[News] Arbitrator reduces Wideman suspension to 10 games from 20

[mrkajz44]

I hope Treliving gives the NHL a good run for some sort of compensation. Flames are 1-6-2 for the game that Wideman missed that he shouldn't have. That is a dismal record, and who knows how differently it could have been is Wideman was in, it couldn't have been much worse!

[northcrunk]

Bettman works for the owners. Murray Edwards has a lot of sway with the other owners. Do we see Bettman fired? I hope so. Smug little rat.

[sureLoss]

News Update

Full decision available here:
https://nbcprohockeytalk.files.wordp...hamopinion.pdf

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The solution is clear. Remove Bettman and the league from the arbitration process completely and go straight to the neutral arbitrator. Also, the player should be re-instated until the arbitrator makes a decision.

I'd be OK with a league suspension and Bettman ruling on smaller ones (to avoid delay), but an independent guy ruling on longer ones. With time frames all around. I'd also be OK with allowing players to play during an appeal of longer ones, but not short ones.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Bettman works for the owners. Murray Edwards has a lot of sway with the other owners. Do we see Bettman fired? I hope so. Smug little rat.

Nope, we won't see that. Didn't he JUST get a massive contract extension?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Bettman works for the owners. Murray Edwards has a lot of sway with the other owners. Do we see Bettman fired? I hope so. Smug little rat.

Bettman has increased revenues by an incredible amount. He's not getting fired over something like this.

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

News Update

Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie
It isn't done often, because standard is high, but arbitrator's decision can be attacked/appealed in courts. Will see if an option for NHL.

How would an appeal like that look like anything more than a personal attack on Wideman? So many people have commented on the optics... Well, if the NHL is concerned about optics, they should let this go. They already look massively scummy, and Wideman paid a steep price no matter how you slice it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

How would an appeal like that look like anything more than a personal attack on Wideman? So many people have commented on the optics... Well, if the NHL is concerned about optics, they should let this go. They already look massively scummy, and Wideman paid a steep price no matter how you slice it.

Optics don't play into it at all IMO. This is all about concussions, suspensions, whether concussed players are responsible for their actions, and all the legal implications of everything surrounding that.

Wideman is just caught in the middle.

[BeltlineFan]

So Wideman gets his salary back for the 9 games. Does that mean the Flames have to pay him the 280 000 even though he didn't play in any games for them?

[dino7c]

"there is no occasion to go beyond the ten game minimum specified in Rule "

in other words Gary is a dick

[Leeman4Gilmour]

A lot of good questions to be answered for sure. If there's one bright spot, in my opinion, it's that the arbitrator didn't cite Wideman's "woozy" defense as a reason for reducing the sentence. I believe if he had done that, it would have opened the door for some serious ridiculousness going forward.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by BeltlineFan

So Wideman gets his salary back for the 9 games. Does that mean the Flames have to pay him the 280 000 even though he didn't play in any games for them?

they pay anyway...either to him or the PA fund

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You don't know that...Flames could also eat salary

fact is they didn't have the chance

Actually, the fact is they did have a chance. You can trade suspended players. The trade just didn't happen.

[sureLoss]

From the decision:

Some observers of the video have characterized the contact between Wideman and Henderson
as a cross-check, but this is inaccurate. A true cross-check would occur with the stick approximately
horizontal and with both hands somewhat widely separated with palms facing downward towards the
ice, thus allowing full pushing strength from arms and shoulders. Wideman’s configuration was much
different. His left hand was holding the end of the stick, left palm facing downward. His right hand
was eight-to-ten inches away with a reverse grip, right palm turned inward toward his own face. With
the stick at approximately at the one o’clock position, this would not appear to be a configuration that
would facilitate much pushing strength. Linesman Henderson testified that he felt as though he had
been hit by a bus.10
He described this feeling as due to have been hit “up in the shoulders” but it
seems much more likely that the hit that he felt (and the only hit that could have produced his
concussion) was when his head hit the boards on the way down.
Throughout this incident -- before, during and after the contact between Wideman and
Henderson -- Wideman’s head remained fixed toward the Flames’ bench. He cannot have seen
Henderson fall. Then as the gate giving access to the bench began to open from the inside, Wideman
steped into the doorway just as another Nashville player skated closely by. Wideman then sat on the
bench, did not think to close the gate, held his head down for several seconds, then raised it and looked
around. He testified that he had no idea at the time that he had hit Henderson.

My fundamental disagreement with Commissioner Bettman’s decision, is that, based on the
totality of the evidence presented to me, I do not think that Wideman’s behavior was animated by an
intent to injure Henderson, even taking into account the parenthetical definition of “intent to injure” in
Rule 40.2 (discussed below). My opinion on the question of intent is supported by an important piece
of new evidence, in the testimony of Stephen Walkom, the NFL’s Senior Vice President and Director
of Officiating. Mr. Walkom summarized his testimony as follows:
“My testimony is that he [Wideman] was upset, he’s skating to the bench, and he
made a mistake, and he cross-checked the Linesman, and he knocked him to the
ice with enough force to hurt him, even though he probably didn’t intentionally
mean to hurt him.”12
Commissioner Bettman states in his opinion that, “Mr. Wideman struck Mr. Henderson with
the shaft of his stick and caused him injury.”13
As is clear from my analysis of the video, above, I do
not share this interpretation of what the video shows. The Commissioner states also that, “Mr.
Wideman himself acknowledged in his testimony that his blow to Mr. Henderson’s back was the kind
of blow that can reasonably be expected to cause injury.”14
This, however, is not persuasive. The
Commissioner cites the following exchange between NHL counsel and Wideman at the hearing before
him:
Q. And when you couldn’t get around him, why didn’t you simply gab him
rather than do what you did?
A. Because I didn’t see him to the very last second, and it’s just a reaction to
go like this [motion]. When you’re going to run into someone, your
initial reaction isn’t to hug him. I was trying to get out of the way.
Q. Looking at the video now, putting aside what you actually did, you would
agree with me that striking somebody like that is the kind of conduct that
could cause an injury, right?
A. Right.15
This exchange, ending in a hypothetical, does not seem to me to constitute the acknowledgement that
the Commissioner describes.

[Aegypticus]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Optics don't play into it at all IMO. This is all about concussions, suspensions, whether concussed players are responsible for their actions, and all the legal implications of everything surrounding that.

Wideman is just caught in the middle.

Seems like the arbitrator confirmed that Wideman was responsible for his actions, just that he didn't mean to hurt the guy. IMO the league got 99% of the result they wanted, and it would be greedy to go for more at this point. Wideman sat 19 games, lost a ####load of money, and the ruling is that, concussed or not, he was responsible. What more is there?

[heep223]

Bettman is a dick no question but the owners love him.

It's garbage that the league wouldn't let Wideman play while this process was going on, considering they knew it might take quite a bit of time to sort out, as the PA requested.

It's things like this that are the reason we get lockouts. The league doesn't play nice and the relationship suffers.

[Parallex]

Yes, this sounds about right.

And the league should definitely provide some measure of compensation to the Flames for unjustly depriving them of a players services... I don't think they will, but they should. Lot's of joking about extra lotto numbers but more realistically a 2nd round pick (say #45?) would be more in keeping with league compensation. Again, fat chance of that happening, but it'd be the fair thing to do.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

How would an appeal like that look like anything more than a personal attack on Wideman? So many people have commented on the optics... Well, if the NHL is concerned about optics, they should let this go. They already look massively scummy, and Wideman paid a steep price no matter how you slice it.

I would think the appeal would need to allege that the arbitrator either a) overstepped his authority, b) came to a decision that is patently unreasonable, or similar difficult standard to meet or c) some form of fraud allegation (which I can't see happening, but fraud is almost always grounds to overturn).

All seem really unlikely except perhaps a), but even there, it seems unlikely given what was indicated in the sureloss synopsis of the decision.

[sureLoss]

News Update

NHL Response

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by dino7c

You don't know that...Flames could also eat salary

fact is they didn't have the chance

You really think playoff teams would have been itching to add him to their playoff rosters even if that was the case?

Players like Hamhuis were barely even in demand as it was and Wideman isn't even in the same league. Someone with as many holes in his game as Wideman is certainly not going to improve a top teams depth as they are probably already full with similar cheaper and younger options.

The owners can most definitely afford the salary and we all got to see what some of our younger players can do because of it. If we lost out on a D level prospect or were unable to absorb some washed up face punchers contract in the process it's probably a saving grace.