Wideman Decision Expected Wednesday

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Weitz

It will be a hard sell that it wasn't deliberate. In fact I don't think I have seen anyone outside of this thread try and make that argument, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

The hard thing to do is finding any evidence that it was deliberate. That it "looks deliberate", certainly does not count.

Without that evidence, there can be no suspension.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Without that evidence, there can be no suspension.

I don't think it was deliberate, but sometimes accidents do have someone at fault and I think Wideman bears responsibility in that respect and they will punish him for it.

The NHLPA might appeal or whatever, but I don't think they let him off the hook completely.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

My guess is 25 games. League will send a strong message about abuse against officials.

LOL, no way it's that high. That would be over 1.6m in lost wages for a player who has a clean rep. It will be 10 games tops IMO. I bet it will be 5-7.

[SofaProfessor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think it was deliberate, but sometimes accidents do have someone at fault and I think Wideman bears responsibility in that respect and they will punish him for it.

This, exactly. It's like if you rear end someone in your car on an icy road. You didn't mean to do it. You may not have even been driving recklessly. But you still weren't taking total care to ensure that an accident didn't occur.

I said before in this thread that the only way Wideman gets out of this with no suspension is if he says, "You know, I think that hit may have dazed me." But then that opens a whole new can of worms about why the coaching staff or trainers didn't send him to the quiet room. What were the neutral "concussion spotters" doing? I don't think the league would let this story go that route because then it calls into question all of their safety measures to protect players from head injuries.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I put it on Twitter to see how a non-Calgarypuck view sees the suspension

https://twitter.com/calgarypuckcom/s...54208791367680

If you're polling people who follow the Calgarypuck Twitter account, how does that get the non-Calgarypuck view?

[Enoch Root]

I think there was zero intent, and based on that, I think it should be zero games.

However, he got the hands too high and was a bit aggressive with his reaction. So based on that, he probably deserves a couple games.

However, twitterverse has gone mental again, and to appease the uproar, I think it will be 4 or 5 games.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Without intent, unless there's a rule I haven't seen, they can't even suspend him. The rule I've seen requires deliberate abuse, even for the lesser offence.

Well since he's currently suspended indefinitely, I'm guessing there's a rule you haven't seen.

The question isn't whether he'll be suspended...it's how many games. If they were debating if he would be suspended at all, they wouldn't have suspended him indefinitely prior to the hearing.

[nik-]

I think it's dumb that they couldn't have dealt with this over the All Star Weekend.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by SofaProfessor

I said before in this thread that the only way Wideman gets out of this with no suspension is if he says, "You know, I think that hit may have dazed me." But then that opens a whole new can of worms about why the coaching staff or trainers didn't send him to the quiet room. What were the neutral "concussion spotters" doing? I don't think the league would let this story go that route because then it calls into question all of their safety measures to protect players from head injuries.

Even if he claims he was dazed, he's still responsible for his actions. I'm sure they don't want to set a precedence that if you get hit, you're free to do anything just because you're "out of it". That'll be every player's excuse if they're ever retaliating from a hit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Well since he's currently suspended indefinitely, I'm guessing there's a rule you haven't seen.

The question isn't whether he'll be suspended...it's how many games. If they were debating if he would be suspended at all, they wouldn't have suspended him indefinitely prior to the hearing.

Maybe. But the indefinite suspension is just a procedural rule, if it exists. But this "no intent, but recklessness" rule some people think could be applied - what is it? It's certainly not the one Friedman and the others have been talking about, which requires deliberation.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

Even if he claims he was dazed, he's still responsible for his actions. I'm sure they don't want to set a precedence that if you get hit, you're free to do anything just because you're "out of it". That'll be every player's excuse if they're ever retaliating from a hit.

precedent

It worked for McSorely, I think.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think it's dumb that they couldn't have dealt with this over the All Star Weekend.

Wideman was on break. Would you like it if your boss called a meeting on the weekend?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

Wideman was on break. Would you like it if your boss called a meeting on the weekend?

Actually yeah. Ignoring the fact that the NHL isn't a 9-5, if I had a suspension hanging over my head I'd want to know right away.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

It will be a hard sell that it wasn't deliberate. In fact I don't think I have seen anyone outside of this thread try and make that argument, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

Warrener makes the argument pretty fiercely.

[The Yen Man]

To me, it looked like Wideman was woozy and pissed off, and just gave the first person he saw in white an "Eff off! Get the hell out of my way!" push. He probably didn't realize it was a ref until it was too late. No intent, but I think he still gets suspended based on the league sending a message that you're responsible for your actions at all times, intentional or not.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by AcGold

You ever play hockey? If someone appears out of nowhere it's a fairly common reaction to protect the face and brace for impact... so since always.

Yup I have... common reaction is to go forward and out (chest level), not up to the face/head.

[Hackey]

I agree with Ip Man.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The hard thing to do is finding any evidence that it was deliberate. That it "looks deliberate", certainly does not count...

Quite to the contrary, does not every decision made by the Board of Player Safety—which is not the same body who will be deciding Wideman's case—hinge on whether or not the incident "looked deliberate"?

I have yet to hear a player actually enter into record that a dangerous hit was made with the deliberate intent to injure another player, or, more finely, that he targeted another player's head with his elbow, shoulder, or what-have-you. Just like Wideman, there is almost universal denial from every suspended player that the outcome of his actions was in one way or another deliberate.

In virtually every case of a suspendible hit, all the deciding body has to go on is what appears in the video record, and that frequently requires a fair amount of interpretation.

[Puppet Guy]

Just read this article by Paul Stewart (former ref). He talks about precedent for official abuse and player responsibility. Worth the read:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Paul-...dent/196/74410

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Quite to the contrary, does not every decision made by the Board of Player Safety—which is not the same body who will be deciding Wideman's case—hinge on whether or not the incident "looked deliberate"?

I have yet to hear a player actually enter into record that a dangerous hit was made with the deliberate intent to injure another player, or, more finely, that he targeted another player's head with his elbow, shoulder, or what-have-you. Just like Wideman, there is almost universal denial from every suspended player that the outcome of his actions was in one way or another deliberate.

In virtually every case of a suspendible hit, all the deciding body has to go on is what appears in the video record, and that frequently requires a fair amount of interpretation.

The difference is that it's not the outcome that needs to be deliberate - it's the actual action. It's true that a player will deny deliberately trying to injure in all of these examples. However, I think most player on player versions will be "I didn't intend to hurt him" or "I thought he was going to turn one way but he didn't so my hit went into the numbers". What I bet doesn't happen is the player saying "I never meant to hit him at all", which is Wideman's story.

I agree, that the League doesn't have to take him at his word - they can say the video evidence completely rebuts his story. In that case, the League can still say he's full of it, but I think that's what they have to do to suspend him.

It's more or less like the shoplifting cases I used to do when I started out - the accused would say "I didn't mean to leave without paying - I forgot I even had it". Being an idiot didn't result in a conviction. But at the same time, the judge could reject the testimony as not credible and then the only evidence is that the act occurred, and the common sense inference that it was intended.

Again, if there's a rule that doesn't require deliberation - just carelessness, this changes everything.