Wideman Decision Expected Wednesday

[HotHotHeat]

This thread really shows who the people are that argue a point for the sake of it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

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.

a. Thanks.
b. The suggestion of force was yours. My belief is that Wideman didn't apply any force. He was a moving body which has it's own, sure.
c. It's about Wideman, but you sure seem to have a personal interest.
d. Nope. That's why there's appeals and arbitrations.
e. Agreed.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It wasn't a ref

He was dazed.

[868904]

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.

Not sure what your point is, most Flames fans would rather have Wideman suspended for a long time whether he is guilty or not. Some have even wished for his contract to be terminated.

There will be no riots in Calgary should Wideman get suspended, I can promise you that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

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.

So, if it doesn't "make sense to you," then it is unlikely to have happened? People—even eminently competent, and reasonable people—do all sorts of senseless things all the time, and many will even act out of what we believe to be their character when doing so. For all we know, Wideman is acting out of character as a direct result of suffering adverse effects from the hit he just sustained. Why must it either be one or the other?

[smiggy77]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W3hCWDHIzE

Webber did the same thing to Henderson! Not the first time this guy has taken a beating.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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


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.

Possible but highly unlikely. Why would a veteran player, who has had missed calls against him on countless occasions, suddenly target a linesman for no apparent reason? That is normally the last thing on any players mind after a missed call, they are more likely to chirp the refs. There just isn't much of an indication to me that Wideman is fuming at the officials and looking to deliberately exact physical revenge on anyone.

It looks bad I admit but sometimes our bodies react to things in weird ways, especially if he was dazed. Have you ever flinched when someone was doing something in your peripheral vision only to realize they weren't even near you?

I agree with your last paragraph though, he bears responsibility on having control of himself around an official, and it did result in injury. A small suspension is probably warranted.

[Ashasx]

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.

This article does well to summarize my opinion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmacr.../#64c8d0d6902f

is Macramalla a homer Flames fan who's unable to look at the incident objectively then?

Enough of this black and white nonsense.

[dino7c]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eBZ-Ysjymw

[Fan in Exile]

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.

Neither Wideman's explanations nor any of yours or others on his behalf are credible. This was not a high speed collision that neither party could avoid. Wideman saw him coming, adjusted his path, put up his stick, extended his arms and hit him in the back of the neck. The linesman had no idea that they were on a collision path. That's what I saw the first time I saw it. That's what I continue to see on further viewings and despite your adamant insistence otherwise, that appears to be the way the NHL is looking at it.

People do stupid irrational things out of anger and frustration. Not the first time. Won't be the last.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, if it doesn't "make sense to you," then it is unlikely to have happened? People—even eminently competent, and reasonable people—do all sorts of senseless things all the time, and many will even act out of what we believe to be their character when doing so. For all we know, Wideman is acting out of character as a direct result of suffering adverse effects from the hit he just sustained. Why must it either be one or the other?

Oh, sure there are examples of people doing senseless things. I'm not eliminating the possibility.

However, Wideman is a veteran, never has had anger issues, has been hit plenty and not reacted, is one of the guys the Flames pick to speak with officials, had no indication of anger after being hit (before or after he ran into Henderson). As suspensions are based on a balance of probabilities, not maybes, and the onus of proof would be on the league to establish intent, I don't think the case is made out.

[ScorchyScorch]

Meh. I think it's the wrong call, but whatever. It helps the Flames if anything. Wideman is not a good NHL defenceman.

[GioforPM]

I've seen plenty of people walk into poles, other people, or even doors, when from behind you'd think they were looking straight ahead. But their eyes were elsewhere, and myabe their thoughts too. To me, this is what happened. The little attempt to dodge at the end bolsters that opinion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Possible but highly unlikely. Why would a veteran player, who has had missed calls against him on countless occasions, suddenly target a linesman for no apparent reason?

Because the reason is not apparent, and that is kind of the point. It is entirely possible—that there is a reason that not any of us is privy to, and I don't think any of this is all that "unlikely", but I have no way to determine probability in a situation like this.

It looks bad I admit but sometimes our bodies react to things in weird ways, especially if he was dazed. Have you ever flinched when someone was doing something in your peripheral vision only to realize they weren't even near you?

I agree with your last paragraph though, he bears responsibility on having control of himself around an official, and it did result in injury. A small suspension is probably warranted.

This is basically what I am getting at. I am also attempting to demonstrate that this is really a difficult situation, and that when it comes to intent, or to cause, or even to an accurate description of what happened here, we really don't know, and there is nothing about this that is obvious.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

OP seems a bit of a troll....

Only second poster for me to Ignore, and I appreciate the frequency to which he's quoted.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by ScorchyScorch

Meh. I think it's the wrong call, but whatever. It helps the Flames if anything. Wideman is not a good NHL defenceman.

Like him or not he was eating up minutes which now go to Engelland and Smid. We get an injury and AHL guy starts getting 8 minutes. It can get worse.

[northcrunk]

I see Francis is trying to piggyback on this. The guy is just the worst. I'm glad I saved my fan960 opinion poll just to give him a 1 of 5. Little dork.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've seen plenty of people walk into poles, other people, or even doors, when from behind you'd think they were looking straight ahead. But their eyes were elsewhere, and myabe their thoughts too. To me, this is what happened. The little attempt to dodge at the end bolsters that opinion.

Yep, my thoughts precisely. This massive Spanish inquisition going on is TMZ levels or ridiculousness.

Even if this happened to another player on another team I don't think I would think much of it either.

You'd think with the amount of buzz this has generated that someone went out and shot a cop... no nevermind that, even cops getting shot doesn't generate this much buzz. It's over hype.

[united]

The count is now at 67 posts. 67 posts in one thread! That's 2 months for most people.

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by ScorchyScorch

Meh. I think it's the wrong call, but whatever. It helps the Flames if anything. Wideman is not a good NHL defenceman.

I agree with this, Wideman is a joke this season. I'm willing to bet our record improves with him gone assuming it spans that long.

I took this fine opportunity to finally drop his ass in my fantasy pool too, icing on the cake for me. Embarrassing...