Wideman Decision Expected Wednesday

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

The most telling part to me was how he slammed his stick on the ice in frustration about one second before he made contact with the linesmen. He was clearly frustrated and took it out on the ref. I don't see how this is anything less than 20 games and it's well deserved.

Except it's been said many times, this is the signal for a line change.

[Toonage]

#WideGate

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

Does anyone know when his hearing is set for? I'm assuming 10:00am Eastern, but I have seen nothing concrete

2:30 et per Friedman

[sureLoss]

Interesting tidbit from Friedman:

1. Calgary’s delegation includes President of Hockey Operations Brian Burke, which puts him on the opposite side of his own history. As the NHL’s director of hockey operations in 1994, Burke had to rule when St. Louis defenceman Rick Zombo slashed linesman Kevin Collins. Collins accidentally bumped Zombo, a play that directly led to the game-winning goal against the Blues.

“It was a split-second reaction,” Zombo told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “Not until I was chasing the play did I realize my reaction was dealt upon a linesman. I in no way intended to inflict punishment on a linesman. It’s a situation I regret.” Burke gave him 10 games.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

The most telling part to me was how he slammed his stick on the ice in frustration about one second before he made contact with the linesmen. He was clearly frustrated and took it out on the ref. I don't see how this is anything less than 20 games and it's well deserved.

"slammed" is hyperbole. And no, that wasn't frustration. He was alerting his bench he needed to come off.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Toonage

#WideGate

No.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Chris Nichols ‏@NicholsOnHockey
Dreger says Brian Burke told him Brad Treliving will make the Wideman defense presentation, 'but you can count on me chiming in.' #Flames

[Ashasx]

Nice to see Treliving and Burke support their player as such.

[GioforPM]

Thinking about this, I think if the league is intellectually honest they either have to:

a. Accept his version that it was a complete accident and give him nothing. There can be no punishment for accidentally wiping out an official. It's just not against the rules.

or

b. Not accept his version, rule that it was intentional, and give him a big suspension, because you just can't intentionally wipe out an official.

If they give him a small suspension, I think it's a cop out, either way. It will be either "we believe you but we have to appease the public and the officials" or "we don't believe you, but we can't prove it and don't want an appeal to an independent arbitrator".

[Samonadreau]

^ if those are the 2 options it will be 'b'. Dont shoot the messenger.

[Weitz]

Although if they didn't suspend him and the officials instituted a work to rule, that could be quite entertaining.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Thinking about this, I think if the league is intellectually honest they either have to:

a. Accept his version that it was a complete accident and give him nothing. There can be no punishment for accidentally wiping out an official. It's just not against the rules.

or

b. Not accept his version, rule that it was intentional, and give him a big suspension, because you just can't intentionally wipe out an official.

If they give him a small suspension, I think it's a cop out, either way. It will be either "we believe you but we have to appease the public and the officials" or "we don't believe you, but we can't prove it and don't want an appeal to an independent arbitrator".

Option C: Believe him that it was unintentional, but still suspend him because he was in a situation that he could have done more to prevent the collision.

There is unavoidable accidents that get ignored, but this one was completely avoidable whether he was dazed or not.

Just like a high sticking penalty where the player will get called every time because he should be in control of his stick at all times, Wideman will get suspended because he should have been in control of his actions. He had plenty of time to get out of the way.

[The Coppernian One]

How many in person hearings take place that don't result in a suspension? Doesn't this mean he's getting at least 5 games?

Honest question.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Buff

Option C: Believe him that it was unintentional, but still suspend him because he was in a situation that he could have done more to prevent the collision.

There is unavoidable accidents that get ignored, but this one was completely avoidable whether he was dazed or not.

Just like a high sticking penalty where the player will get called every time because he should be in control of his stick at all times, Wideman will get suspended because he should have been in control of his actions. He had plenty of time to get out of the way.

I've mentioned a bunch of times, there's no offence like careless use of a stick for this situation. The stick rule is spelled out pretty clearly. The rules about physical force on an official require it to be deliberate.

I suppose they could say it was deliberate but under the influence of the hit and give him leniency but that to me is a huge can of worms.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by The Coppernian One

How many in person hearings take place that don't result in a suspension? Doesn't this mean he's getting at least 5 games?

Honest question.

That is my assumption too. But with how the CBA works, just when we understand how something works, there is an exception in place to take care of something else.

Maybe the rules are different in this type of scenario for left handed and right handed shots, and then there is further exceptions in place for people who use white tape on the blade or black tape on the blade.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've mentioned a bunch of times, there's no offence like careless use of a stick for this situation. The stick rule is spelled out pretty clearly. The rules about physical force on an official require it to be deliberate.

I suppose they could say it was deliberate but under the influence of the hit and give him leniency but that to me is a huge can of worms.

Except Friedman said today and others have said:

"This isn’t a Player Safety Issue, so Colin Campbell rules on the suspension, not Stephane Quintal. Since there was no game misconduct on the play, there are no specific guidelines Campbell must follow. He has the power to punish as he sees fit."

You are the only one who keeps saying that.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've mentioned a bunch of times, there's no offence like careless use of a stick for this situation. The stick rule is spelled out pretty clearly. The rules about physical force on an official require it to be deliberate.

I suppose they could say it was deliberate but under the influence of the hit and give him leniency but that to me is a huge can of worms.

I feel the NHL is going to side with the court of public opinion on this one. It doesn't look good for Wideman. I completely believe him that it was an accident but fans and media were taking to media looking for a huge suspension. Why? Because it is hard to make a case that it was an accident. The optics aren't in Wideman's favour on this incident. He had plenty of time to see the linesman and get out of the way.

That is why I think they'll say that there may have been factors leading to Wideman not noticing the lineseman but he still has to be in control of his actions. Even if he didn't see him and he bumped into him, there was no effort to protect the lineseman, and then he just skated off.

Unless Wideman, Treliving and Burke can convince Colin Campbell that Wideman was dazed and unaware of his surroundings and he didn't even know he hit somebody, then Wideman will get a big suspension. The problem with going this route is that it could open up the Flames staff to a huge storm of negative publicity as to why Wideman was allowed back on the ice and not taken to a dark room to ensure he wasn't concussed. Besides, it is very hard argument to make.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Except Friedman said today and others have said:

"This isn’t a Player Safety Issue, so Colin Campbell rules on the suspension, not Stephane Quintal. Since there was no game misconduct on the play, there are no specific guidelines Campbell must follow. He has the power to punish as he sees fit."

You are the only one who keeps saying that.

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. He is talking about the amount of games and there being no minimum or requirement of a game misconduct to give a suspension of over 10 games (under player safety). He is not saying that the actual existence of an offence is not still required. Look at the relevant rules.

In other words, you can't just say "there is no rule broken but we will suspend you anyway".

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Although if they didn't suspend him and the officials instituted a work to rule, that could be quite entertaining.

Please no. Remember the replacement refs in the NFL. Complete disaster

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by The Coppernian One

How many in person hearings take place that don't result in a suspension? Doesn't this mean he's getting at least 5 games?

Honest question.

From what I have heard on the Fan960 discussions last week, the fact that this is not a player v player incident means the normal rules don't apply in that fashion. So the league could still suspend below five games. However, that is just an argument about a technicality, I think. I would be shocked if he gets less than 7 or 8, and I'm fully expecting 10+.