^^^^^^
And I think that's also what annoys people. The PR angle. When the crime seems hard to prove or has a grey area, PR and other things take over the decision making.
I'm not saying this was the case, I just think the uncertainty combined with the punishment seems for lack of a better word. Unfair.
Zero games. Henderson again. There are no other extenuating factors to argue. They simply collided. Arms up exactly the same way, it's a natural reaction to protect yourself.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to StrykerSteve For This Useful Post:
I think the uncertainty is more posters from here. I don't see that same "uncertainty" in most other places. I think most people think Wideman cross checked a lineman in the back and it was a pretty dirty play.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
Zero games. Henderson again. There are no other extenuating factors to argue. They simply collided. Arms up exactly the same way, it's a natural reaction to protect yourself.
You don't see a difference in those 2 plays?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
I'd say you can guage what the league is thinking if you compare this suspension to the other ones.
They very obviously don't feel like Wideman's explanation is any good.
In fact, based on the length of the suspension alone and the fact that the didn't technically have to suspend him at all given no penalty on the play, it wouldn't surprise me if some people inside the league were calling for an even longer suspension.
I imagine it was made clear to Wideman that he's getting 20 games for a reason and that an appeal at this point might expose him and the flames to more PR problems.
PR problems? Somehow I doubt an appeal is going to cause PR problems for anyone.
And assuming the appeal to Bettman doesn't lead to a suspension below 6 games, he can appeal to someone outside of the NHL to arbitrate, so the NHL's opinion doesn't matter.
One guy just got clocked in the corner and was dazed, the other was just skating normally. If you want to argue one vs the other, I know which one I would suggest is worse.
However, only one has the byproduct of the official having physical after effects. Neither are suspendable offenses though, IMO.
I agree the officials are not to be touched. I think accidental contact should still be punished. Lucic should have been punished for the punch.
I don't think Wideman was intentional.
If it was intentional, if the NHL actually thought that Wideman formulated a plan to hit a linesman, saw his opportunity, and took the chance to run a linesman from behind and cross check him in the upper back, then he should be gone forever should he not?
How the hell is 20 games an adequate punishment for an intentional attack on an official? It is not. The NHL gave the penalty that would appease the officials union, and to a slightly lesser extent the "media and public", knowing full well that he would appeal and it would come back to a more reasonable 7-15 games for the accidental contact to an official.
If he was indeed woozy, Flames failed in not at least pulling him to the back, might have saved him a few games at least.
Instead no leg to stand on, he's an idiot for smoking a ref and he's had a terrible season anyways. Take a seat back Wideman and think about what you've done (or haven't!).
The Following User Says Thank You to Dr. Doom For This Useful Post:
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?
There is no relief for Wideman
This is what Bill Daley had to say on section 50.10 (c):
Yes, the salary of players suspended for on-ice incidents do continue to count against the cap.
This section was intended to apply to players who receive no salary as a result of a team or League suspension. Supplementary discipline suspensions for on-ice conduct receive specific (and different) salary treatment as per the CBA, where forfeited salary is paid (albeit to the Emergency Assistance Fund) and by agreement of the NHL and NHLPA the player's full salary continues to count against the team's cap.
Zero games. Henderson again. There are no other extenuating factors to argue. They simply collided. Arms up exactly the same way, it's a natural reaction to protect yourself.
Why do people continue to insist that Henderson's and Weber's collision is exactly the same as Wideman's incident with Henderson? There are dramatic differences in speed, direction, and context that cannot simply be ignored, and it is tiresome that some posters keep doing so in their defence of Wideman.
In the end, the Weber / Henderson hit appears most likely to be purely accidental—a collision between a player and an official that occurred at high speed. The Wideman / Henderson hit appears possibly accidental, but also very plausibly deliberate. The fact that it took place away from the play, at low speed, and with ample opportunity for avoidance produces a tremendous amount of uncertainty relative to the Weber / Henderson hit. They are simply not comparable.
__________________
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?"
One guy just got clocked in the corner and was dazed, the other was just skating normally. If you want to argue one vs the other, I know which one I would suggest is worse.
However, only one has the byproduct of the official having physical after effects. Neither are suspendable offences though, IMO.
One guy chasing the puck engaged in the play. The other sauntering to bench after getting hit and not getting the call then cross checking a ref?
I don't mind the suspension, it is just the length and arbitrary decision that starting now they will be enforcing abuse of the official rules. The inconstancy of the NHL annoys me. It seems that what probably factored most in this all of this was the media/social network coverage rather than the incident itself.
...If it was intentional, if the NHL actually thought that Wideman formulated a plan to hit a linesman, saw his opportunity, and took the chance to run a linesman from behind and cross check him in the upper back, then he should be gone forever should he not?
No. It does not have to have been premeditated to have been intentional. It could have been a reactionary response borne of an instance of frustration. It is still a deliberate action to hit an unsuspecting recipient from behind, but not one that was formulated and planned beforehand.
__________________
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?"
