Wideman Decision Expected Wednesday

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

Most likely "suspended indefinitely" has more to do with the ASG than the severity of the penalty.

Not really. Why suspend him at all then? Or why not give a number of games after the break? I will be the bad guy here and say it, I watched Wideman have the sense to tap his stick for a line change, I have watched the hit from multiple angles, Wideman's reaction on the bench right after the hit, Wideman's interview after the game, and imo only he is lying when he states he didn't mean to do it. I think this is a guy who took a cheap shot that semi-injured him and on his way back to the bench in an improper frame of mind due to anger when he collides with the linesman he makes a very stupid decision. Actually, I am not even sure he intended to do what he did in a premeditated manner, it was just one of those brief loss of control moments many people can have after an event that stresses and angers you. In my line of work I get lied to...a lot. Could I be wrong, absolutely, certainly not perfect but this is what I believe happened. Wideman takes that hit into the boards and receives a stinger in his neck and shoulder, there is no call on the play. As stated by Wideman himself later on he was not concussed or whoozy, I think he was mildly hurt and very very pissed. As he makes his way to the bench for a line change he smacks his stick on the ice to signal he is coming for a change. I do believe when the linesman and him start closing distance between each other he does indeed make a half assed attempt to get out of the way but his mind is still on the play and the hit and he is still pissed off. When the linesman and him make contact he pushes the ref away with his stick up, driving the official down from behind.
Again, I do not think he did it with any premeditated intent, he was never going to go after a linesman, that would be insane and Wideman is not that type of character. However people do things in anger in a spur of the moment situation they would never do sometimes and I believe this to be the case. My observation once Wideman gets to the bench and sits down is one of someone who cannot believe they just did what they did. His first reaction to me is first shock followed by realization and understanding, followed by an intense thought process of how he is going to explain his actions on the ice. I also took into consideration the fact he went directly to the bench rather than checking on the well being of the linesman. Most players on an incidental contact situation like that unless they were not in control of their faculties or majorly injured would do just that. I think the former applies here, I think after Wideman gives him the shove he is in shock going to the bench. We then fastforward to his interview in the locker room. When I interview people I can generally get a good sense of when someone is lying or trying to hide something by their head movements, the things they say, eye movement, and other factors. When I watched Wideman's explanation I did not believe him. He seemed very nervous to me, he was repeating things, he almost came across as scared to me. Again, these are all my opinions and don't count for a bag of beans. I am not saying Wideman is a bad guy and I don't think he had any intent to hurt anyone, I think it was one of those automatic spur of the moment things.

[ResAlien]

Maybe he was upset about Star Wars spoilers? Or immigrants? Or bees?

[Flash Walken]

It looks like he did it on purpose to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

a) Quick recovery, especially from a concussion - but, possible.
b) Even so - headfirst into the boards is never a good sign. Also, tell me, viewing that hit, that there wasn't much force.
c) So he went from bent over and hardly making it to being able to hit someone into the boards with force without wiping out or losing his balance? Doesn't fit, to me.
d) He actually injured someone else. Numerous other, real analysts have pointed out that this will actually impact the suspension.
e) Henderson was his "opponent", per se. It's not the best word for it, but there's no denying that he was defenseless.

10+ games easily, IMO.

a. I never said there was a concussion.
b. There wasn't much force, other than he's a 200 pound guy going one direction and Henderson wasn't expecting him.
c. What doesn't make sense to you seems to be a pretty big category. maybe it's not the world, maybe it's you.
d. Injury to the "opponent" isn't a factor in this kind of a suspension. And they have to pass the first hurdle - establishing that he's lying.
e. See above.

Zero games, easily, IMO. And if they ignore his own testimony (with no other contrary evidence) any lawyer will have a field day in the appeal.

[dino7c]

worst part is this drags on for another week

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Looks bad if all you see is a gif but given the broader context its purely accidental...

I don't believe this is at all obvious. There is certainly lots of room to question Wideman's intent.

Just one of those things where he had his bell rung and unexpectedly ran into someone on the way to the bench, and put his hands up as a gut reaction.

That is one way of looking at it, but there are others. It IS possible that this was purely intentional, borne from whatever frustration Wideman experienced following the hit. It IS possible that he intended the hit, but did not realise he was hitting an official. It IS also possible that he inadvertently ran into the linesman, and reacted instinctively by hitting him with his stick.

I think in the end that regardless of where one falls on this, at minimum Wideman should be expected to bear some responsibility for having hit the official with his stick, and for the injury sustained by the official because of the hit. I would bet that the League comes out heavily in favour of the official, which likely means that Wideman will endure a lengthy suspension.

[northcrunk]

Even if he was mad about a missed call (which there wasn't one) common sense would say that he would go after a ref and not a linesman. What's amazing about this is how quickly the media forgot Lucic punching a ref in the face last night and Kassian pushing an official on purpose.

[Fan in Exile]

I've gotta say, at the end of the day this thread sure shows this is a Flames fans board. Not a lot objectivity on the part of Wideman's defenders. Which is okay I guess but admit it for what it is because this forum sure doesn't hold back when we look at the comments of fans of other teams who are defending poor behaviour by their players.

It was out of character and there was no need for it. Does that mean Wideman didn't do it on purpose?! If only I had a dollar or two for everyone who used the "Why would I do it?" excuse, I'd be able to make myself a good living. No, wait I have made a living that way and when I have an accused client who wants to run that kind of defence, I don't call him as a witness because any halfway competent prosecutor will make him out to look like a person who is evading responsibility and has no remorse. People do stupid things. Maybe getting his bell rung is a mitigating factor but I have a hard time believing anyone objectively believing Wideman didn't cross-check that linesman in the back of the neck on purpose.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by dino7c

worst part is this drags on for another week

NHL is doing this on purpose for sure.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

I've gotta say, at the end of the day this thread sure shows this is a Flames fans board. Not a lot objectivity on the part of Wideman's defenders. Which is okay I guess but admit it for what it is because this forum sure doesn't hold back when we look at the comments of fans of other teams who are defending poor behaviour by their players.

It was out of character and there was no need for it. Does that mean Wideman didn't do it on purpose?! If only I had a dollar or two for everyone who used the "Why would I do it?" excuse, I'd be able to make myself a good living. No, wait I have made a living that way and when I have an accused client who wants to run that kind of defence, I don't call him as a witness because any halfway competent prosecutor will make him out to look like a person who is evading responsibility and has no remorse. People do stupid things. Maybe getting his bell rung is a mitigating factor but I have a hard time believing anyone objectively believing Wideman didn't cross-check that linesman in the back of the neck on purpose.

Not a lot of objectivity? Why - because some people see the evidence pointing one way (and also take a guy's statement at face value)? Which also accords with any kind of logic about the situation? Instead of viewing a gif and making a snap decision? OK, then.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because he wasn't yapping about the hit, because he is an A and used to talking to refs (they don't pick them for their hot headedness), because he hit a linesman while he was meandering to the bench, and not when he was skating aggressively towards anyone, and because he wasn't looking for the guy who hit him.

All of this is just your impression of how you think Wideman reacted and why, balanced against how you think he might have reacted were he doing something different than you imagine him to be doing.

So, in short, no. None of this even remotely eliminates the possibility that Wideman responded to the official with motive.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

NHL is doing this on purpose for sure.

What is wrong with that? Obviously this is not something you need to decide right this minute with the all star break upon us. Take the time to talk to many parties and come up with a proper decision.

[CSharp]

That check on the official is the weirdest check I've seen and it looks pretty deliberate no matter how many times you look at it.

I don't think the Flames is gonna miss Wideman all that much anyway. It was just a matter of time before Hartley's gonna bench him again. Maybe this is another wakeup call for him to bust his arse when he gets back on the ice.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

If he is so dazed and hurt, why was he back on the ice 2 minutes later?

Because disorientation is not a permanent disability, and a guy can be dazed momentarily but have that fog clear relatively quickly.

And, if he was so injured, how would he be able to push Henderson with the force he did, or even get up, without falling, in the first place?

Because basic laws of physics apply to everything. Including collisions between big hockey players who are moving and unsuspecting linesmen who are not aware of the impending collision and are therefore unable to brace for it.

There was injury on the play, the opponent was defenseless.

Likely irrelevant in this case. The abuse of official rules are predicated on intent rather than result. I agree with the suspension, but I doubt anyone could prove intent to injure. So whether or not Henderson was hurt, it's probably a ten gamer.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

All of this is just your impression of how you think Wideman reacted and why, balanced against how you think he might have reacted were he doing something different than you imagine him to be doing.

So, in short, no. None of this even remotely eliminates the possibility that Wideman responded to the official with motive.

It doesn't eliminate the possibility, no. But it's not how I think he reacted (though it makes sense to me). It's also what he said about it. So not only does it make sense to me, it is what his evidence is. So he has to be lying as well as being an idiot, which doesn't match any of his history or the fact he has a letter.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Not a lot of objectivity? Why - because some people see the evidence pointing one way (and also take a guy's statement at face value)? Which also accords with any kind of logic about the situation? Instead of viewing a gif and making a snap decision? OK, then.

Why do you assume that everyone who thinks differently than you has made a "snap decision" based on their viewing of the gif?

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

a. I never said there was a concussion.
b. There wasn't much force, other than he's a 200 pound guy going one direction and Henderson wasn't expecting him.
c. What doesn't make sense to you seems to be a pretty big category. maybe it's not the world, maybe it's you.
d. Injury to the "opponent" isn't a factor in this kind of a suspension. And they have to pass the first hurdle - establishing that he's lying.
e. See above.

Zero games, easily, IMO. And if they ignore his own testimony (with no other contrary evidence) any lawyer will have a field day in the appeal.

a. Fine.
b. Did you measure the force? I didn't, but for you to outright deny it - I mean it was enought to injure him.
c. I thought this was about Wideman?
d. The NHL can interpret the rules any way they like.
e. I can't judge that.

[Tron_fdc]

It sure looks like he meant to do something. Caught in the moment and gave a "get the F outta my way" to the ref.

I have a really hard time believing that though. He's not a hot head, he's not a goon, and he's played his entire life with the knowledge you don't do that to officials. Ever. I just can't see any player in the NHL ever taking a run at a ref for any reason. This isn't Sunday night beer league where refs get chased out of the arena.....it's the NHL.

I really think it looks worse than it is. Or I'd like to believe that.

[locsofblu]

Ya not surprised. He obviously did it on purpose.

[dino7c]

It wasn't a ref