[News] Arbitrator reduces Wideman suspension to 10 games from 20

[kyuss275]

Not sure why some posters are pissed? If anything we should be thanking Bettman for the extra 10 games we didn't have to play Wideman. Those 10 games were used to look at D prospects and if they have anything to contribute going forward.

Might as well add that in my opinion there was zero chance any team was going to trade for Wideman at the deadline this year. I dont see anybody trading for him this summer either.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by polak

A) He is the worst. THE WORST.

B) The Flames look stupid for not keeping him in the press box earlier.

There's lots worse. I could name all of them or only Justin Shultz, Lucas Sbisa, or Matt Bartkowski.

[Brick]

The NHL should now have to reimburse The Calgary Flames.

[saillias]

Everyone is so literal/prickly around here lately. I took "the worst" as "he's been really bad"

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by saillias

Everyone is so literal/prickly around here lately. I took "the worst" as "he's been really bad"

Except I said "there's lots worse", and he disagreed, so he meant it literally.

[MoBiBu]

Penalty stats don't tell the complete story with regards to the officiating, much like with advanced stats.

Anyone watching the past 20 games will have objectively noted calls going questionably in multiple games - just as the broadcast team (Hrudey especially) has. This is no "grand conspiracy" or "victim complex" at play; it's human nature playing out which was perhaps catalyzed by the process being stretched out and how it was (mis-)handled in general (the release of the specifics of the text to the public stands out).

The bias plays out in more subtle ways than might appear in the stats: Bouma might ease up on the forecheck because plays that weren't penalties now suddenly are, affecting his game; Johnny might start modifying his play because other teams realize that slashes aren't being called. The penalty numbers don't vary so much because the players adjust away from situations and, in doing-so, start over-thinking the game. Then a frustration creeps in when players observe the tilted ice such as when identical plays are called different based on the logo on the jersey.

[Mike F]

Even as a Flames fan, I have a serious issue with the arbitrator's decision.

To start, he determines that "the proper penalty should have been that specified in League Rule 40.3", which states:

Any player who deliberately applies physical force to an official in any manner (excluding actions as set out in Category I), which physical force is applied without intent to injure, or who spits on an official, shall be automatically suspended for not less than ten (10) games

So, he's accepted that an interpretation that Wideman deliberately applied physical force was appropriate.

His issue with the initial decision comes from the "intent to injure" element of 40.2. After acknowledging that "intent to injure" in 40.2 includes "any physical force which a player... should have known could reasonably be expected to cause injury" he goes on to rule:

The League argues that Wideman’s actions were, at the least, actions that Wideman knew or should have known could reasonably be expected to cause injury. Commissioner Bettman agreed.

What, exactly, Wideman should have known, however, is not an easy question to answer. I do not think the parenthetical language should be interpreted as introducing the idealized “reasonable person” who occupies such a prominent place in the developed common law. I construe the parenthetical as encompassing what the player should have known, taking into account the specific circumstances that occurred. In Wideman’s case, this means taking into account his concussed state, and I do not believe
that in his concussed state, Wideman could or should have anticipated that his push would cause Henderson to fall and bang his head against the boards sufficiently hard to put Henderson also in a concussed state.

This I seriously disagree with.

First, I see no reason why this isn't taken as the reasonable person test. But even if you accept it's a person in Wideman's condition, and I acknowledge he was concussed, given that he:

1. Got to his skates and skated to the bench on his own;
2. Had the awareness to tap his stick for a line change;
3. Wasn't displaying sufficient distress to have the team doctor pulhim from the game; and
4. Played the rest of the game without displaying obvious impairment

you're not going to convince me he shouldn't have reasonably known that contacting an unsuspecting person from behind, with that degree of force, was likely to cause an injury without some compelling medical evidence. It's just too far a stretch, IMO.

[kermitology]

I have to agree with the arbitrators decision regarding intent. I haven't shared this, but I believe that Wideman did intend to hit Henderson. But, what I believe and what I can prove are different. There is no way to prove intent in this case. So whether or not I believe Wideman intended to make contact with the ref is inconsequential.

He made violent contact with a ref, and should have done a better job to avoid contact, but I can't PROVE he did it on purpose.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Not sure why some posters are pissed? If anything we should be thanking Bettman for the extra 10 games we didn't have to play Wideman. Those 10 games were used to look at D prospects and if they have anything to contribute going forward.

Might as well add that in my opinion there was zero chance any team was going to trade for Wideman at the deadline this year. I dont see anybody trading for him this summer either.

It's not about Wideman. What if you replace Wideman with Brodie in this situation? Are we allowed to be pissed then?

The process is a joke no matter which player it was.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Without a clear violation of the CBA (which I don't think there is) I don't see how the Flames can argue they are entitled to compensation from the league.

Putting that aside, what would that compensation look like? I can't think of anything that would make the Flames feel better and be agreeable to the other 29 teams. Another draft pick - other teams would not okay this.

Bottom line, the Flames got screwed by a broken process which needs to be fixed. The next round of CBA negotiations is likely the earliest.

Honestly curious as to how this might apply, as I'm not a lawyer. The CBA defines the players' relationship to the teams and league, but this is an issue of the Flames vs. the league, is it not?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Honestly curious as to how this might apply, as I'm not a lawyer. The CBA defines the players' relationship to the teams and league, but this is an issue of the Flames vs. the league, is it not?

I suspect you are right. League and team interactions would be defined by the NHL's bylaws. I think I still have a copy from the Coyotes lawsuit. I'll have to see if there is anything there that the Flames could argue, though I doubt it.

[Gaudfather]

I think the NHL should award the Flames an extra second round draft pick in the coming draft in lieu of messing with their season!

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Even as a Flames fan, I have a serious issue with the arbitrator's decision.

To start, he determines that "the proper penalty should have been that specified in League Rule 40.3", which states:



So, he's accepted that an interpretation that Wideman deliberately applied physical force was appropriate.

His issue with the initial decision comes from the "intent to injure" element of 40.2. After acknowledging that "intent to injure" in 40.2 includes "any physical force which a player... should have known could reasonably be expected to cause injury" he goes on to rule:



This I seriously disagree with.

First, I see no reason why this isn't taken as the reasonable person test. But even if you accept it's a person in Wideman's condition, and I acknowledge he was concussed, given that he:

1. Got to his skates and skated to the bench on his own;
2. Had the awareness to tap his stick for a line change;
3. Wasn't displaying sufficient distress to have the team doctor pulhim from the game; and
4. Played the rest of the game without displaying obvious impairment

you're not going to convince me he shouldn't have reasonably known that contacting an unsuspecting person from behind, with that degree of force, was likely to cause an injury without some compelling medical evidence. It's just too far a stretch, IMO.

Team doctor doesn't have the ability to pull a player from the game if the player refuses per the CBA.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Not sure why some posters are pissed? If anything we should be thanking Bettman for the extra 10 games we didn't have to play Wideman. Those 10 games were used to look at D prospects and if they have anything to contribute going forward.

Might as well add that in my opinion there was zero chance any team was going to trade for Wideman at the deadline this year. I dont see anybody trading for him this summer either.

I think Wideman would have had a similar return as John Michael Liles and Justin Schultz so that is why I am annoyed. 10 games from the incident takes you to one week before the trade deadline.

[Coach]

IMO, Wideman could have easily been traded with some retained salary. He is one year removed from being a top-scoring dman.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

IMO, Wideman could have easily been traded with some retained salary. He is one year removed from being a top-scoring dman.

If a team valued Wideman that much, they wouldn't have allowed his missing four or five games to affect their desire to acquire him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think Wideman would have had a similar return as John Michael Liles and Justin Schultz so that is why I am annoyed. 10 games from the incident takes you to one week before the trade deadline.

He might have even played a bunch better and raised his trade stock (I think Hudler did this).

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Well, there's only one way to right this situation: the entire league has to replay all games that took place during the 9 games Wideman missed, but should have been eligible to play in. That way the Flames get the choice of icing Wideman, and the whole league has to play the same amount of extra games so there is no unfair advantage going into the playoffs.

Obviously this won't happen, but it does help to underscore what a ****show the NHL is when it comes to this sort of thing. Suppose the Flames were a team that missed the playoffs by two points this year? Shameful, embarrassing garbage. This is an outrage.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Those who think Wideman is untradeable haven't been paying close enough attention to how much defensemen go for at the deadline and in the summer as UFAs. GMs value defensemen who are proven top 4 guys more than a lot of fans apparently.

[AC]

Originally Posted by codynw

It's not about Wideman. What if you replace Wideman with Brodie in this situation? Are we allowed to be pissed then?

The process is a joke no matter which player it was.

Or because the disconnect seems to be about the season the Flames are having, what if it was Gabriel Landeskog and Colorado?

Landeskog just got suspended 3 games while Colorado is in a do-or-die playoff push.

Say Landeskog got 20 games and after 19 of those games were served the suspension was reduced to 10. Colorado would be justifiably pissed they missed out on having one of their best players for 9 very important games which may have cost them a playoff spot at the end of the day.