Dennis Wideman Suspended Indefinitely

[cardsfan04]

He got 20 games. I think it's bullshit.

I'm not surprised he's getting 20... But I'm sure he'll appeal it if he can.

Easy to be torn over this. He's never shown himself to be a dirty player and I really can't see what his motivation would be...on the other hand, I heard no believable defense of his actions offered.

Yeah. I mean, the first few times I watched it, I thought it was probably intentional, but couldn't wrap my head around why any player in any sport would be dumb enough to do it.

When the feet jumping out of the way was pointed out though, I decided I think it was unintentional. I can't come up with an explanation for why his feet jump to the side other than he was trying to get out of the way. And, if he was trying to get out of the way, I don't see how it could be intentional. I get why everybody says it looks intentional. Without an explanation for his feet seeming to jump out of the way, I have a lot of doubt that it was intentional.

That said, as others have also said, I get why the NHL is coming down on him. This isn't the kind of infraction you take lightly, and you don't want to set a bad precedent.

[theohall]

He got 20 games. I think it's bullshit.

Interesting. Considering the fact the on-ice officials for that game didn't even file Wideman's hit as an incident for abuse of an official. Had they filed that report, 20 games would have been the automatic minimum.

[cprice12]

I disagree with 20 games. But I understand it...sort of.
I think, according to the rule book, rule 40.2, a 10 game minimum is what I expected. Hitting an official without the intent to injur.

But they apparently went with rule 40.3, where it states a 20 game minimum for hitting an official with the intent to injur.

I don't see it. He wasn't trying to hurt the guy...that just doesn't make any sense, and looking at it it seems to obvious to me. But whatever.

Word is the NHL didn't want to upset the NHL officials union. I suppose if they weren't happy, they could have caused some problems for the NHL.

[cprice12]

He got 20 games. I think it's bullshit.

I'm not surprised he's getting 20... But I'm sure he'll appeal it if he can.

...on the other hand, I heard no believable defense of his actions offered.

Then you sir, were not listening.

[Kerfuffle]

I called it right in my first post of this thread - 20 games. It's in the rules folks - cut and dry.

[APOD]

I disagree with 20 games. But I understand it...sort of.
I think, according to the rule book, rule 40.2, a 10 game minimum is what I expected. Hitting an official without the intent to injur.

But they apparently went with rule 40.3, where it states a 20 game minimum for hitting an official with the intent to injur.

I don't see it. He wasn't trying to hurt the guy...that just doesn't make any sense, and looking at it it seems to obvious to me. But whatever.

Word is the NHL didn't want to upset the NHL officials union. I suppose if they weren't happy, they could have caused some problems for the NHL.

I don't think it was intent to injure, should be 10 games. That said I heard on nhl on xm that Wideman played the rest of the game and not once apologized or talked to the ref/refs during or after the game, that could have been a factor in the suspension.

[abc789987]

I disagree with 20 games. But I understand it...sort of.
I think, according to the rule book, rule 40.2, a 10 game minimum is what I expected. Hitting an official without the intent to injur.

But they apparently went with rule 40.3, where it states a 20 game minimum for hitting an official with the intent to injur.

I don't see it. He wasn't trying to hurt the guy...that just doesn't make any sense, and looking at it it seems to obvious to me. But whatever.

Word is the NHL didn't want to upset the NHL officials union. I suppose if they weren't happy, they could have caused some problems for the NHL.

I don't think it was intent to injure, should be 10 games. That said I heard on nhl on xm that Wideman played the rest of the game and not once apologized or talked to the ref/refs during or after the game, that could have been a factor in the suspension.

I know he played the game but that's not what I heard about him.. . I thought he apologized on the ice not soon after it happened and I even read another report that he attempted to call the official the next day to check on him but did not get through.

[cprice12]

I disagree with 20 games. But I understand it...sort of.
I think, according to the rule book, rule 40.2, a 10 game minimum is what I expected. Hitting an official without the intent to injur.

But they apparently went with rule 40.3, where it states a 20 game minimum for hitting an official with the intent to injur.

I don't see it. He wasn't trying to hurt the guy...that just doesn't make any sense, and looking at it it seems to obvious to me. But whatever.

Word is the NHL didn't want to upset the NHL officials union. I suppose if they weren't happy, they could have caused some problems for the NHL.

I don't think it was intent to injure, should be 10 games. That said I heard on nhl on xm that Wideman played the rest of the game and not once apologized or talked to the ref/refs during or after the game, that could have been a factor in the suspension.

He was also diagnosed with a concussion after the game.
But the NHL said they decided that didn't factor into what happened.
Spoken like someone who has never had a concussion.

[Kerfuffle]

I don't believe the league should get into trying to determine one's intent in this case. They have to go by the video and the evidence. There was no reason to cross-check an official.

[cprice12]

I called it right in my first post of this thread - 20 games. It's in the rules folks - cut and dry.

One rule says if there is intent to injure, then there is a 20 game minimum.
Another rule says if there is no intent to injure, then it is a 10 game minimum.
I didn't think there was any intent to injure and was thinking he'd get around 10 games.
And the fact that he was actually diagnosed with a concussion after the game, just adds that much more credibility to his story about being woozy.
Wideman did not set out to intentionally injure the official. To say otherwise is speculatory and ridiculous.

And it's anything but cut and dry. A LOT of people disagree with the decision. And it's funny, because the ones that I have heard say that he should be suspended for the remainder of the season, or that are outraged at what he did, and calling for his head, etc. are the folks that tend to know very little about hockey...such as D'marco Farr on St. Louis sports radio. He's a football guy and he said Wideman is lucky he will get to play hockey again...which is just a stupid thing to say. He doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't understand the game.

The suspension was more to appease the officials union, as they were calling for a stiff suspension. If they didn't come down hard on Wideman, it's possible the officials could have thrown a tantrum and refused to take the ice, similar to what happened with Jim Schoenfeld back in 1988: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-05-10/ ... -officials

I don't like it. I get it...but I don't like it.

[cprice12]

I don't believe the league should get into trying to determine one's intent in this case. They have to go by the video and the evidence. There was no reason to cross-check an official.

They have to try to determine intent. That's the whole basis for the length of suspension.
They felt there was an intent to injure there...they came out and said that.
I disagree with that.

[ecbm]

He got 20 games. I think it's bullshit.

I'm not surprised he's getting 20... But I'm sure he'll appeal it if he can.

...on the other hand, I heard no believable defense of his actions offered.

Then you sir, were not listening.

Not from you-from him. All I heard from Wideman is that he didn't see the ref, which is absolutely demonstrably false from the video unless he was temporarily struck stone blind.

When the feet jumping out of the way was pointed out though,

I really don't see anything about his footwork in the video that is so decisive. No more cut-and-dry than the interpretation that it was completely intentional.

It's hard to understand this one, I admit that.

The suspension was more to appease the officials union

That's putting it pejoratively. But hey, if you want scenes like in European soccer or basketball of players menacing refs, if you like that sort of sporting culture I guess that's your taste.

[cprice12]

He got 20 games. I think it's bullshit.

I'm not surprised he's getting 20... But I'm sure he'll appeal it if he can.

...on the other hand, I heard no believable defense of his actions offered.

Then you sir, were not listening.

Not from you-from him. All I heard from Wideman is that he didn't see the ref, which is absolutely demonstrably false from the video unless he was temporarily struck stone blind.

You keep saying that it is absolutely false that Wideman didn't see him, when you have no evidence to support that because the camera was behind him. His eyes could have been closed or looking in another direction...OR, he could have zoned out and just focused on the bench...which would make sense because he said he was woozy because of the concussion.

The suspension was more to appease the officials union

That's putting it pejoratively. But hey, if you want scenes like in European soccer or basketball of players menacing refs, if you like that sort of sporting culture I guess that's your taste.

No. That isn't what I said, nor what I implied. So as Mike Milbury would say..."Moving on...moving on..."

[glen a richter]

No one can prove intent unless they're in the head of the accused. Again, did a drunk driver intend to kill someone? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Who knows? Intent 20 games and no intent 10 games is stupid and needs to be addressed. All a guy has to do is say "oops, I was dazed!" and that's 10 games less. What they could do instead is any physically aggressive contact with a ref, this being anything that would be called a penalty if it was against an opposing player--not a handshake or a pat on the back... a crosscheck, a trip, slash, etc... gets, for argument sake, an automatic 5 game suspension, a fine as a percentage of the players salary, and a penalty shot for the non-offending team. You take intent out of it. Look, if a guy gets casually high sticked even if there was no intent, it's still a 2 minute penalty (or 4 as the case may be). And you think every single puck over the glass was intended? The rule is delay of game, and not a single one of these players would deliberately put their team shorthanded by putting the puck over the glass. But the rule is the rule. Same thing. The wording of intent vs non-intent is easy to argue, so the penalty has to be the same for all situations.

[cardsfan04]

Wideman's suspension reduced to 10 games.

[glen a richter]

Good lord, now that this thread popped back up to the top and I got to read what I last posted... what a nonsensical rant. Was I drinking heavily that day?

[cprice12]

Wideman's suspension reduced to 10 games.

And he'll likely be reimbursed financially for the games he missed and wasn't paid.

The NHL needs to figure out a quicker way to go about this kind of review.

[ecbm]

The NHL needs to figure out a quicker way to go about this kind of review.

Seriously. I had actually kind of forgotten about it. Ridiculous that it took this long.

Intent language needs to be taken out of the rule. I'm guessing it will be.

[cprice12]

I called it right in my first post of this thread - 20 games. It's in the rules folks - cut and dry.

Well, it has been reduced to 10 games, so... not so cut and dry.

[ecbm]

I called it right in my first post of this thread - 20 games. It's in the rules folks - cut and dry.

Well, it has been reduced to 10 games, so... not so cut and dry.

Not cut-and-dry at all due to the silly "intent" language. If that were a component of every penalty call, you couldn't have a game-or at least not one that makes any sense.