TSN: Wideman suspension reduced to 10 games by neutral arbitrator

[Master Bill]

Gotta think Gregory Campbell is going to be in **** with the NHLPA for giving daddy Widesman text.

If that's true, what a ****ing joke he is, running off to his dad with something like this. He should be ****ing embarrassed to show his face in front of his fellow NHL players. The opposing players are now gonna chirp him hard for that.

 

[InfinityIggy]

If that's true, what a ****ing joke he is, running off to his dad with something like this. He should be ****ing embarrassed to show his face in front of his fellow NHL players. The opposing players are now gonna chirp him hard for that.

You know what, I honestly don't think it's going to lead to much. It's too easy for him to say 'hey the league had a suponea and I felt like I had to provide this information to the league'.

 

[Anglesmith]

I just read the full document from the NDA, and it made me positively giddy. He literally picked apart every single bit of Bettman's bluster and called him out for it.

-The video speaks for itself? No it doesn't, Gary.
-There was obvious intent? No there wasn't, Gary.
-That text message meant he didn't feel bad about it? No it doesn't, Gary.

Cut straight to point. Did Wideman do something bad and dangerous to an official? Yes. Did he do it on purpose? There is no reason to think so based on all the evidence. Ergo 10 games.

 

[beakerboy]

I said it in the main boards thread and I'll repeat it here.

Setting the bar for intent as what a concussed person would do is a REALLY bad precedent to set. The arbitrator chose to use that as intent versus what a reasonable person in his position, a veteran nhl player who should know that any contact on the ice, especially near the boards, can cause serious injury.

Because intent isn't just "I meant to injure him". It is also "I meant to push him away from me, and I guess I should have known that he could be injured if he fell into the boards which was likely from where we were".

So the arbitrator thought wideman was so impaired by the hit and the concussion that he either didn't know where he was on the ice and thought shoving someone in open ice wouldn't hurt anyone, or that he was so impaired that he didn't think it was possible to hurt someone by shoving them. I guess it is possible that the arbitrator thought that noone would get hurt by that shove also, but the talk about a concussion impairing his judgment points away from that.

anyays, that is the part of the judgment I disagree with, and why i wouldn't have been upset if he upheld the 20 games. I don't think wideman meant to lay out a ref, but he sure as hell was careless and should have known that was a possibility. That is the same thing as intent.

 

[Anglesmith]

So the arbitrator thought wideman was so impaired by the hit and the concussion that he either didn't know where he was on the ice and thought shoving someone in open ice wouldn't hurt anyone, or that he was so impaired that he didn't think it was possible to hurt someone by shoving them. I guess it is possible that the arbitrator thought that noone would get hurt by that shove also, but the talk about a concussion impairing his judgment points away from that.

I don't think it's either of those. I think it's just that the shove wasn't something his mind consciously chose to do. It wasn't a choice where he intended to do one thing or another, it was a reflex. And of course, the adjudicator here is under no obligation to guess what Wideman was thinking; he just has to decide if there's any proof that Wideman intended to injure the linesman, which (as he says) there really isn't.

 

[beakerboy]

If the argument is that there was no intent to shove him, then rule 40 shouldn't apply.

If the argument was that he did intend to shove him, then you have to take the likely consequences of that action as your intent, which means intent to injure.

It should have been 0 or 20. 10 simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Vkonroy]

I said it in the main boards thread and I'll repeat it here.

...

anyays, that is the part of the judgment I disagree with, and why i wouldn't have been upset if he upheld the 20 games. I don't think wideman meant to lay out a ref, but he sure as hell was careless and should have known that was a possibility. That is the same thing as intent.

I completely disagree, intent is the entire difference between 10 and 20; 10 includes gross negligence and that's why it's still a very substantial penalty in its own right.

 

[beakerboy]

Legally, if you are careless and your actions cause something to happen, you are responsible for those actions.

IE, if you are out hunting and shoot towards a house and end up killing someone, you are liable for homicide. Sure, you had zero intent to kill anyone, but you should have realized that your actions could do so, and thus you are responsible for the consequences.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter because it is academic now, but I just really dislike the precedent for saying a concussion affects intent.

 

[Anglesmith]

If the argument is that there was no intent to shove him, then rule 40 shouldn't apply.

If the argument was that he did intend to shove him, then you have to take the likely consequences of that action as your intent, which means intent to injure.

It should have been 0 or 20. 10 simply doesn't make sense.

You're right about that, based on how the rule appears to read. Seems like it should mean:

40.2: Meant to do it and meant to injure.
40.3: Meant to do it but didn't mean to injure.

How the NDA interpreted it (and frankly, what makes more sense as a rule if they want to re-write it):

40.2: Your fault and you meant to do it.
40.3: Your fault but you didn't mean to do it.

Basically all hinges around how the NDA is using the word deliberate.

At the end of the day, I'm just glad we didn't set a precedent of establishing intent without evidence. I think that would be brutal, because at that point, you're entertaining the option of suspending and fining people a quarter of a season for complete accidents because they looked bad.

 

[mouser]

On the legal angle you're never going to establish "intent" outside of watching the actions on the ice. It's not like any of these incidents involving players and officials were pre-planned by players before the game that would create some sort of evidence trail to assess intent.

 

[Anglesmith]

On the legal angle you're never going to establish "intent" outside of watching the actions on the ice. It's not like any of these incidents involving players and officials were pre-planned by players before the game that would create some sort of evidence trail to assess intent.

True; however, a common theme in incidents where they conclude there is intent (not just in referee collisions, but player/player incidents as well) is there being something the player does that only makes sense in the context of trying to attack someone.

For instance, if Wideman had altered his course to go at the referee, I think you could conclude that there was intent. If he'd wound up prior to impact, you could conclude there was intent. If he'd pushed forward through the collision with his feet instead of turning to stop, that would be incriminating, too.

In this case, given the way everything went down, there's nothing in the video that separates the incident from the reflex/accident that Wideman describes.

 

[Kranix]

You're right about that, based on how the rule appears to read. Seems like it should mean:

40.2: Meant to do it and meant to injure.
40.3: Meant to do it but didn't mean to injure.

How the NDA interpreted it (and frankly, what makes more sense as a rule if they want to re-write it):

40.2: Your fault and you meant to do it.
40.3: Your fault but you didn't mean to do it.

Basically all hinges around how the NDA is using the word deliberate.

At the end of the day, I'm just glad we didn't set a precedent of establishing intent without evidence. I think that would be brutal, because at that point, you're entertaining the option of suspending and fining people a quarter of a season for complete accidents because they looked bad.

This sets a precedent that you can clobber a ref, and get a more lenient suspension because you may have been concussed at the time. I still don't know how the NDA could determine there was no evidence of intent to injure. In this case there was video evidence of a deliberate act, but concussion and perhaps lack of better camera angles were used to reduce the suspension. The NHL's rule 40.2/40.3 may need rewriting. Deliberately(negligence), and deliberately(intent to injure), in both cases force is used. It can't be considered anything but intent to injure in my opinion. I think it's irresponsible and/or manipulative to call Wideman's case a "collision" with the ref.

 

[SKRusty]

True; however, a common theme in incidents where they conclude there is intent (not just in referee collisions, but player/player incidents as well) is there being something the player does that only makes sense in the context of trying to attack someone.

For instance, if Wideman had altered his course to go at the referee, I think you could conclude that there was intent. If he'd wound up prior to impact, you could conclude there was intent. If he'd pushed forward through the collision with his feet instead of turning to stop, that would be incriminating, too.

In this case, given the way everything went down, there's nothing in the video that separates the incident from the reflex/accident that Wideman describes.

The long and short of everything here is it is over.

The end result is that an "independent" meaning somebody that does not have a vested interest in the decision came up with a solid judgement.

The NHL has shown that it is not good at being impartial judges when hearing disciplinary cases.

The NHLPA has shown that its allegiance isn't with the integrity of the game but more has to do with "scapegoatism" to avenge its pound of flesh for the player.

Like Brian Burke said " Today is the last day I am going to address this situation." and we as fans should follow that example and rise above the BS of this whole situation.

 

[Kranix]

True; however, a common theme in incidents where they conclude there is intent (not just in referee collisions, but player/player incidents as well) is there being something the player does that only makes sense in the context of trying to attack someone.

For instance, if Wideman had altered his course to go at the referee, I think you could conclude that there was intent. If he'd wound up prior to impact, you could conclude there was intent. If he'd pushed forward through the collision with his feet instead of turning to stop, that would be incriminating, too.

In this case, given the way everything went down, there's nothing in the video that separates the incident from the reflex/accident that Wideman describes.

We can't rule out intent because the ref skated backwards into Wideman's path to the bench. He didn't have to change course. There was enough time for Wideman to make a decision.

 

[Anglesmith]

We can't rule out intent because the ref skated backwards into Wideman's path to the bench. He didn't have to change course. There was enough time for Wideman to make a decision.

If you assume that he saw him, yes. But there isn't evidence to say he saw him before the last second.

What you're pointing out is why Wideman is absolutely responsible- because he had the opportunity to see him and alter his course. But it is not the same as being able to see that he did, in fact, see him, and made a conscious decision to collide with him. And that's why 10 games is more fitting than 20.

 

[Anglesmith]

This sets a precedent that you can clobber a ref, and get a more lenient suspension because you may have been concussed at the time. I still don't know how the NDA could determine there was no evidence of intent to injure. In this case there was video evidence of a deliberate act, but concussion and perhaps lack of better camera angles were used to reduce the suspension.

Not quite. The video evidence was not able to determine whether Wideman's actions were deliberately forceful in nature. All they could show was that it was Wideman's fault.

The precedent set here, with a 10 game suspension, is that you better be responsible for your actions, because if it's your fault a ref gets injured, you're going to miss 10 games. That's more games than you would get for intentionally running a guy headfirst into the boards. No matter what the narrative is here, 10 games is not a slap on the wrist at all; it's a hefty suspension and a large chunk of a player's paycheque.

Let's just be realistic, here. The twenty game suspension is meant to apply to guys going out and attacking a ref. A guy happening upon a ref and reacting clumsily while in a blurry state of mind is not the intention of that section of the rules, regardless of how it's written. A player who is pissed off at a ref and skates over to him and slashes him, or trips him, or is brushing by him and elbows him in the head- that's what this suspension should apply to. A reckless accident absolutely should be in a lower class, just like manslaughter is in a lower class than murder.

 

[Penguinsyay]

Dennis Wideman was doing God's work. Someone needs to show these refs who's boss.

 

[Calculon]

 

[Volica]

Now that Hiller's sitting, we have to have our secondary whipping boy/tank commander taking charge.

Thanks NHL for giving us an extra game of the Wide-Dog. Matthews and the Finns thank you.

 

[Anglesmith]

Kinda ironic that yesterday, I was walking out of my sciencing building and pushed open a door just as someone was walking by the front of the door. I never saw them coming, they weren't paying attention to the fact that there was a door that could open at any second, and the result was me forcefully shoving a door into an unsuspecting person.

Guy turned back and gave me the most accusatory glare, despite me apologizing and despite the fact that it's mostly his fault, as there's no way for me to see who is out there without opening the door.

Anyway, I did not make any part of this up. I thought it was just funny for it to happen right when the Wideman stuff was whipping back up. I should probably get a 20 day suspension from the university.

 

[Volica]

20 day suspension Inc from your prof.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

True; however, a common theme in incidents where they conclude there is intent (not just in referee collisions, but player/player incidents as well) is there being something the player does that only makes sense in the context of trying to attack someone.

For instance, if Wideman had altered his course to go at the referee, I think you could conclude that there was intent. If he'd wound up prior to impact, you could conclude there was intent. If he'd pushed forward through the collision with his feet instead of turning to stop, that would be incriminating, too.

In this case, given the way everything went down, there's nothing in the video that separates the incident from the reflex/accident that Wideman describes.

You can't 100% establish intent in this situation, but he cross-checked the dude. What would he be doing, aside from actively trying to cross-check someone, that would result in him making that kind of motion with his stick? Stretching his back muscles really rapidly before getting off the ice?

I don't think he knew it was a ref, but I think he was concussed, thought it was an opposing player, and blasted the guy.

 

[Lunatik]

You can't 100% establish intent in this situation, but he cross-checked the dude. What would he be doing, aside from actively trying to cross-check someone, that would result in him making that kind of motion with his stick? Stretching his back muscles really rapidly before getting off the ice?

I don't think he knew it was a ref, but I think he was concussed, thought it was an opposing player, and blasted the guy.

AS has showed many hits without intent where the person pushed off. It's a very common thing. And you can also hit someone without trying to actually hurt them.

 

[Anglesmith]

You can't 100% establish intent in this situation, but he cross-checked the dude. What would he be doing, aside from actively trying to cross-check someone, that would result in him making that kind of motion with his stick? Stretching his back muscles really rapidly before getting off the ice?

I don't think he knew it was a ref, but I think he was concussed, thought it was an opposing player, and blasted the guy.

Well, as I've said before, I don't have any reason to doubt that this was a reflex action. Reflexes are not the predictable, one-type-fits-all kinda thing that people in this discussion seem to think they are. Literally one minute ago I picked up a measuring cup to put it in the dishwasher, and somehow ended up flipping it up into the air, spraying waffle batter all over my kitchen, then batted it into the sink. None of this was really voluntary, but it would've looked weird as hell.

Anyway, Wideman's story is simply that putting your arms up is a natural reaction to running into something unexpectedly, and I have zero reason to doubt that. I don't think there's any credence to arguments based on that motion having to be intentional, because I've done similar things when running into people in the past. If you're running into someone and you truly don't notice until the last second, it doesn't matter if it's an opposing player, a referee, a poor, starving orphan or an angry Andre the Giant, your reaction is involuntary and won't change.

 

[Lunatik]

Well, as I've said before, I don't have any reason to doubt that this was a reflex action. Reflexes are not the predictable, one-type-fits-all kinda thing that people in this discussion seem to think they are. Literally one minute ago I picked up a measuring cup to put it in the dishwasher, and somehow ended up flipping it up into the air, spraying waffle batter all over my kitchen, then batted it into the sink. None of this was really voluntary, but it would've looked weird as hell.

Anyway, Wideman's story is simply that putting your arms up is a natural reaction to running into something unexpectedly, and I have zero reason to doubt that. I don't think there's any credence to arguments based on that motion having to be intentional, because I've done similar things when running into people in the past. If you're running into someone and you truly don't notice until the last second, it doesn't matter if it's an opposing player, a referee, a poor, starving orphan or an angry Andre the Giant, your reaction is involuntary and won't change.

Why is Andre the Giant angry? He should be resting in peace