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

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Just sit Wideman out for the first preseason game and call it a day. If this drags into the season it will only hurt the Flames.

You know it's not actually about Wideman sitting out a game or not at this point right?

________

I wonder if they're just trying to avoid discovery. IMO any time the leagues inner workings come to light the league doesn't tend to come out looking any better then when it went in.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Wow NHL.

The guy served 19 effing games. What the hell else do you want?

Serious question: Are you (and others) going to post this exact same whine every time there is an update to the story? Because that has already gotten old.

The legal system does not work as fast as you want it to. Get used to it.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if true I'm absolutely baffled. Because they are so upset with how the arbitrator took things into his own hands, they will now allow a random judge to be the sole person to make a decision that hopefully sides with the NHL...

Amateur.

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You know it's not actually about Wideman sitting out a game or not at this point right?

________

I wonder if they're just trying to avoid discovery. IMO any time the leagues inner workings come to light the league doesn't tend to come out looking any better then when it went in.

It's such a 'Witch Hunt' now it is actually getting to be an embarrassment for the Flames and even the league imo.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You know it's not actually about Wideman sitting out a game or not at this point right?

________

I wonder if they're just trying to avoid discovery. IMO any time the leagues inner workings come to light the league doesn't tend to come out looking any better then when it went in.

I meant it more in the sense that it would make Bettman feel better.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if true I'm absolutely baffled. Because they are so upset with how the arbitrator took things into his own hands, they will now allow a random judge to be the sole person to make a decision that hopefully sides with the NHL...

Amateur.

The NHL's contention is that the arbitrator does not have the power to "[take] things into his own hands". Much like the league and the union, the arbitrators have to follow the rules set down by the CBA. The NHL believes Oldham violated the CBA and exceeded his mandate. It absolutely has to challenge that, as to do nothing is to, in the league's view, allow a third party to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement.

Nobody would be forgiving if the league or the union tried to do that, so why should an arbitrator get a pass? That is why it is going to court, to allow a judge to determine if Oldham did exceed his authority.

Unfortunately, the legal system doesn't move quickly. As it is, this motion appears to me to be an effort by the NHL to resolve it before the season starts, given the timelines presented. Even so, this story will be ongoing into October.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I meant it more in the sense that it would make Bettman feel better.

I don't think it would make anybody (including Gary Bettman) feel better. What would make him feel better is getting what he wants and I don't think he wants Dennis Wideman to serve 1 more game... what he wants is a legal validation of his claim and Wideman sittng out a preseason game won't provide that.

[Erick Estrada]

Doesn't change much for the Flames as he's served the original 20 game suspension and will be eligible to start the season. It does likely make trading (if that was even a possibility) him difficult in the mean time.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The NHL's contention is that the arbitrator does not have the power to "[take] things into his own hands". Much like the league and the union, the arbitrators have to follow the rules set down by the CBA. The NHL believes Oldham violated the CBA and exceeded his mandate. It absolutely has to challenge that, as to do nothing is to, in the league's view, allow a third party to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement.

Nobody would be forgiving if the league or the union tried to do that, so why should an arbitrator get a pass? That is why it is going to court, to allow a judge to determine if Oldham did exceed his authority.

Unfortunately, the legal system doesn't move quickly. As it is, this motion appears to me to be an effort by the NHL to resolve it before the season starts, given the timelines presented. Even so, this story will be ongoing into October.

If they ruled that Oldham exceeded his authority, would Wideman be entitled to a new hearing then?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

The only thing left is to satisfy their ego.

Pretty much this. Campbell, Bettman and the rest of the old boys club can't stand the fact that a ruling went against them. It's inconceivable!!

I honestly don't think this has anything to do with seeing justice done or doing what's right for the official who got hit. This reeks of having everything to do with a bunch of old men who are used to things going their way and are livid that something went awry and will do anything in their power to hold face.

If only the NHL showed such passion like this for things that actually mattered.

[Benched]

precedent. this whole case was that.

not allowing 'concussion like symptoms' to be an excuse (especially as concussion court battle is ongoing/beginning)
now it's not allowing '3rd party to overrule our decision unilaterally'


This had very little to do with Wideman or optics or the ref or what's good for the game. It's legalese and legal precedent setting.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Benched

precedent. this whole case was that.

not allowing 'concussion like symptoms' to be an excuse (especially as concussion court battle is ongoing/beginning)
now it's not allowing '3rd party to overrule our decision unilaterally'


This had very little to do with Wideman or optics or the ref or what's good for the game. It's legalese and legal precedent setting.

I agree, but there is a little ego involved. Bettman's whole "well, we still made him sit for 19 games anyway..." smirky little quip after the decision shows that his pride was wounded. I wouldn't be surprised if he is putting in personal time on this one.

[FlameFan21]

Originally Posted by FBI

Someone post a picture of the boy riding the dragon in the never ending story.

Sure. Why not.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If they ruled that Oldham exceeded his authority, would Wideman be entitled to a new hearing then?

Probably. IIRC, the NHL is asking that Oldham's decision be vacated. My guess is that would punt the ball back into the NHLPA's corner and they would have to decide if they want to re-appeal the initial suspension.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Doesn't change much for the Flames as he's served the original 20 game suspension and will be eligible to start the season. It does likely make trading (if that was even a possibility) him difficult in the mean time.

I doubt it. If the Flames want to trade Wideman and a team wants to acquire him, I doubt the risk of him missing one game should the original suspension be re-instated would be much of an impediment.

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I doubt it. If the Flames want to trade Wideman and a team wants to acquire him, I doubt the risk of him missing one game should the original suspension be re-instated would be much of an impediment.

While I agree with you, I wonder if the optics or potential to be a distraction might come into play though?

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The NHL believes Oldham violated the CBA and exceeded his mandate. It absolutely has to challenge that, as to do nothing is to, in the league's view, allow a third party to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement.

.

This is bang on.

As much as everyone wants this to go away, for the NHL to do nothing is essentially acting in compliance and therefor, any further infractions where the subject rule needs to be upheld, can't be due to a new precedent being set, essentially.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by jaikorven

While I agree with you, I wonder if the optics or potential to be a distraction might come into play though?

I think there's far more important reasons that trading Wideman would be difficult before this ongoing dispute with the NHL and NHLPA drags on. At this point the argument has less to do with Wideman and more to do with the precedent set by the arbitrator, in the NHL's opinion not following the CBA, and the concussion issues brought up that will be brought up in the more important battle.

Reasons Wideman trade would be difficult.

1. He wasn't very good last year.
2. He makes a lot for not being very good last year.
3. Have fun ever getting calls in your favour if you have a player who was caught calling the refs stupid after sending one of their colleagues to the hospital and probably ending his career.

[powderjunkie]

My understanding is the Oldham pointed out that the CBA was poorly written in respect to what action he could/could not take (ie. what his purview was), and thus applied logical reasoning to support why he ruled as he did.

If the NHL is successful in their assertion that the arbitrator should be nearly powerless, they are essentially depriving Wideman of his last recourse. It seems evident that the spirit of the provisions re: 3rd party arbitration in the CBA were to ensure the NHL couldn't be overly heavy-handed without some possible recourse for the players. Of course, it was such a unique and unprecedented situation that neither side was able to fully consider the necessary language.


As for all the precedent talk, the NHL has proven time and again that precedents are irrelevant in their own kangaroo courts/wheel of justice. I do understand why they are fighting this to the death, because it would be a real legal precedent that could actually matter in the future. The NHL could have acknowledged that Wideman's concussion was a mitigating factor in the incident without any future issues. Making the same statement in a Simon/Hollweg incident might have been more problematic, but the NHL can still make up the rules as they go along if they want (and if their appeal is successful, this will be doubly true, as the PA may have no longer have any recourse at all)

[Resolute 14]

From my reading of the CBA, I think the one part that was rather clear is the part Oldham screwed up on. The agreement says the NDA must first decide whether the commissioner had "substantive evidence" to come to the decision he did. If he finds that was not the case, then the issue becomes confusing and the arbitrator can pretty much do what he wants. Everything Oldham said pointed to agreeing that Bettman had substantive evidence, but he just threw all that out anyway.

I disagree also that the appeals court ruling against the NHLPA on this one would render the arbitrator "nearly powerless". Though that is context dependent. Given my view above, if Oldham basically agrees with Bettman on the key points; namely: Application of rule 40 was proper, ergo agrees Wideman's actions were deliberate, and accepting Henderson was injured, then yes, Oldham should have been nearly powerless to change Bettman's ruling. Rule 40 makes it very clear what is a 20 gamer, and what is 10. And in this interpretation, Bettman properly applied the rule, while Oldham did not.

However, as someone who enjoys a little chaos from time to time, there remains the possibility of one hell of a pyrrhic victory. If the circuit court sides with the NHL and vacates the arbitrator's decision, then theoretically it would be back to the NHLPA to decide if they wish to appeal again to another NDA. I would suggest it is possible that a second arbitrator could look at the evidence, focus on Wideman being concussed and argue that Bettman did not have substantive evidence to make the call he did (satisfying the first part of the NDA's duties). If the arbitrator then decided that owing to being injured himself, Wideman was not aware of his surroundings or actions, could decide the contact was incidental, and NO suspension was warranted. And in my total layman's perspective, I think a decision such as that would be far more sound legally than what Oldham came up with.