Tom Wilson appeal last 7 hours, Bettman to make ruling in a week. (upd: suspension upheld)

[Devil Dancer]

Anyone have a link to the text of the decision? Looks like you have to have a media account to get it from the NHL.

 

[bluesfan94]

But not the player who is injured and could feel long term effects from a concussion. They certainly have player safety in mind.

If Sundqvist requested an appeal to the NHL for that hit, which is illogical and impossible, I'm sure they would be arguing the adverse position. That shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. That's literally a union's job. They don't decide the position they advocate for in situations like these.

Overall, they do care about player safety. In this one instance, they care about what is best for Tom Wilson and Tom Wilson only.

 

[StrangeVision]

Anyone have a link to the text of the decision? Looks like you have to have a media account to get it from the NHL.

https://media.nhl.com/site/vasset/public/attachments/2018/10/12342/TWilson_Oct252018_1.pdf

Found attached at the bottom here: NHL.com Media Site

 

[Devil Dancer]

https://media.nhl.com/site/vasset/public/attachments/2018/10/12342/TWilson_Oct252018_1.pdf

Found attached at the bottom here: NHL.com Media Site

Thanks!

 

[God King Fudge]

Feelsgoodman

 

[Ducks in a row]

Suspension upheld:

Good very good

 

[Skrudland2Lomakin]

I wonder how Sundqvist feels about the NHLPA that is supposed to support him blaming him for Tom Wilson ripping his head off.

This is going to burn the players in court. All the NHL has to do is point to stuff like this and say "we took it seriously, the PA didn't."

That's not the purpose of a Union though, they are supposed to protect the interests and rights of union members, and yes, even when those things directly conflict with one another.


The NHLPA will not be the first union in history to make a good case for both employees when the cases are built upon each other having someone else acting in gross negligence.



Also I disagree with the notion that for one guy to win the other must pay the price.


Sundqvist's case would be built upon the idea that the NHL has fostered a game that has not effectively policed or deterred dangerous plays to the head.


Wilson's case is built upon the idea that the NHL has been inconsistent in their messaging to him and have used instances that they previously ruled as legal to make a case against him as being a dangerous player. His case would be more or less built on the idea of collusion. Basically, when **** hit the fan the NHL backtracked on previous stances regarding the messaging around his play style and hits they previously ruled as legal.

I don't think Tom Wilson is actually making a different case than Sundqvist, theoretically both men would be arguing that the NHL has been inconsistent and at best unclear regarding their expectations. Wilson's defense has always been that after every meeting he has had with the NHL he has used what they have told him to try and shape his hits and he still is being punished. I think he has a pretty good case. For the first 4 years of Tom Wilson's career he was actually brought up several times for "questionable" hits but in each instance the NHL ruled he was within the rules of the game. Last year the guy was suspended twice, what changed? It seems that Wilson's case is that nothing changed aside from the NHL's enforcement of style that he was previously told was acceptable. To me that's a good case. Whether you think his hits are garbage or not isn't really the point, the point is that the NHL seemed to tell him that his style was fine and then dropped the hammer on him all within a calendar year.

 

[The Macho King]

https://media.nhl.com/site/vasset/public/attachments/2018/10/12342/TWilson_Oct252018_1.pdf

Found attached at the bottom here: NHL.com Media Site

Well reasoned. I appreciate the decision was published like a legal opinion instead of a press release.

 

[serp]

That's not the purpose of a Union though, they are supposed to protect the interests and rights of union members, and yes, even when those things directly conflict with one another.


The NHLPA will not be the first union in history to make a good case for both employees when the cases are built upon each other having someone else acting in gross negligence.



Also I disagree with the notion that for one guy to win the other must pay the price.


Sundqvist's case would be built upon the idea that the NHL has fostered a game that has not effectively policed or deterred dangerous plays to the head.


Wilson's case is built upon the idea that the NHL has been inconsistent in their messaging to him and have used instances that they previously ruled as legal to make a case against him as being a dangerous player. His case would be more or less built on the idea of collusion. Basically, when **** hit the fan the NHL backtracked on previous stances regarding the messaging around his play style and hits they previously ruled as legal.

I don't think Tom Wilson is actually making a different case than Sundqvist, theoretically both men would be arguing that the NHL has been inconsistent and at best unclear regarding their expectations. Wilson's defense has always been that after every meeting he has had with the NHL he has used what they have told him to try and shape his hits and he still is being punished. I think he has a pretty good case. For the first 4 years of Tom Wilson's career he was actually brought up several times for "questionable" hits but in each instance the NHL ruled he was within the rules of the game. Last year the guy was suspended twice, what changed? It seems that Wilson's case is that nothing changed aside from the NHL's enforcement of style that he was previously told was acceptable. To me that's a good case. Whether you think his hits are garbage or not isn't really the point, the point is that the NHL seemed to tell him that his style was fine and then dropped the hammer on him all within a calendar year.

Well the NHLPA actually did argue that Sundqvist put himself in a position where his head was too much on a platter for Wilson not to hit it. So yeah the NHLPA did argue at least in part that one of their own members was at the very least in part at fault when one of their other members just couldn't restrain himself from targeting the head.

 

[Il Stugotz]

Anyone else agree that Bettman is a rubber stamp? The interesting appeal will be the next one, with the independent guy.

 

[The Macho King]

Well the NHLPA actually did argue that Sundqvist put himself in a position where his head was too much on a platter for Wilson not to hit it.

The position the PA took was untenable.

 

[PBandJ]

Just reading through the decision, and it's extremely well reasoned. Bettman makes the PA look really bad.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Bettman comes out looking a lot more concerned about the health and safety of players than the NHLPA

 

[PBandJ]

That's not the purpose of a Union though, they are supposed to protect the interests and rights of union members, and yes, even when those things directly conflict with one another.


The NHLPA will not be the first union in history to make a good case for both employees when the cases are built upon each other having someone else acting in gross negligence.



Also I disagree with the notion that for one guy to win the other must pay the price.


Sundqvist's case would be built upon the idea that the NHL has fostered a game that has not effectively policed or deterred dangerous plays to the head.


Wilson's case is built upon the idea that the NHL has been inconsistent in their messaging to him and have used instances that they previously ruled as legal to make a case against him as being a dangerous player. His case would be more or less built on the idea of collusion. Basically, when **** hit the fan the NHL backtracked on previous stances regarding the messaging around his play style and hits they previously ruled as legal.

I don't think Tom Wilson is actually making a different case than Sundqvist, theoretically both men would be arguing that the NHL has been inconsistent and at best unclear regarding their expectations. Wilson's defense has always been that after every meeting he has had with the NHL he has used what they have told him to try and shape his hits and he still is being punished. I think he has a pretty good case. For the first 4 years of Tom Wilson's career he was actually brought up several times for "questionable" hits but in each instance the NHL ruled he was within the rules of the game. Last year the guy was suspended twice, what changed? It seems that Wilson's case is that nothing changed aside from the NHL's enforcement of style that he was previously told was acceptable. To me that's a good case. Whether you think his hits are garbage or not isn't really the point, the point is that the NHL seemed to tell him that his style was fine and then dropped the hammer on him all within a calendar year.

The PA literally told Bettman that Sundqvist put his head on a "silver platter" for Wilson.

I'd be absolutely fuming if I were Sundqvist after reading that.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Anyone else agree that Bettman is a rubber stamp? The interesting appeal will be the next one, with the independent guy.

His reasoning is sound. The appeal is based on little else than emotions, those don't tend to get you very far when the people making the decisions aren't random people plucked from the street.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

The PA literally told Bettman that Sundqvist put his head on a "silver platter" for Wilson.

I'd be absolutely fuming if I were Sundqvist after reading that.

The NHLPA a union, Sundqvist is a nobody while Wilson is a Cup Champion.

Most unions will care about one thing "who makes more money? We have to stand behind the one making the most money". Unions don't protect their members, they protect their interests first, if that comes at the expense of a member, so be it.

 

[serp]

The NHLPA a union, Sundqvist is a nobody while Wilson is a Cup Champion.

Most unions will care about one thing "who makes more money? We have to stand behind the one making the most money". Unions don't protect their members, they protect their interests first, if that comes at the expense of a member, so be it.

Thats not how a union should operate not if they want to maintain any credibility

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Thats not how a union should operate not if they want to maintain any credibility

Shoulda, coulda, didn't.

Unions have done a ton of good, but large unions are just as corrupt as any mega corporations.

 

[Skrudland2Lomakin]

The PA literally told Bettman that Sundqvist put his head on a "silver platter" for Wilson.

I'd be absolutely fuming if I were Sundqvist after reading that.

That’s literally their job, they’re essentially a defense attorney for the guy. If they were arguing for Sundqvist they’d say Wilson was predatory. The entire point of the PA is they will defend you even if you are clearly in the wrong, the point is if the NHL has there own team of lawyers arguing against the player the PA should provide the counter.


The PA arguments are not to be taken as an indictment on the stance of the whole PA but rather as face value of an organization paid for by this guy to defend him.


The PA is like an insurance company, as a player you pay them throughout the year so you can literally call upon them to help you out.

 

[PBandJ]

That’s literally their job, they’re essentially a defense attorney for the guy. If they were arguing for Sundqvist they’d say Wilson was predatory. The entire point of the PA is they will defend you even if you are clearly in the wrong, the point is if the NHL has there own team of lawyers arguing against the player the PA should provide the counter.


The PA arguments are not to be taken as an indictment on the stance of the whole PA but rather as face value of an organization paid for by this guy to defend him.


The PA is like an insurance company, as a player you pay them throughout the year so you can literally call upon them to help you out.

Victim blamers are the worst.

 

[Skrudland2Lomakin]

Victim blamers are the worst.

... ok.

I feel like I’m trying to have a conversation about the complexities and necessary evils of a fair defense and you want to operate exclusively in the realm of “Wilson bad man”

 

[philip]

Time to go the a neutral arbitrator and hang the NHL out to dry now Willy. This is like a David vs Goliath story, and we know what happened there.

#freewilly!

 

[PBandJ]

... ok.

I feel like I’m trying to have a conversation about the complexities and necessary evils of a fair defense and you want to operate exclusively in the realm of “Wilson bad man”

Fact is, Sundqvist was seriously hurt and the NHLPA's official position is he deserved it. f*** that.

 

[Roshi]

Inspired by Wilsons case I gave some thought about how to help DoPS to make consistent rulings that apply equally to everyone, instead of the current way of winging it out randomly.

Ive had couple beers so this might not come out right, but...

Heres what I came with:

1) First time criminal:
- you judge the crime individually. If its worth 1 game, suspension is 1 game. Etc
- after your first suspension you get a parole of xx games (this needs to be figured). After you have served your parole without new suspension you will be viewed as a first timer again.
- exception: suspensions of 10 games or more. More about that later.

2) First time repeater:
- if you have another suspension during your parole of firts one, you get a repeater multiplier of 2.
- the crime will be judged as individually, but multiplied with 2.
- fe you do something worth a 3 game suspension, you get 3*2=6 games. And you go to another xx amount of games multiplied by two into parole.
- exception: suspensions of 10 games or more

3) Second time repeater
- same as above, but the multiplier is 3.
- 3 game suspension would be 3*3=9 games

Now you go up the ranks with this formula, until the ’factor10’ kicks in.

4) Factor10
- if your previous crime resulted in 10 games or more suspension, you will get the multiplier of how many games you were suspended.
- fe player was suspended for 10 games last time and commits something that is worth to sit 3 games: the suspension is actually 3*10=30 games
- Factor10 crime gives you also parole of the number of the next repeat you would have, multiplied by the length of suspension.

** Parole: when a certain set timelimit runs out, your repeater multiplier goes down by one. Obviously it cant go less than 1 though.

Example case:

Rookie Tim Willis delivers a hit in his first match, where the main contact of hit is opponents head. The receiving player changed his position just before the hit so it wasnt really intentional, but still worth of a 3 game suspension.

1) Tim gets suspended for 3 games.

After his suspension is done, it happens again. Exact same thing.

2) Tim gets suspended for 3*2=6 games.

Repeat.

3) Tim gets suspended for 3*3=9 games

Repeat.

4) Tim gets 3*4=12 games.

Add in factor10, but Tim just cant help himself. Repeat.

5) Tim gets 3*12=36 games.

Now Tim also has a parole of 36*6=216 games. Lets hope he finally learns, because his next suspension would be over 100 games with over 700 games parole.

As conclusion, I think Willy should have got 12 games.

There you go Bettman. Contact me over private message if you need my services elsewhere too.

 

[PBandJ]

Inspired by Wilsons case I gave some thought about how to help DoPS to make consistent rulings that apply equally to everyone, instead of the current way of winging it out randomly.

Ive had couple beers so this might not come out right, but...

Heres what I came with:

1) First time criminal:
- you judge the crime individually. If its worth 1 game, suspension is 1 game. Etc
- after your first suspension you get a parole of xx games (this needs to be figured). After you have served your parole without new suspension you will be viewed as a first timer again.
- exception: suspensions of 10 games or more. More about that later.

2) First time repeater:
- if you have another suspension during your parole of firts one, you get a repeater multiplier of 2.
- the crime will be judged as individually, but multiplied with 2.
- fe you do something worth a 3 game suspension, you get 3*2=6 games. And you go to another xx amount of games multiplied by two into parole.
- exception: suspensions of 10 games or more

3) Second time repeater
- same as above, but the multiplier is 3.
- 3 game suspension would be 3*3=9 games

Now you go up the ranks with this formula, until the ’factor10’ kicks in.

4) Factor10
- if your previous crime resulted in 10 games or more suspension, you will get the multiplier of how many games you were suspended.
- fe player was suspended for 10 games last time and commits something that is worth to sit 3 games: the suspension is actually 3*10=30 games
- Factor10 crime gives you also parole of the number of the next repeat you would have, multiplied by the length of suspension.

** Parole: when a certain set timelimit runs out, your repeater multiplier goes down by one. Obviously it cant go less than 1 though.

Example case:

Rookie Tim Willis delivers a hit in his first match, where the main contact of hit is opponents head. The receiving player changed his position just before the hit so it wasnt really intentional, but still worth of a 3 game suspension.

1) Tim gets suspended for 3 games.

After his suspension is done, it happens again. Exact same thing.

2) Tim gets suspended for 3*2=6 games.

Repeat.

3) Tim gets suspended for 3*3=9 games

Repeat.

4) Tim gets 3*4=12 games.

Add in factor10, but Tim just cant help himself. Repeat.

5) Tim gets 3*12=36 games.

Now Tim also has a parole of 36*6=216 games. Lets hope he finally learns, because his next suspension would be over 100 games with over 700 games parole.

There you go Bettman. Contact me over private message if you need my services elsewhere too.

I like this, but the PA would never agree to it. They don't care about player safety, as shown by them blaming Sundqvist.