (application of rule 40) is correct. So to me it sound more like an all or nothing sort of thing. If he falls out of rule 40, I'm not sure the arbitrator can say "well he still should get 10 even though the league was wrong in applying rule 40".

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

So by that wording, it sounds like the arbitrator is specifically ruling on Bettman's decision. Is that what everyone else gets out of that?

Yes, he's performing a judicial review function. If Bettman's ruling is defensible on the law and facts, then it will stand.

[Aegypticus]

Sounds like the PA maybe doesn't get a very good deal in this process. Not only does the league seem to have the power to drag things out for an inordinate amount of time, but when it finally does go to neutral arbitration it's still based around the league decision. Seems like judging based on what Bettman's ruling was somewhat lowers the burden of proof for the league. What does defensible mean? I'm on the side that the suspension was way too heavy handed and even I think Bettman's argument could be considered defensible.

I have a strong suspicion that this is going to be substantially changed in the next CBA.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

I have a strong suspicion that this is going to be substantially changed in the next CBA.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is all part of Bettman's plan. Show the PA how crappy something is for them so they have a chip to trade when the next CBA is negotiated.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

Sounds like the PA maybe doesn't get a very good deal in this process. Not only does the league seem to have the power to drag things out for an inordinate amount of time, but when it finally does go to neutral arbitration it's still based around the league decision. Seems like judging based on what Bettman's ruling was somewhat lowers the burden of proof for the league. What does defensible mean? I'm on the side that the suspension was way too heavy handed and even I think Bettman's argument could be considered defensible.

I have a strong suspicion that this is going to be substantially changed in the next CBA.

Welcome to the world of administrative law. Substitute government agency, board, or tribunal for league and that is the way things work. Try appealing or reviewing an immigration decision, EI decision, zoning decision, environmental review, labour board, etc, etc. The model is set up to give an impression of procedural rights that rarely translates to anything meaningful.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dino7c

we get it, we are discussing a scenario where the arbitrator says no suspension

in that case the player gets paid for not playing

Yes, and you complained about the thought of the Flames paying $540k for Wideman to do nothing when the Flames are paying $540k for Wideman to do nothing anyway.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, and you complained about the thought of the Flames paying $540k for Wideman to do nothing when the Flames are paying $540k for Wideman to do nothing anyway.

OK, but back to the nub of Locke's question - if the arbitrator rules that there should have been no suspension at all... Wideman gets his money back, but the club winds up getting screwed because the Flames forked out the money, got nothing for the money and (for argument's sake) lost a valuable piece during the most important part of the season. So, who makes the Flames whole?
This is just an academic argument, but I find it interesting...

[MrMastodonFarm]

It's honestly incredibly interesting.

The Flames should be repayed in lottery percentages.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It's honestly incredibly interesting.

The Flames should be repayed in lottery percentages.

All your lottery balls belongs to us? Just add 20% (1 for each game).

[Ashasx]

Just give us Matthews and we can call it a wash.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

OK, but back to the nub of Locke's question - if the arbitrator rules that there should have been no suspension at all... Wideman gets his money back, but the club winds up getting screwed because the Flames forked out the money, got nothing for the money and (for argument's sake) lost a valuable piece during the most important part of the season. So, who makes the Flames whole?
This is just an academic argument, but I find it interesting...

They just write it off.