Disagree on that. Gary has done lots for the BOG and owners: he's pummeled the players and the NHLPA into submission (at least for the last two CBAs), made the owners considerably richer while allowing them to "manage" funding streams that are not shared, expanded the game by getting half a billion from Vegas. Why wouldn't they do it to salve his ego? They have little to lose and - from past experience - everything to gain by supporting him.
As long as it's covered in the overall NHL operating budget, and I'm sure there is a large line item for legal, why not? It's not costing them anything they wouldn't have spent otherwise.
Agreed. I doubt there are too many times, if any, where Bettman wanted to pursue something and the BOG shut him down.
It's not like Bettman would outright say to them, "Hey guys, my ego is hurt so I need to fight this...". He would have framed it as something that was in everyone's best interest.
Bettman's comments after the arbitrator's ruling is all you need to know to show it was personal for him.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I wonder if Wideman will sue Gulutzan for healthy scratching him all those games. Then an arbitrator will say sometime next season that Wideman actually dressed in 9 of them.
What about the fact the referee had to retire based on the incident and hasnt recovered from it?
* Linesman, not referee.
And the Association was trying to force him into retirement even before the incident. I'm not sure him not playing is 100% related to the incidental hit. This was a linesman who had a history of being in the wrong place on the ice.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
And the Association was trying to force him into retirement even before the incident. I'm not sure him not playing is 100% related to the incidental hit. This was a linesman who had a history of being in the wrong place on the ice.
What a pile of crap. So since they "already wanted him to retire", it's ok for a pro hockey player to break his neck? A history of being in the wrong place? What, did a few pucks hit his skates? Sounds like a great reason to absolutely demolish him from behind with a crosscheck.
Can't believe what I'm reading. Wideman should have gotten more than Bertuzzi for ending a career.
The Following User Says Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
But he was scheduled to retire at the end of the season. You don't get to play the ‘ending his career’ card, because his career was ending anyway.
Ok, well how about the aggravated assault card? If this took place 10' over, in the stands, there'd be criminal charges. He would have possibly done jail time. Unless he played the NCR card, because of his concussion, and then he would have been undergone a psych evaluation by court appointed doctors instead of at home texting other players.
We'll just never agree. I saw a brutal, anger fueled hit on a person that wasn't even playing the game, and you saw a guy that was seeing stars and tweety birds accidentally? throw a vicious crosscheck that accidentally? hit an official, causing permanent injury.
I just don't know how you reconcile the fact that his contact was perfectly timed, and the jersey he hit was striped. He saw well enough to hit his target, but not well enough to see his target?
Ok, well how about the aggravated assault card? If this took place 10' over, in the stands, there'd be criminal charges.
Sorry, that card isn't even in the deck. The cleanest hit in any hockey game would result in criminal charges if it happened off the ice. If you're going to impose that standard, every hockey player in every contact league should be in prison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
We'll just never agree. I saw a brutal, anger fueled hit on a person that wasn't even playing the game, and you saw a guy that was seeing stars and tweety birds accidentally? throw a vicious crosscheck that accidentally? hit an official, causing permanent injury.
You don't know what I saw. I haven't been talking about it. But we've never seen Wideman ‘throw a brutal, anger fueled hit’ at any other time in his career. If he's so unhinged that he has the mens rea to do that to a linesman, why did he never do it to another player?
It appears to me that according to the narrative you're constructing, Wideman is a dangerously violent psychopath who belongs behind bars. That's grossly excessive.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Last edited by Jay Random; 03-16-2017 at 06:38 PM.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
Sorry, that card isn't even in the deck. The cleanest hit in any hockey game would result in criminal charges if it happened off the ice. If you're going to impose that standard, every hockey player in every contact league should be in prison.
You don't know what I saw. I haven't been talking about it. But we've never seen Wideman ‘throw a brutal, anger fueled hit’ at any other time in his career. If he's so unhinged that he has the mens rea to do that to a linesman, why did he never do it to another player?
It appears to me that according to the narrative you're constructing, Wideman is a dangerously violent psychopath who belongs behind bars. That's grossly excessive.
Well since player on player violence isn't what we're talking about, then I disagree that it matters whether it was the cleanest hit in hockey. This is more like a bar fighter hitting a cop.
And how is the first incident an excuse? Does that get you off? Sorry, your honour. It's my first time breaking a neck". "Oh, well, you're free to go, but next time, it's curtains!".
Well since player on player violence isn't what we're talking about, then I disagree that it matters whether it was the cleanest hit in hockey. This is more like a bar fighter hitting a cop.
And how is the first incident an excuse? Does that get you off? Sorry, your honour. It's my first time breaking a neck". "Oh, well, you're free to go, but next time, it's curtains!".
Wut...he's never used it as an excuse. He using Wideman's past conduct to provide evidence that it may not have been malicious intent which is central to the suspension argument. Someone's a little touchy sheesh.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751
The Oilers won't finish 14th in the West forever.
Eventually a couple of expansion teams will be added which will nestle the Oilers into 16th.
But he was scheduled to retire at the end of the season. You don't get to play the ‘ending his career’ card, because his career was ending anyway.
Whether it ended 10 games early or 100, it still ended early as a direct result of Wideman's actions. So yes, one does get to play that card if they so choose.
This is the kind of argument we still get out of Canuck fans. "Moore was just a 4th line scrub who was going to be quickly out of the league anyway. NBD"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Wut...he's never used it as an excuse. He using Wideman's past conduct to provide evidence that it may not have been malicious intent which is central to the suspension argument. Someone's a little touchy sheesh.
Well as long as we're conjuring up arguments, how about the idea that he did it on purpose, because he was mad at officials for not calling the hit that concussed him? Pretty stupid argument, eh? So's the "first time offender" one.
Well as long as we're conjuring up arguments, how about the idea that he did it on purpose, because he was mad at officials for not calling the hit that concussed him? Pretty stupid argument, eh? So's the "first time offender" one.
The arbitrator and the judge disagree with your assessment. Otherwise he would have received the 20 games (at least).
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Comparing the Bertuzzi hit to this just seems crazy IMO.
One was a player with a history of anger management and violence issues chasing after a player who was known to be targeted and then attacked him with a blindside punch.
The other was a player with no violent history to speak of who hit an official that had no reason to be targeted and wasn't in any way involved with the player other than being in front of him. While nobody argues the cross check occurred, there is no way for anyone to speak with any certainty as to amount of intent or malice.
What Bertuzzi did was far worse than what Wideman did, and I'm not even trying to defend Wideman here.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
I don't see how you guys see it that way. He turns toward him, aims, and executes. But the fact that I saw one thing and you saw another is nothing new. So agree to disagree. I think it should have been a way stiffer punishment, you guys are ok with 10 games. I believe we've reached this conclusion before, and I admit that it was me that picked this argument up again. I'm stopping now. But it should have been more!!
What a pile of crap. So since they "already wanted him to retire", it's ok for a pro hockey player to break his neck? A history of being in the wrong place? What, did a few pucks hit his skates? Sounds like a great reason to absolutely demolish him from behind with a crosscheck.
Can't believe what I'm reading. Wideman should have gotten more than Bertuzzi for ending a career.
Henderson was always just floating around with little awareness. Before last season the NHLOA tried to get him to retire beut gave him another year, which unfortunately ended sooner than it should have. But the fact he isn't officiating now has nothing to do with Wideman.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
