Maybe it's just me (hard to tell from the angles showed since you don't see his face) but it looks like Vermette was trying to say something to the official and tapped him to get his attention when he was being ignored.
Not trying to excuse it, but I makes more sense to me than waiting a couple seconds and then randomly slashing the back of the refs thigh out of nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
I agree that is my take of the situation as well.
But yah no excuse. Will likely get the 10 games and accept it.
At first it looked vicious but after looking at it a couple times, it appears that's exactly what he was doing. Linesman turned and Vermette wanted to give him an earful, reaches to tap ref to get his attention and taps him too hard.
But with all the earlier faceoff squabbles with that safe red and Vermette throughout the game, the linesman wasn't messing around and tossed him for the contact.
It should be 10 games but Wideman's was more vicious and dangerous. This is just a flick of the stick, not likely to do any major damage. Wideman's was a full on hit from behind near the boards.
Wideman retired a guy, so no, it won't be transferring.
Guy was already retiring, and I'm not aware of evidence (other than hearsay) proving his inability to return to work as a direct result of Wideman's hit.
The Following User Says Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Gord Miller on TSN Radio suggesting the Ducks need to manage the situation carefully (as he chooses his words cautiously) and suggests the Flames haven't received much benefit of the doubt from officials since the Dennis Wideman incident. He bases this opinion after watching games and talking to people around the league.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikeecho For This Useful Post:
I think so, but I couldn't find the video. Upon trying I didn't stumble across this funny one:
Hahaha one of the fighting hockey dads is named Randy (South Park). It's a shame the camera missed the genesis of the altercation between official and kid.
Unlike Wideman, there's really nothing Vermette can do to appeal this one. Wideman's appeal was predicated on himself being concussed and not fully aware of the linesman in his path. Vermette has no such defence. This one is plainly a category II offence, and the 10 games is automatic.
Last edited by Resolute 14; 02-15-2017 at 10:28 AM.
I think so, but I couldn't find the video. Upon trying I didn't stumble across this funny one:
The best is the mom at 1:10 pointing at her son to get off
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Yah if Vermette accepts his punishment and he reaches out to apologize to the linesman it will be a non-issue IMO.
If they fight tooth and nail it will bite them in the ass.
Sadly, the Ducks are going to point at the Flames situation of why they probably won't bother to appeal, Vermette will make a public apology and take full responsibility, and this will get swept under the rug. IMO it was a huge mistake for the Flames to appeal what Wideman did, and now the Flames are clearly paying the price. Completely unfair and it shouldn't be that way. But this is the NHL. You don't #### with the refs.
Last edited by Huntingwhale; 02-15-2017 at 12:25 PM.
The Flames supported it though, and provided evidence and arguments on Wideman's behalf in the proceeding, IIRC.
Comments like this probably did not resonate well with the official community;
Quote:
“We disagree with the severity of today's suspension ruling and maintain that Dennis' collision with the linesman was unintentional and accidental,” Burke said via the statement
Trelving was also present in all the hearings supporting the player. On one hand it's nice to see management standing behind a player but on the other there's mounting statistical evidence that shows the officials harbor some ill will towards the organization.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
It's all about intent to me...this was way more blatant than Wideman's.
I would give him 10 games (Wideman should have got 5 or less)
Since Wideman wasn't actually ejected from that game for physical abuse of an official, this doesn't strictly apply. But under rule 40, Wideman's infraction is easily category I because Henderson was injured. Vermette's was category II because the linesman was not injured and there was no deliberate attempt to injure him.
The Flames supported it though, and provided evidence and arguments on Wideman's behalf in the proceeding, IIRC.
Exactly. I know the organization was standing by their player but they should have backed the NHL and the officials and pulled an LA Kings and voided his contract. It was handed to the Flames on a silver platter to get out of that deal and they blew it.
Exactly. I know the organization was standing by their player but they should have backed the NHL and the officials and pulled an LA Kings and voided his contract. It was handed to the Flames on a silver platter to get out of that deal and they blew it.
They couldn't have voided the contract, sorry. They had no argument for a material breach, not even one as flimsy as that which the Kings used.
It wouldn't look good on the Flames from a player relations standpoint if they hung him out to dry. It looks bad to the refs, but other players see a team standing behind their player.
I also think they truly believe (as I do) that it was accidental.
Exactly. I know the organization was standing by their player but they should have backed the NHL and the officials and pulled an LA Kings and voided his contract. It was handed to the Flames on a silver platter to get out of that deal and they blew it.
Not if you ever wanted the Flames to sign another player...voiding the contract for an on ice incident would have been the worst possible move
__________________
GFG
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
