I think the league got it right. Did Wideman get up from the hit thinking he was going to plaster a ref? No of course not, but I do think he seized the opportunity and had a lapse in judgement in that split second before crossing paths with Henderson. He was clearly frustrated and angry after taking that hit. Does he do that if the player he's colliding with is wearing a Flames jersey? I don't think so. I can see why people disagree and think its to severe though.
I think the league got it right. Did Wideman get up from the hit thinking he was going to plaster a ref? No of course not, but I do think he seized the opportunity and had a lapse in judgement in that split second before crossing paths with Henderson. He was clearly frustrated and angry after taking that hit. Does he do that if the player he's colliding with is wearing a Flames jersey? I don't think so. I can see why people disagree and think its to severe though.
Seized what opportunity?
"I must hit a linesman!"
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
I think the league got it right. Did Wideman get up from the hit thinking he was going to plaster a ref? No of course not, but I do think he seized the opportunity and had a lapse in judgement in that split second before crossing paths with Henderson. He was clearly frustrated and angry after taking that hit. Does he do that if the player he's colliding with is wearing a Flames jersey? I don't think so. I can see why people disagree and think its to severe though.
How was he clearly frustrated and angry after the hit? What did you see that makes you think this?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hockeyguy15 For This Useful Post:
The NHL has to justify why this is one of the worst plays in NHL history to a 3rd party
good luck, I can't see it not getting reduced
What other first time offender has gotten 20+? Wideman has never been fined
The NHL is arguing that it Wideman's conduct falls under rule 40.2 which is a minimum 20 game suspension.
Quote:
40.2 Automatic Suspension – Category I - Any player who deliberately strikes an official and causes injury or who deliberately applies
physical force in any manner against an official with intent to injure, or
who in any manner attempts to injure an official shall be automatically
suspended for not less than twenty (20) games. (For the purpose of
the rule, “intent to injure” shall mean any physical force which a player
knew or should have known could reasonably be expected to cause
injury.)
Considering how varied the opinions are on this suspension, they might be able to convince an arbitrator.
How was he clearly frustrated and angry after the hit? What did you see that makes you think this?
His body language, the fact he did what he did, his reaction after hitting the ref. All leads me to believe that he was probably frustrated by both being hit that hard and the fact he was in pain. Like I said its all how you interpret it, my opinion differs from the majority. I think the suspension was warranted.
What other first time offender has gotten 20+? Wideman has never been fined
Of course it's 10 years ago and the lockout came into play, but Bertuzzi had 1 prior NHL suspension (10 games for leaving the bench) and a 15 game suspension in junior for kicking a player. And he ended up with a whopping 20 games for nearly killing a guy.
A few sketchy "facts" from the video:
Quote:
"upon skating half the length of the ice parallel to the boards"
He was at the top of the circle before he started actually skating, and the incident happened just before the red line. So closer to a quarter of the length of the ice. Parallel isn't really accurate either, but it is irrelevant.
Quote:
"Wideman skates steadily and purposefully to his bench, taking a half dozen strides to get there"
I count three full strides, maybe 3 and a half, which you could call 4 if you're being generous.
Quote:
physical abuse of an official is one of the most serious offences an NHL player can commit
Joseph, Weber, Muzzin, Lucic, etc. - the NHL hasn't really demonstrated this in the past. FWIW I think all five incidents would warrant 1-5 games, with Weber being the least agregious. Lucic had been suspended at least twice before, and got 1/20th the penalty.
Also no mention of the Predator puck carrier coming straight towards them as a possible factor (I think Wideman appears to be looking there as the collision ends).
Lastly, 7 times they show the exact same replay (it might be 6.5; I think it didn't play the whole way through once). Has a suspension video ever not shown an alternate angle of the incident?
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
His body language, the fact he did what he did, his reaction after hitting the ref. All leads me to believe that he was probably frustrated by both being hit that hard and the fact he was in pain. Like I said its all how you interpret it, my opinion differs from the majority. I think the suspension was warranted.
I think the fact he didn't react right away after hitting him is in his favour - it shows he wasn't even aware something serious happened. If he actually intended it IMO he would have stopped to see the damage.
This is a guy who has never had supplementary discipline before, who just a couple weeks ago was reminding Bennett not to celebrate at the bench in his 4 goal game. It just doesn't add it for me.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
It was a weird chain of events right from the start being dazed after the hit from NSH. Taking 4 foggy strides. The the ref skating backwards into Wideman not aware of Wideman's location and then getting corked by Wideman.
Wideman appeared to not see the linesman until he was a stride away but then when finally sees him. As we all saw he doesn't just collide with the ref he defended the collision by blasting the ref in the back. It was a weird reaction.
What was even stranger was the trainer who looked like he saw Wideman get off the ice and that he was a hit woozy. But did nothing to take him down the hallway. I thought that was odd and that the trainer wasn't on top of things as well as he could have been.
I thought 10 games if they went by that it was an accident of events but Wideman reacted too agressive that he could have just braced himself and held up on the cross check.
But that is unfair to say because you can't get into a players head.
What was unfair is that the NHL said in the statement Wideman deliberately hit the official.
I dunno, I'm usually one of the biggest homers on the site for the home team, but I think the NHL reasoning makes sense, and I get some of what CGY12 is saying. Maybe I don't think we're going to win all the time the way some fans do, but I generally don't call out players, or ask for anyone to be traded (Bouwmeester and Tanguay v2 being exceptions), and I wasn't even mad at Wideman for his play before this.
Yet I can see this. Even if Wideman is woosy and frustrated, he shouldn't be blindly lashing out. At player or ref/linesman. It doesn't look like just a simple collision. He looks like he wants to hit the guy. And even if he didn't realize it was a linesman, it would still be bad if he just cross checked an opponent from behind.
Too me it really does look like he had a brain fart moment because he was on the receiving end of a bad play. I know this won't be a popular opinion, and I'm not saying it's right either, but I generally wear the red glasses, so if I can see it this way, you gotta understand how most of the league can see it this way or worse.
If Wideman hadn't extended his arms in that cross checking fashion nothing probably would have come of it. He would've just collided with the linesman and that's it.
But he gives him a pretty decent shot to the back and that was his undoing. Sure it can be argued that he was just bracing for the collision but putting your hands up should suffice for that. He actually gave him a good shot to the upper back.
Now maybe he noticed a white jersey coming to him at the last second, mistook it for Nashville player and thought he would get his pound of flesh. Even if that were the case he still cross checked an official and deserves a suspension..just not 20 games, 10 would've been fine I think.
__________________
Long time caller, first time listener
The "Wideman was Woozy" argument reminds me of the above clip featuring former flame Chris Simon.
Simon gets drilled from behind by Ryan Hollweg. Simon gets up and two hands Hollweg to the face.
Simon recieved 30 games. It was his 8th career suspension.
Not even close. Chris Simon got up pretty quick and took less of a blow to the head during the initial hit than what Wideman took. Wideman went 2 woozy strides and was startled by the linesman. And a two handed chop is different than putting your hands up in defense.
Fwiw Bill Watters was on tsn1040 and thought the suspension was nonsense. Expects bettman to uphold it and the arbitrator to reduce it to 6-10 games after all is said and done.
I still don't know if a neutral arbitrator will change the suspension.
The player's history and the fact he had just suffered a concussion will be two of the determining factors, it's a toss up how whether the arbitrator will be swayed by those things. One thing is certain, the arbitrator won't be beholden to the interests of the official's union. That's the #1 determining factor here IMO. I bet his sentence gets cut in half.
I wonder if the arbitrator will choose to ignore the angle that makes it look accidental like the NHL did. Its like a key piece of evidence is just being willfully ignored in favour of the dramatic hit from behind angle.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
