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

[T@T]

It's shocking Wideman isn't allowed to play during the appeal,NBA,MLB and the NFL has this provision yet as usual the NHL lags behind...so stupid.

[Resolute 14]

I am not sure why it is shocking that a player in a league which has never allowed players to play through appeals is not allowed to play through his appeal.

And, as I have noted previously, the only thing you get by changing the system is for players to abuse it by filing pointless appeals just to delay the start until after an upcoming big game.

Don't care how much it sucks for Wideman, giving the players the ability to massively cheat the system is the greater evil.

[getbak]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...ome-wednesday/

John Shannon ‎@JSportsnet

Final written arguments in Wideman case were submitted by NHLPA and NHL to the Arbitrator yesterday . Hoping for a decision on Wednesday.

If a decision comes down on Wednesday, before the game, he will have missed 18 games, no matter what the decision is.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by T@T

It's shocking Wideman isn't allowed to play during the appeal,NBA,MLB and the NFL has this provision yet as usual the NHL lags behind...so stupid.

I've always hated this about baseball, but after seeing this terrible process they have the right idea.

[Looch City]

If it's taken this long, their decision has to atleast be that 20 games was worth it...right?. I'm thinking there's more (negative) pieces to the puzzle that'll be revealed next week.

[Fan in Exile]

I always thought that Wideman deserved the suspension and I don't see an arbitrator altering Bettman's decision either. I think the suspension is valid in law. Nonetheless, the timelines here are a sham. I can't believe the NHL has let this drag out like this. It really does undercut any sense of due process.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Meh, they would have had a decision on it already if not for the NHLPA dragging in the concussion experts and the concussion argument. This no longer became an "easy" case. The can of worms the NHLPA opened up was huge. They know it, it's why you haven't seen them making much fuss about the delay. It's bringing up arguments that would have immense serious repercussions to the league and potentially the concussion lawsuit. These cases do take time, Bettman released his decision on the 17th. It's looking like it will take the neutral third party three weeks to release anything after the NHLPA decided they wanted to utilize that option. The NHL had no control over that timeline, or at least minimal.

And let's not forget that this is about a hockey player attacking a ref and then having his union claim that concussions make him non-liable for his actions. That type of argument was never going to take a couple days to deal with. It should come as a surprise that a third party is able to release anything at all so quickly.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am not sure why it is shocking that a player in a league which has never allowed players to play through appeals is not allowed to play through his appeal.

And, as I have noted previously, the only thing you get by changing the system is for players to abuse it by filing pointless appeals just to delay the start until after an upcoming big game.

Don't care how much it sucks for Wideman, giving the players the ability to massively cheat the system is the greater evil.

The reason of course is that until now the NHLPA has not seen a need to bargain for it. Expect to see the issue on the agenda during the next collective bargaining talks.

The rest of your post is particularly boneheaded (to be polite )-- you argue that allowing a player to play while appealing "only" (your words) allows a player to game the system.

Not at all. While I am now of the view Wideman's 20 game suspension should probably be upheld, there are no (as in zero) grounds to believe, whatever happened in the past, the NHL into the future will always be a fair arbiter of player discipline-- that small group of NHL Executives and their department of safety, have a monopoly on what is fair and correct with their own rules. In this case in particular, I'd suggest that the league acted moreso because of the media outcry compared to what they would have done otherwise... even though I think in this case they got it right.

Also, Bettman rubber-stamped the initial decision and had one of the most expensive law firms in the world write the decision for him. This kind of power needs an independent arbiter to maintain the integrity of the system as a whole.

Its not "only" gaming the system, though that happening is certainly possible. The suspension becomes effectively irreversible for the team given the time it takes to get to an independent arbitrator... even if they win, they have lost the player for important games. A system that postpones the suspension pending final determination -- and that probably shouldn't be absolute, but perhaps, more fairly balances the interests of all involved.

[Resolute 14]

The fix there is to implement stricter time controls on how each phase is handled.

In terms of playing through an appeal, you can't use an extreme situation to judge how it whould normally work. When most suspensions are 1-3 games long, you can bet that 99% of appeals would be lodged simply to allow a player to play a big game because the next opponent is a more critical match-up than the one after.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The reason of course is that until now the NHLPA has not seen a need to bargain for it. Expect to see the issue on the agenda during the next collective bargaining talks.

The rest of your post is particularly boneheaded (to be polite )-- you argue that allowing a player to play while appealing "only" (your words) allows a player to game the system.

Not at all. While I am now of the view Wideman's 20 game suspension should probably be upheld, there are no (as in zero) grounds to believe, whatever happened in the past, the NHL into the future will always be a fair arbiter of player discipline-- that small group of NHL Executives and their department of safety, have a monopoly on what is fair and correct with their own rules. In this case in particular, I'd suggest that the league acted moreso because of the media outcry compared to what they would have done otherwise... even though I think in this case they got it right.

Also, Bettman rubber-stamped the initial decision and had one of the most expensive law firms in the world write the decision for him. This kind of power needs an independent arbiter to maintain the integrity of the system as a whole.

Its not "only" gaming the system, though that happening is certainly possible. The suspension becomes effectively irreversible for the team given the time it takes to get to an independent arbitrator... even if they win, they have lost the player for important games. A system that postpones the suspension pending final determination -- and that probably shouldn't be absolute, but perhaps, more fairly balances the interests of all involved.

Good post but I disagree here. I think the whole process goes to shwo Bettman didn't rubber stamp anything. He took his time and weighed all the evidence IMO.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Good post but I disagree here. I think the whole process goes to shwo Bettman didn't rubber stamp anything. He took his time and weighed all the evidence IMO.

I don't really mistrust Bettman, but I have always thought it odd that he's the arbitrator of his own department's decisions. That said, that's kind of how franchise decisions work - I've seen similar processes in car dealership disputes with the main company - appeals go through two internal appeals and only afterwards to an independent body. Those processes were also weighted heavily towards the franchisor.

But in this case, the time would have been chopped in half if they went directly to an independent arbitrator.

[Dan403]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Good post but I disagree here. I think the whole process goes to shwo Bettman didn't rubber stamp anything. He took his time and weighed all the evidence IMO.

He took his time yes. But there is zero evidence to say that he did anything else.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't really mistrust Bettman, but I have always thought it odd that he's the arbitrator of his own department's decisions. That said, that's kind of how franchise decisions work - I've seen similar processes in car dealership disputes with the main company - appeals go through two internal appeals and only afterwards to an independent body. Those processes were also weighted heavily towards the franchisor.

But in this case, the time would have been chopped in half if they went directly to an independent arbitrator.

I agree with that for sure. Seems like a waste of time.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Dan403

He took his time yes. But there is zero evidence to say that he did anything else.

Agree; I didn't think his 20 pager had much substance to it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And, as I have noted previously, the only thing you get by changing the system is for players to abuse it by filing pointless appeals just to delay the start until after an upcoming big game.

Can't agree with this... if you're playing during the appeal, it simply incentivizes speeding up the appeal process, and if the appeal is rejected (eg original suspension upheld), you still serve the 20 games, you just serve a different 20 games. No reason to suspect those won't be more important games than the ones you were playing while the appeal was pending. Arguably, they likely will be more important because they'll inevitably be later in the season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Dan403

He took his time yes. But there is zero evidence to say that he did anything else.

I think in this case he made up his mind quickly, but took his time to write a long and detailed decision because he knew it would be appealed. Not to delay things and make the appeal somewhat moot, but more to write a defensible decisiion which would be less likely to be overturned. Judges who know their decision will be appealed no matter what do this all the time.

[JohnnyT]

Yeah the Bettman process seems like the easiest fix to me, if it's close to 6 games he will likely reduce it down to 5 to prevent the arbitration process and if it's higher he's going to stick with what the DoPS originally handed it down. Seems fairly redundant to me

[SofaProfessor]

They should absolutely let players play during an appeal process. It will give the NHL good reason to speed up the process and remove the potential for a player to miss games for a suspension that was later reduced by an independent arbitrator.

Let's say the decision comes back and the arbitrator decides Wideman only deserved a 10 game suspension (hypothetical situation for argument's sake). Wideman will have missed 18 games. He can't travel back in time and play those 8 games he should have been in. However, he will get the salary for those 8 games. So, essentially, ownership will have paid money to a player who didn't step foot on the ice because of a slow appeal process. I understand they would have paid this money into the player assistance fund anyway if the suspension was upheld; but to have to pay that money out to a player who should have been on the ice (theoretically) helping your team probably won't sit well with any organization.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Good post but I disagree here. I think the whole process goes to shwo Bettman didn't rubber stamp anything. He took his time and weighed all the evidence IMO.

And likewise I agree that what you've said is possible. Being a skeptic however I suggest that Bettman is naturally predisposed to agree with the subordinates he hired to do their jobs. Consider one example... if Bettman said they got it wrong and overturned them, couldn't that suggest he had the wrong people in those positions?

Independence matters.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Can't agree with this... if you're playing during the appeal, it simply incentivizes speeding up the appeal process, and if the appeal is rejected (eg original suspension upheld), you still serve the 20 games, you just serve a different 20 games. No reason to suspect those won't be more important games than the ones you were playing while the appeal was pending. Arguably, they likely will be more important because they'll inevitably be later in the season.

Again, you are pointing to the extreme case and not the typical one. The typical scenario is a very short suspension, where the 'value' of the upcoming opponents is easy to discern.

Originally Posted by Delgar

And likewise I agree that what you've said is possible. Being a skeptic however I suggest that Bettman is naturally predisposed to agree with the subordinates he hired to do their jobs. Consider one example... if Bettman said they got it wrong and overturned them, couldn't that suggest he had the wrong people in those positions?

Independence matters.

We all knew Bettman would uphold the suspension, and yup, independence matters. That's why we have the independent arbitrator now But Bettman did not 'rubber stamp' the decision, as others claimed. He and the NHL's lawyers very carefully crafted a ruling designed to withstand not only the arbitrator, but also shields the league as best it can in the concussion lawsuits. That was a time intensive process. Likewise, the briefs from both sides leading into Bettman's hearing, and even more so leading into this hearing on both sides. Both the NHL and NHLPA are basically looking to create legal precedents.