The rule requires the action to be deliberate, so intent is pretty much the only issue for culpability.
There is intent to hit and intent to injure. It's far easier to impute intent to hit than to injure. When you look at the video evidence there is a rebuttable presumption that Wideman intended to hit the linesman. I don't think you can so easily impute malicious intent, and the circumstances and Wideman's history help in that regard.
You seem ready to accept Wideman's explanation that the contact was inadvertent but I think the fact that his stick and arms went up and he gave the linesman a shot to the back of the neck precludes that explanation being accepted. And that would be a 10-game suspension. I guess we'll soon find out.
I agree with you that if Wideman is found not to have intended to hit the linesman, then I don't see any grounds for a suspension or fine.
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.
I know Wideman is a whipping boy and many would be happy to see Wideman out of the lineup. Nevertheless, I think it's harder for most of us to see a player that we are used to as seeing as a good guy and a guy that doesn't have a mean streak as culpable of hitting a linesman for no reason.
If it was someone we didn't know as a player, our opinions of the player would probably be informed by the video we see of him doing but because we already have an opinion about the player, our opinion of the video is biased by our own expectations.
There is intent to hit and intent to injure. It's far easier to impute intent to hit than to injure. When you look at the video evidence there is a rebuttable presumption that Wideman intended to hit the linesman. I don't think you can so easily impute malicious intent, and the circumstances and Wideman's history help in that regard.
You seem ready to accept Wideman's explanation that the contact was inadvertent but I think the fact that his stick and arms went up and he gave the linesman a shot to the back of the neck precludes that explanation being accepted. And that would be a 10-game suspension. I guess we'll soon find out.
I agree with you that if Wideman is found not to have intended to hit the linesman, then I don't see any grounds for a suspension or fine.
I agree, all that needs to be proven is intent to hit in order to suspend. Intent to injure carries the larger penalty. However, there is no rebuttable presumption in the rule.
And his stick and arms came up just like Weber's in the video that was posted, and for the same reason. Where I disagree is the "shot to the head". He certainly contacted Henderson, but I don't think he was delivering a shot.
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.
Mark Spector @SportsnetSpec
Wideman hearing will be crowded Tues. Harry Radomski, Legal Counsel for NHLOA, Dir. of Officials Stephen Walkom, and plenty more.
I'd be shocked if he doesn't get 10 games or more. I don't think the NHL is too happy with that play, or the outcome.
Mark Spector @SportsnetSpec
Wideman hearing will be crowded Tues. Harry Radomski, Legal Counsel for NHLOA, Dir. of Officials Stephen Walkom, and plenty more.
I'd be shocked if he doesn't get 10 games or more. I don't think the NHL is too happy with that play, or the outcome.
Oh my.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
Based on the rule book it looks like a Category III suspension, there is a bunch of "or"s and "not limited to"s in here to cover it. It can be deliberate, but does not have to be. I think it will be at least 3 games. Primarily, I see his actions as negligent, that could be a mitigating factor but he will still be suspended. He is fully responsible for his actions on the ice, i just don't get the "its just an accident" point of view.
40.4 Automatic Suspension – Category III - Any player who, by his actions, physically demeans an officialor physically threatens an official by (but not limited to) throwing a stick or any other piece of equipment or object at or in the general direction of an official, shooting the puck at or in the general direction of an official, spitting at or in the general direction of an official, or who deliberately applies physical force to an official solely for the purpose of getting free of such an official during or immediately following an altercation shall be suspended for not less than three (3) games.
Last edited by Flamenspiel; 01-28-2016 at 04:38 PM.
Rob Brown and Bryan Trottier on Fan 960 now with Rob Kerr. When asked about the Wideman incident they stated that they view this a serious incident and expect 20 games minimum for Wideman. They give little leash to Wideman on this.
NHL's own Video on accidental contact, Second Example. Clifford clearly put his stick up in defence at the last second and pushes off Neil's face.
Rightly or wrongly, I don't believe we can depend on the NHL's own definition of accidental contact among players for some sort of precedent for how they should handle Wideman's case, precisely because he did not hit a player. League officials are basically untouchable, and where there is room for some debate about the intent of Wideman's actions, there is sure to be plenty of doubt that this was entirely accidental.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Anyone know if we get cap relief for this suspension?
No. Any money he forfeits will go into the Players' Emergency Assistance Fund. The Flames will stay pay the money and it still counts against the Cap.
Actually... Double-checking the CBA, it looks like player salary forfeited due to suspensions does not count against the cap...
Quote:
For Players that are suspended, either by a Club or by the League, the Player Salary and Bonuses that are not paid to such Players shall not count against a Club's Upper Limit or against the Players' Share for the duration of the suspension, but the Club must have Payroll Room for such Player's Player Salary and Bonuses in order for such Player to be able to return to Play for the Club.
Strange. I was sure that it still counted against the Cap.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Rightly or wrongly, I don't believe we can depend on the NHL's own definition of accidental contact among players for some sort of precedence for how they should handle Wideman's case, precisely because he did not hit a player. League officials are basically untouchable, and where there is room for some debate about the intent of Wideman's actions, there is sure to be plenty of doubt that this was entirely accidental.
Multiple videos showing player/official collisions have proven that they aren't untouchable when it is an accident.
If they can't prove he did it on purpose, which rule 40.whatever requires, then I don't see how they have anything to suspend him. I can't find any superseding clause stating all players must refrain from stupidly running into people.
If the NHL can't show he was acting with intent, then the next best thing I see them trying to prove is that he acted with disregard for his surroundings and the safety of others on the ice surface. But I have no idea if there is any rule or clause covering such actions.
