There's the video of him skating in the direction of the linesman and then hammering him. I would guess they have that justification.
What Carcillo did was worse than Wideman, by far. That's the point. He skated up to the linesman, intending to do what he did. Wideman, I find that close to impossible to argue. At the very most, Wideman mistook the linesman for someone else, and shoved.
It is amazing how this statement comes purely because this is a Calgary Flame hockey player. I guarantee if Wideman had been a Canuck instead of a Flame, most of the posts like the one I quoted would be commending the NHL on a job well done. You can say different but it is rather obvious.
Your statement may be true, but it wouldn't have as much to do with their actions as our blind hatred for the 'Nucks. If it was a genuinely good guy like Hamhuis, or even a Sedin I'm willing to be there would be a few people looking at the situation logically.
Last edited by powderjunkie; 02-03-2016 at 12:21 PM.
Anyone think the appeal takes on a distinct tone of "The league responded the way it did because it was uncomfortable acknowledging the spectre of concussions and head injuries that's at play in the circumstances"?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
A difference I see with Wideman's incident and the incidents with Weber and Muzzin is where the play as. Wideman was behind the play, heading to the bench, and in fact was going against the direction of play. Weber was following play up the ice, to chase a puck. Muzzin was right in the play. Accidents on their accounts but hard to justify an accident on Wideman's account.
I think Wideman's was an accident, but I understand the ruling. Still shocked at the high amount of games. Makes me wonder if the NHLOA was trying to pressure for rest of season or more.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Buff For This Useful Post:
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I believe the precedent being set is you're always responsible for your actions, whether deliberate or not. He smoked an unsuspecting official and should have had ample time to move/react. 20 games is harsh, as it seemed reckless but not deliberate. I would have given 10 games.
I suppose, but I do think that makes for a bad precedent. If they rule it intentional , fine, 20 sounds right. I think if they do rule that way,the appeal is much more likely to succeed.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
#Crosscheckgate??? This scenario stinks to the high heavens.
Players out there who gun for each others brains and smoke them only get a handful of games.
Drug users get 20 games!!! This is craziness when you also take into consideration the financial hit as well. This incident is going to cost Widedog approx $780 000 in Canadian dollars. Does this seem like an appropriate financial cost to a player who collided with an official?
So you think through all of this the NHL looked at one camera angle? I don't think so.
I would hope they looked at more, including the other side that shows Wideman's initial contact to look very coincidental.
In the end this is more about protecting their reputation than serving any real justice. The clip that looked terrible pretty much went viral and that was it. The world (even people who never watch hockey) just saw a guy maul an official. Case closed. The NHL went along with that view.
The NHL is always concerned with appeasing people that don't really know or care about the game.
__________________
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
The Following User Says Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
If I'm in the NHLPA this reeks of "we don't give a #### about player safety, but if you accidentally hit a linesman, and we feel like giving out a suspension because of the optics, then watch out".
If the NHL was to give a 20 game suspension for a player on player incident, the NHLPA would be the first people complaining - not for the 'victim' but for the 'accused'. Can't have it both ways.
I don't agree with this, he didn't look right on the bench. He most likely didn't even realize he smoked Henderson. I know this gets a lot of heat but he had to get off the ice to not risk a too-many men on the ice penalty. Brodie already hopped off and was involved in the play.
And I think if he was aware and meant to hit Henderson he would have looked back at him and stared him down.
Just curious but why are people overly upset about the ruling? Wideman makes a lot of money. He will be fine and really the way fans were going on about how bad he's been this season I don't see what's to be outraged about.
