If my reading comprehension skills are passable, I believe the comment is more directed at those who thought Wideman shouldn't be suspended at all because he was out of it after being hit in the head.
Why bring up some hypothetical scenario to try and make a comparison. There is an explicit rule you can cite for any idiots who think this should have been 0 games.
Yes, it is your prerogative to disagree, but can we please stop ignoring the fact that the League's interpretation of the event is an entirely reasonable one—especially given their access to evidence and testimony that none of the rest of us has seen or heard.
I do get it and believe that the hearing was serious and diligent. However; most informed observers, including Friedman, believed that the punishment was going to be harsh and "politically-motivated" because of the need to send a message. Who was the intended recipient of the message is the question. I believe it was to the officials and I believe this was a wrong message.
Quote:
Sportsnet’s Mark Spector had an interesting take last weekend, writing that, in his opinion, a suspension of under 10 games could provoke blowback.
“Whether they work to rule, call everything the first night back, or call nothing, if the perception is that the game doesn’t have Don Henderson’s back the zebras will make it clear — for a period of time — that they don’t have the game’s back either,” he wrote.
Hopefully, either the team or NHLPA will appeal (not sure about the formal protocol of who has the appeal filing priority in these cases).
Friedman:
Quote:
Anything above six games creates the possibility of Wideman appealing to a neutral arbitrator. I’d be astonished by anything less than that, because it allows the league to say, “We held up our end and if the arbitrator drops the suspension, that’s out of our hands.”
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Button and Sutter thought a small suspension
Bobby Mack said 10 games
Hard to argue this is on the harsh side
Button's analysis on TSN (with the crucial other angle) nailed it. Most others have been generating hysteria based on one angle with bad optics. NHL capitulated to the hysteria.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
20 games really doesn't seem just nor do I think it makes any statement that will prevent other incidents like this from happening in future because I don't think that Wideman really knew what he was doing anyways. It clearly seemed like the result of having hit his head and being a bit out of it. I don't believe it ever would have happened otherwise and i don't think the threat of a 20 game suspension prior to hitting the referee would have prevented it from happening.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I think what the Weber incident shows is that players instinctively get their arms up to protect themselves. That is another reason why I have an issue with the intentional angle. I don't think it was an intentional cross check. I think it was a reactive instinct to somebody being in his way. What is debatable and impossible to prove is at what point he realized it was a referee.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sa226 For This Useful Post:
lol, I retract what I wrote and agreed with you and yet you still have to be a jerk about it. Not surprised at all. Don't turn this into a troll thread, I am not interested.
I disagree. I think the NHL felt Wideman deliberately hit a referee with intent to injure, and I don't see how they can feel that.
I don't believe you. I completely accept that you disagree, and I can understand why, but I very sincerely doubt that you don't see how the incident could be viewed as intentional. The video evidence most definitely raises the possibility that Wideman's actions were intentional.
__________________
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?"
Flames traded Rene Bourque to the Habs while he was suspended.
There is no cap relief for suspended players.
Is that right?
50.10 (c) 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.
And if there is relief, is he more desirable to a contender -- cap relief and a player?
...the only thing that bothers me is that this is the same length of suspension that Todd Bertuzzi got for nearly killing a guy after a malicious and intentional attack after being warned by the NHL about retribution...
In terms of actual missed games, yes, the suspensions are the same. But we have to remember that Bertuzzi's original suspension was indefinite. It remained indefinite all the way through the remainder of the season, and the playoffs, and into the summer. It was still indefinite into the oblivion that was the 2004–05 lockout, and it was on,y after 15 months without NHL hockey that the length of Bertuzzi's suspension was fixed at 20 games. 20 games, which took him more than a full year to serve.
__________________
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?"
Wideman didn't immediately stop, horrified of what he realized he did, to try and help the linesman out.
Neither does Weber despite laying out an official with an open-ice hit where he left his feet. Or Muzzin who clipped one by accident. Players play to the whistle.
__________________ "I think the eye test is still good, but analytics can sure give you confirmation: what you see...is that what you really believe?" Scotty Bowman, 0 NHL games played
"You ain't gotta like me. You're just mad 'cause I tell it how it is and you tell it how it might be."
The Following User Says Thank You to united For This Useful Post:
The appeal to Bettman likely wont work (doesn't want to piss off refs)
beyond that though he can appeal it to an independent arbitrator who would have to consider past suspensions (like Carcillo) and could be shown incidents that resulted in ZERO games
Too much but they had to appease the officials and the media. I still don't think Wideman knew who he hit. He was woozy whether he admitted it or not and all that was on his mind was getting back to the bench. Someone got in his way and he lashed out. He deserved a suspension but 20 games is overkill.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
I can only surmise that fans are either bi-polar or it's just a sign of the internet times that people love to be outraged. I could quote hundreds of posts from fans at this site asking for Wideman to be benched, traded, banished to the AHL. This isn't a small group of fans as almost everyone here is guilty of saying something along these lines this season including me.
Fast forward and the guy gets a 20 game suspension that most in the hockey world have deemed fair and the same fans that wanted him anywhere but on the Flames bench are outraged like someone just robbed the Flames of a chance to win the Stanley Cup.
The decision has been made and barring an appeal it is what it is. Time to look forward to tonight's game and the rest of the season.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Why bring up some hypothetical scenario to try and make a comparison. There is an explicit rule you can cite for any idiots who think this should have been 0 games.
Rules are rules.
No need to call people idiots.
My read of the rule is this:
Minimum of 10 if deliberate physical contact without intent to injure.
Minimum of 20 if deliberate physical contact with intent to injure.
If it is accidental contact, then no penalty.
I don't understand how the league felt he had intent to injure.
I can see how it was an accident, and also see how it could be deemed deliberate physical contact without intent. I don't think either makes me an idiot.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to IamNotKenKing For This Useful Post:
It's more than I thought it would be, but I can't really call it too severe. I was thinking it would get 10 but I could have seen it getting as much as the rest of the season.
There was the possibility for a big range, and many different ways to interpret it. I could have been as little as 5 or 6 too.
I think what the Weber incident shows is that players instinctively get their arms up to protect themselves...
...or to try throwing/deflecting the other body away from direct collision and reduce the impact force somehow.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
lol, I retract what I wrote and agreed with you and yet you still have to be a jerk about it. Not surprised at all. Don't turn this into a troll thread, I am not interested.
Ok Diss, I am the troll here. You make a silly claim, I say stop because it isn't true. You make you "obvious is obvious" comment and roll your eyes like a 16 year old. Then you give a nice patronizing retraction.
But you're probably right, I am the jerk on this one Have a good one.
Have a good one.
