I still think the NHL could have been smarter: have the hearing with Colie Campbell - then craft a carefully constructed video and commentary that sets out that they considered 20 games (or whatever number), but given the possibility that he was actually concussed, but was at least partially aware of his surroundings, it was reduced to (say) 10 games.
While not entirely palatable to all parties, it reinforces the notion that if you're on the ice you are still responsible for your actions, provides some evidence that they considered "reasonable doubt" that it was deliberate, moves away from being "entirely accidental" and leaves the player, the PA, the OA with a reasoned, credible solution and penalty.
Instead they slam him, state the same "non-facts" over and over again in their video, ignore the potential effects of concussion and leave themselves wide open to criticism and reversal.
Why can't these (supposedly smart) guys figure this out?
The only problem with giving him 10 games initially is that Wideman likely would've appealed that too, then they would possibly be looking at less than 10 after arbitration. They had the official's union to consider, they didn't want to make it look like they were going easy on him and risk their ire. At least when they gave him 20, it gave the impression that they were taking it very seriously and it was a big enough number that if/when it was reduced, would still be a fairly stiff sentence. 20 games was actually a fairly calculated move on the league's part IMO.
Coincidence? Not even really. We took penalties. We got penalties for infractions.
Honestly, and I'm throwing this out there because many wouldnt agree with me but does anyone else get the feeling that Wideman and Henderson appear as though they'd both much rather get together over a beer on Wideman's tab and get it over with?
The two people involved the most appear to be the most contrite and want it to be over the most.
In no way do I get the impression that Henderson, the NHL or the officials have it out for Wideman or the Flames.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Coincidence, obviously. Especially with egomaniac Eric Furlatt on the ice.
These same referees you are trying to claim hate us had us short handed exactly four times in the previous three games.
We'll see tonight as Eric Furlatt is on the ice again in Glendale. Which one will show up? The one who wanted to be involved in every play or the one who sits back and lets the players play?
The referees were terrible against the flames last night. There were multiple times flames players had their sticks broken or held right in front of the ref and he turned a blind eye. If I was Hartley and co I would be putting in a complaint to the league. The refs looked like they were trying to punish the flames and dictate the game in favor of the Sharks.
The Glencross call was the maddest I've ever been at NHL officiating. Especially after these quotes came out from head of officiating Stephen Walkom the next day:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walkom
It was a tough call and a ballsy call but it was the right call - a great call... We still have to protect the goalies. It's such a fine line. This was a real close play and I support the call because I think its covered by the rules. All I know is watching and rewinding the play, it's a great call - and he called it in real time. It's unbelievable.
One of the most ridiculous sequences I've ever seen.
And here's the video of it for those who need a refresher:
__________________ Would there even be no trade clauses if Edmonton was out of the NHL? - fotze
Last edited by Kidder; 02-12-2016 at 01:50 PM.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Kidder For This Useful Post:
