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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Bettman can't handle being wrong.

Poor take, actually. If the thought process was this shallow, the NFL wouldn't have prevailed against Brady since the detractors there also argued "Goodell can't handle being wrong". Except the NFL had a valid legal argument. The NHL's lawyers wouldn't go forward with this if the motivation was as insipid as "Bettman can't handle being wrong".

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Poor take, actually. If the thought process was this shallow, the NFL wouldn't have prevailed against Brady since the detractors there also argued "Goodell can't handle being wrong". Except the NFL had a valid legal argument. The NHL's lawyers wouldn't go forward with this if the motivation was as insipid as "Bettman can't handle being wrong".

I just think his "Well, Mr. Wideman ended up serving 19 games anyway" quote from an earlier clip in the thread conveyed that.

The feeling I got from that interview was that Bettman had retribution in mind.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think the NDA disagreed with the facts, but he disagreed that you could prove intent and I think any reasonable person would admit that intent to injure wasn't a fact, but an opinion of the NHL.

Here is what the arbitrator said:



It's not that the NDA made his own interpretation of the rule. He interpreted the rule as written, but had a different opinion on the conclusion that the hit was intentional (or that the evidence was conclusive in that respect).

You skipped the next paragraph of his decision:

In my judgment, the proper penalty should have been that specified in League Rule 40.3. Taking into account Wideman’s eleven years of discipline-free performance as a professional hockey player, there is no occasion to go beyond the ten game minimum specified in Rule 40.3.

There is nothing in rule 40 that contemplates a player's previous record in determining whether to apply 40.2 or 40.3. Additionally, by stating rule 40.3 was appropriate, the arbitrator is agreeing that Wideman's actions were deliberate. Since Henderson was injured, then Wideman's deliberate action falls under 40.2 and the 20 game suspension. So the arbitrator may have erred twice in interpretation, and again in basically saying Bettman did have 'substantial evidence' to believe it was proper to apply rule 40.2, but overruled him anyway.

I can't say if the league would or could succeed on these claims - I am after all just an a-hole on the internet with no training as a lawyer - but I believe I can understand why the league is bringing this action.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You skipped the next paragraph of his decision:



There is nothing in rule 40 that contemplates a player's previous record in determining whether to apply 40.2 or 40.3. Additionally, by stating rule 40.3 was appropriate, the arbitrator is agreeing that Wideman's actions were deliberate. Since Henderson was injured, then Wideman's deliberate action falls under 40.2 and the 20 game suspension. So the arbitrator may have erred twice in interpretation, and again in basically saying Bettman did have 'substantial evidence' to believe it was proper to apply rule 40.2, but overruled him anyway.

I can't say if the league would or could succeed on these claims - I am after all just an a-hole on the internet with no training as a lawyer - but I believe I can understand why the league is bringing this action.

Personally, I don't see that as a rule interpretation issue either. The NDA was justifying why he thought the NHL's opinion was unreasonable without hard evidence.

Obviously I am not a lawyer either, just my take as an everyday regular guy.

[browna]

As many of us mentioned throughout this process; this has roughly 15% to do with Dennis Wideman, 10% to do with Henderson and the OA, and 75% to do with the NHL vs the NHLPA, in the constant PR tug of war and reluctance of either side capitulate to the other, in (well) advance of the next CBA negotiations.

[btimbit]

What are they suing for? Validity of a third party interpreting their rules? Or is it like the Tom Brady thing where they're more-so pursuing their right to suspend what is essentially their employee?

[Coach]

Oh for f....

[DJones]

Originally Posted by btimbit

What are they suing for? Validity of a third party interpreting their rules? Or is it like the Tom Brady thing where they're more-so pursuing their right to suspend what is essentially their employee?

That's what I think. Just a union vs employer argument

[Da_Chief]

So can Wideman sue the NHL for suspending him for 19 games when it was reduced to 10? Salary aside, he can potentially be bought out this off-season and lose future earning and maybe those 9 games could've helped him hang onto a NHL career. Why not? since the NHL is grasping at straws he might as well too.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

So can Wideman sue the NHL for suspending him for 19 games when it was reduced to 10? Salary aside, he can potentially be bought out this off-season and lose future earning and maybe those 9 games could've helped him hang onto a NHL career. Why not? since the NHL is grasping at straws he might as well too.

Likely not. It would be mandated by the CBA that he simply gets his pay back.
The choice of words of "suing" is awkward, as they are appealing the decision, not really suing.

[TheScorpion]

The NHL never ceases to amaze me.

[CroFlames]

It would be a grand comedy if the NHLPA & Wideman did some sort of counter suit against the NHL now that they are appealing the arbitrator's decision. I hope somehow Wideman ends up with even more money above and beyond his salary that he received for the 9 additional games her wrongfully served. And it would be the NHL's fault.

I can't believe the NHL wouldn't just leave it alone.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Likely not. It would be mandated by the CBA that he simply gets his pay back.

Sure but...

"The NDA decision shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review."

... so we see that the NHL doesn't give a #### about what's it's agreed to so why should the players. This is very poor form from the NHL.

Bettman... you half lost and still got 95% of what you'd have had if you'd won. Stop being a penis about the other 5%.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One has to think that had the NFL failed in its appeal re: Brady, the NHL would not have taken this action. Also, one must think the NHLOA is still quite pissed, which also plays into the NHL's decision.

Objectively though, I'm not sure they are wrong to do this. The arbitrator certainly seemed to apply his own opinion of what the rule should have meant, and that is not his job. Putting all else aside, I am not certain the league can sit by and allow a third party to reinterpret its rules.

It just sucks that Wideman is still caught in the middle of all this.

The NDA has the right to provide his own interpretation if he determines that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Looks like that's what happened in this case. And as other people have mentioned, the NDA's ruling is binding and not subject to review.

From the CBA section 18.3

(c) The NDA shall hold an in-person hearing and shall determine whether the final
decision of the League regarding whether the Player's conduct violated the League Playing Rules
and whether the length of the suspension imposed were supported by substantial evidence. The
NDA shall issue an opinion and award as soon as practicable. The NDA shall have the authority
to consider any evidence relating to the incident even if such evidence was not available at the
time of the initial Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct decision or at the time of the
Commissioner's decision in connection with the appeal. The NDA shall have full remedial
authority in respect of the matter should he/she determine that the Commissioner's decision was
not supported by substantial evidence. The NDA's decision shall be final and binding in all
respects and not subject to review.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

The NDA has the right to provide his own interpretation if he determines that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Except, he did. He agreed with Bettman that Wideman's actions were deliberate. And there is no dispute that Henderson was injured. These two facts combined justify the claim that Bettman had "substantial evidence" to believe 40.2 and the 20 game suspension was proper.

Instead, the arbitrator introduced arguments that are irrelevant to the proper interpretation of the rule (Wideman's past history) and blatantly ignored Henderson's injury to move to a lower punishment. IMO, these were both in error.

Looks like that's what happened in this case. And as other people have mentioned, the NDA's ruling is binding and not subject to review.

From the CBA section 18.3

Given the NHL believes the arbitrator overstepped his bounds - as defined by that CBA - they have the right to seek legal redress. Otherwise, an arbitrator could do whatever he wants in a case like this, and neither the league nor the union could do anything about it.

The court may or may not decide that the arbitrator did act within the boundaries of the CBA, but the league has the legal right to challenge this.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except, he did. He agreed with Bettman that Wideman's actions were deliberate. And there is no dispute that Henderson was injured. These two facts combined justify the claim that Bettman had "substantial evidence" to believe 40.2 and the 20 game suspension was proper.

Instead, the arbitrator introduced arguments that are irrelevant to the proper interpretation of the rule (Wideman's past history) and blatantly ignored Henderson's injury to move to a lower punishment. IMO, these were both in error.



Given the NHL believes the arbitrator overstepped his bounds - as defined by that CBA - they have the right to seek legal redress. Otherwise, an arbitrator could do whatever he wants in a case like this, and neither the league nor the union could do anything about it.

The court may or may not decide that the arbitrator did act within the boundaries of the CBA, but the league has the legal right to challenge this.

Totally and if you read Bettman's letter from the initial appeal, you can see that he was thorough and detailed in his response.

He takes more immense pride in knowing, understanding, and applying the legalities of the CBA better than anyone else. I often forget that he is the central figure in creating, changing, refining, and iterating the document over the last 20 years. No one knows it better than he does.

To me, it does not mean his interpretation is correct, determining the motive for Wideman's actions inherently subjective. However Gary holds the most power and influence over how the situation is/was and will be interpreted.

In the book on Bettman, "The Instigator" he is as detail oriented as any person could be. He rarely goes into a room without knowing how the results will turn out. If he disagrees with a decision, he will state several reasons why. If he is emotional within his job, it is thoroughly controlled, repressed, and calculated emotion. He also has a long memory.

What I think is weird is the timing of it during the Stanley Cup Final, and Bettman breaking his own rule of focusing on the championship. I imagine there must be a reason for that as well.

[Resolute 14]

^ In terms of timing, the arbitrator handed down his decision on March 11. Which means the league filed this 89 days later. My guess is they had a 90-day/three month window in which to take this action.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given the NHL believes the arbitrator overstepped his bounds - as defined by that CBA - they have the right to seek legal redress. Otherwise, an arbitrator could do whatever he wants in a case like this, and neither the league nor the union could do anything about it.

Yes it's not against the letter of the law... but I'd argue that what he's doing goes directly against the spirit of the agreement. I mean when you add a clause that says that the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator's decision "shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review" and then the first time it's used you seek to legally void the supposed final, binding, nonreviewable decision you're kind of sending a message that you only consider the document binding to the other party. Speaks to a certain amount of bad faith dealings.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Yes it's not against the letter of the law... but I'd argue that what he's doing goes directly against the spirit of the agreement. I mean when you add a clause that says that the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator's decision "shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review" and then the first time it's used you seek to legally void the supposed final, binding, nonreviewable decision you're kind of sending a message that you only consider the document binding to the other party. Speaks to a certain amount of bad faith dealings.

If you are going to make that argument you can't ignore the fact that they are arguing the NDA operated outside his powers.

You can't say one thing and ignore that.

If the court agrees with the NHL then the NDA acted in a manner against the CBA and as it should, the findings would be voided. If the court agrees with the NDA then this is done.

There is nothing wrong with what the NHL is doing.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Weitz

There is nothing wrong with what the NHL is doing.

There's nothing legally wrong, I agree. Having said that it doesn't look to me like the NHL is in the right ethically speaking.