Player Discussion Tom Wilson, NHL All-Star (Part 3)

[IafrateOvie34]

Just take out hitting and watch this league fall apart. Pathetic ruling.

 

[txpd]

It is reported that Wilson is the first player in NHL history to be suspended for boarding without having been guilty of a hit from behind.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It is reported that Wilson is the first player in NHL history to be suspended for boarding without having been guilty of a hit from behind.

they’re just making shit up along the way dude......cowards.

 

[Ridley Simon]

But he targeted the head. You're absolutely right about most of the rest of it.

And before you guys pile on me, YES, I also hate when discipline like this is distilled down to frame-by-frame slo-mo. I hate when they (ALWAYS!) entirely disregard the fact that the "victim" is also a hockey player that should know that the world isn't going to stop while he digs the puck out of his skates. In this case, Carlo was less "defenseless" than he was momentarily stupid.

But Wilson targets the head. Kind of a lot. Hasn't had a suspension in a while and has absolutely been better over that stretch, but his last two (now three) suspensions were all head hits that didn't really need to be. He goes for the knockout. He's reckless, at least occasionally.

And we live in a CTE world now. You can't take a serious look at what CTE does to people and not see the message that the league is trying to send to Wilson. They even say so in the DOPS video; that they acknowledge that there was absolutely a way for this hit to have been clean. If he goes through the shoulder or hip, this isn't even a discussion and he would have been in better position to actually play the puck (God forbid). But Wilson targeted the head.

He still just needs to make that one little adjustment and he'd be golden. Let's also not pretend that this is standard offensive procedure...

The puck is in Carlo's skates and Wilson's eyes are on Carlo's ear. Let's be real. He's not nearly as interested in the puck in that moment as he is curious about what the inside of Carlo's head looks like.

Tommy gets fired up. We love that about him. But he gets carried away sometimes. He just needs to stop targeting the head.

I appreciate what you are saying. I do.

However to stipulate that Wilson is looking to earhole him in that snapshot is silly. He’s looking at his mark and, and for all we know he’s trying to ensure he *does NOT* drill him in the head. Why are we assuming otherwise?

If you follow the rest of the video, there are a confluence of events that lead to Carlo getting his bell rung...much of which is partly Carlo’s fault. He drops his head. He puts the butt end of his stick in Wilson’s face (which makes Wilson alter his body and his hands).

We all see what we want to see

 

[twabby]

I think if the league made a big mistake as many here are saying, then he would have appealed. He likely would have had to sit out 7 games no matter what due to the length of the appeals process, but he could have recovered his salary and removed this suspension from his record. The fact that he isn't even going to appeal is telling, and now he will be a repeat-offender for 18 months, and his next suspension if there is one will be even longer.

Ultimately I imagine that the sticking point was whether or not Carlo was defenseless, which is highly subjective. It's tough for me to sit here and make that judgment, and I don't think a neutral arbitrator would be able to make a judgment that supersedes the NHL DoPS's judgment.

Everything else is pretty black and white, in terms of it being a boarding penalty worthy of suspension.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

The NHL did what they did to save face by appealing to the howling masses. Wilson doing what he did (not appealing) helped the NHL save face.

The NHL will remember this.

*Howling masses.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Oh yes, Wilson decides to not risk greater unjust punishment by appeals process with kangaroo court, therefor ruling must be accurate.

so vapid...

 

[twabby]

Oh yes, Wilson decides to not risk greater unjust punishment by appeals process with kangaroo court, therefor ruling must be accurate.

so vapid...

Ultimately the decision would have been handed to a neutral arbitrator if Wilson and the NHLPA had chosen to go that far, so even if you think the NHL is a kangaroo court then I don't think this is the correct explanation. Unless the neutral arbitrator would have also handed down greater punishment than the 7 game suspension, an outcome that I think is highly unlikely, then I'm curious what the cons actually are. If the cons are just time and the cost of a lawyer, then I have to imagine they thought his case didn't hold much water with a neutral arbitrator because the pros are quite clear: recovering up to $311,781.61 in salary and removing this hit from his suspension history.

If he just wants to own up to his hit, then respect to Tom Wilson.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Sure...whatever you want to convince yourself of....

He hit the guy square....easy to own up to that.

 

[Calicaps]

I appreciate what you are saying. I do.

However to stipulate that Wilson is looking to earhole him in that snapshot is silly. He’s looking at his mark and, and for all we know he’s trying to ensure he *does NOT* drill him in the head. Why are we assuming otherwise?

If you follow the rest of the video, there are a confluence of events that lead to Carlo getting his bell rung...much of which is partly Carlo’s fault. He drops his head. He puts the butt end of his stick in Wilson’s face (which makes Wilson alter his body and his hands).

We all see what we want to see

I honestly can't believe how little attention this gets. He's coming in for a clean hit and gets surprised be a stick to the face. He reacts. All the geometry changes. Carlo gets concussed. The stick to the face literally changes the whole thing. Absent that Carlo probably doesn't get hurt. None of that is Wilson's fault.

 

[HTFN]

I honestly can't believe how little attention this gets. He's coming in for a clean hit and gets surprised be a stick to the face. He reacts. All the geometry changes. Carlo gets concussed. The stick to the face literally changes the whole thing. Absent that Carlo probably doesn't get hurt. None of that is Wilson's fault.

It's nuts. I went rounds with a guy in the main boards thread and got him to admit that Wilson might not have been in control of his hit after a butt end to the face, and that Carlo should and could have looked up before being hit (as one would expect off the dump in) and still nothing. A "mutual disagreement" at best.

 

[g00n]

Ultimately the decision would have been handed to a neutral arbitrator if Wilson and the NHLPA had chosen to go that far, so even if you think the NHL is a kangaroo court then I don't think this is the correct explanation. Unless the neutral arbitrator would have also handed down greater punishment than the 7 game suspension, an outcome that I think is highly unlikely, then I'm curious what the cons actually are. If the cons are just time and the cost of a lawyer, then I have to imagine they thought his case didn't hold much water with a neutral arbitrator because the pros are quite clear: recovering up to $311,781.61 in salary and removing this hit from his suspension history.

If he just wants to own up to his hit, then respect to Tom Wilson.

Do you have evidence of your assertions?

 

[twabby]

Do you have evidence of your assertions?

What evidence would you like?

 

[g00n]

What evidence would you like?

Evidence that isn't at all subjective. The only kind that matters.

 

[twabby]

Evidence that isn't at all subjective. The only kind that matters.

What claim that I made would you like evidence for?

 

[g00n]

What claim that I made would you like evidence for?

I think if the league made a big mistake as many here are saying, then he would have appealed. He likely would have had to sit out 7 games no matter what due to the length of the appeals process, but he could have recovered his salary and removed this suspension from his record. The fact that he isn't even going to appeal is telling, and now he will be a repeat-offender for 18 months, and his next suspension if there is one will be even longer.

Ultimately I imagine that the sticking point was whether or not Carlo was defenseless, which is highly subjective. It's tough for me to sit here and make that judgment, and I don't think a neutral arbitrator would be able to make a judgment that supersedes the NHL DoPS's judgment.

Everything else is pretty black and white, in terms of it being a boarding penalty worthy of suspension.

Ultimately the decision would have been handed to a neutral arbitrator if Wilson and the NHLPA had chosen to go that far, so even if you think the NHL is a kangaroo court then I don't think this is the correct explanation. Unless the neutral arbitrator would have also handed down greater punishment than the 7 game suspension, an outcome that I think is highly unlikely, then I'm curious what the cons actually are. If the cons are just time and the cost of a lawyer, then I have to imagine they thought his case didn't hold much water with a neutral arbitrator because the pros are quite clear: recovering up to $311,781.61 in salary and removing this hit from his suspension history.

If he just wants to own up to his hit, then respect to Tom Wilson.

The bolded.

Maybe they know the arbitration process better than we do and don't believe it's worth the time and effort to maybe get 1-2 games shaved, if there's any chance of that at all.

 

[txpd]

they’re just making shit up along the way dude......cowards.

If Wilson scared a guy into a seizure, they would suspend him

 

[twabby]

I think if the league made a big mistake as many here are saying, then he would have appealed. He likely would have had to sit out 7 games no matter what due to the length of the appeals process, but he could have recovered his salary and removed this suspension from his record. The fact that he isn't even going to appeal is telling, and now he will be a repeat-offender for 18 months, and his next suspension if there is one will be even longer.

Ultimately I imagine that the sticking point was whether or not Carlo was defenseless, which is highly subjective. It's tough for me to sit here and make that judgment, and I don't think a neutral arbitrator would be able to make a judgment that supersedes the NHL DoPS's judgment.

Everything else is pretty black and white, in terms of it being a boarding penalty worthy of suspension.

Ultimately the decision would have been handed to a neutral arbitrator if Wilson and the NHLPA had chosen to go that far, so even if you think the NHL is a kangaroo court then I don't think this is the correct explanation. Unless the neutral arbitrator would have also handed down greater punishment than the 7 game suspension, an outcome that I think is highly unlikely, then I'm curious what the cons actually are. If the cons are just time and the cost of a lawyer, then I have to imagine they thought his case didn't hold much water with a neutral arbitrator because the pros are quite clear: recovering up to $311,781.61 in salary and removing this hit from his suspension history.

If he just wants to own up to his hit, then respect to Tom Wilson.

The bolded.

Maybe they know the arbitration process better than we do and don't believe it's worth the time and effort to maybe get 1-2 games shaved, if there's any chance of that at all.

First bolded claim: do you not agree? I mean, if a neutral arbitrator agreed with you on the facts of this case (that he shouldn't be suspended at all for the hit), then Wilson would recover his $311,781.61 in salary, and perhaps most importantly this incident would be expunged from his record. I suppose the neutral arbitrator could also make a big mistake and not completely remove his suspension, or only shave a game or two off the suspension as you mention, but if the case is so open-and-shut in favor of Wilson then why not appeal it? It leads me to believe that perhaps it isn't open-and-shut at all, because if it were then the pros would far outweigh the cons in terms of pursuing an appeal.

Second bolded claim: Mostly related to the first bolded claim. Again, if the case were so open-and-shut the pros would far outweigh the cons of pursuing an appeal. It leads me to believe that by not pursing an appeal, perhaps Wilson, his agent, and the NHLPA believe that the case actually isn't so open-and-shut?

Third bolded claim: The suspension was based on 3 claims by the NHL:

1. Tom Wilson boarded Brandon Carlo.
2. Brandon Carlo was injured.
3. Tom Wilson has a suspension history.

Points 2 and 3, I believe, are accepted as fact. Point 1 is based on the definition of boarding, which is as follows:

Rule 41 - Boarding 41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee. There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule. Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”

As mentioned earlier, I think it's pretty black and white that Tom Wilson checked Brandon Carlo and that it caused him to hit the boards violently or dangerously. But as I mentioned in the prior paragraph, what isn't black-and-white is whether Brandon Carlo was defenseless. This is the only route I believe Wilson could have successfully argued in an appeal. I'm not even sure he wasn't defenseless.

Given Tom Wilson's suspension history and the severity of Carlo's injury (he went to the hospital, and is now considered week-to-week), if it truly was a boarding penalty then I think 100% of the people here believe that a suspension would be merited. The argument is whether it truly was a boarding penalty, and as I mentioned, the only thing that I see that could make this not fall under boarding is that perhaps Carlo wasn't defenseless. If you'd like to point out another reason you don't think it would be boarding, please enlighten me.

The remaining bolded quotes: Please see the explanation I typed for the first two bolded quotes.

 

[tenken00]

But he targeted the head. You're absolutely right about most of the rest of it.

And before you guys pile on me, YES, I also hate when discipline like this is distilled down to frame-by-frame slo-mo. I hate when they (ALWAYS!) entirely disregard the fact that the "victim" is also a hockey player that should know that the world isn't going to stop while he digs the puck out of his skates. In this case, Carlo was less "defenseless" than he was momentarily stupid.

But Wilson targets the head. Kind of a lot. Hasn't had a suspension in a while and has absolutely been better over that stretch, but his last two (now three) suspensions were all head hits that didn't really need to be. He goes for the knockout. He's reckless, at least occasionally.

And we live in a CTE world now. You can't take a serious look at what CTE does to people and not see the message that the league is trying to send to Wilson. They even say so in the DOPS video; that they acknowledge that there was absolutely a way for this hit to have been clean. If he goes through the shoulder or hip, this isn't even a discussion and he would have been in better position to actually play the puck (God forbid). But Wilson targeted the head.

He still just needs to make that one little adjustment and he'd be golden. Let's also not pretend that this is standard offensive procedure...

The puck is in Carlo's skates and Wilson's eyes are on Carlo's ear. Let's be real. He's not nearly as interested in the puck in that moment as he is curious about what the inside of Carlo's head looks like.

Tommy gets fired up. We love that about him. But he gets carried away sometimes. He just needs to stop targeting the head.

Why do you say that Wilson's locked on Carlo's ear? And what does that definitively prove about anything, honestly?

It could be that he sees the puck in peripherals in the frame before and right before making contact put his head up? Looks like Wilson is looking at his Carlo's shoulder. You could very well be right, but this piece of evidence that you are trying so hard to inject proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

I havent clicked in here in 2 days... I see this is still the Tom Wilson thread

 

[tenken00]

First bolded claim: do you not agree? I mean, if a neutral arbitrator agreed with you on the facts of this case (that he shouldn't be suspended at all for the hit), then Wilson would recover his $311,781.61 in salary, and perhaps most importantly this incident would be expunged from his record. I suppose the neutral arbitrator could also make a big mistake and not completely remove his suspension, or only shave a game or two off the suspension as you mention, but if the case is so open-and-shut in favor of Wilson then why not appeal it? It leads me to believe that perhaps it isn't open-and-shut at all, because if it were then the pros would far outweigh the cons in terms of pursuing an appeal.

Second bolded claim: Mostly related to the first bolded claim. Again, if the case were so open-and-shut the pros would far outweigh the cons of pursuing an appeal. It leads me to believe that by not pursing an appeal, perhaps Wilson, his agent, and the NHLPA believe that the case actually isn't so open-and-shut?

Third bolded claim: The suspension was based on 3 claims by the NHL:

1. Tom Wilson boarded Brandon Carlo.
2. Brandon Carlo was injured.
3. Tom Wilson has a suspension history.

Points 2 and 3, I believe, are accepted as fact. Point 1 is based on the definition of boarding, which is as follows:



As mentioned earlier, I think it's pretty black and white that Tom Wilson checked Brandon Carlo and that it caused him to hit the boards violently or dangerously. But as I mentioned in the prior paragraph, what isn't black-and-white is whether Brandon Carlo was defenseless. This is the only route I believe Wilson could have successfully argued in an appeal. I'm not even sure he wasn't defenseless.

Given Tom Wilson's suspension history and the severity of Carlo's injury (he went to the hospital, and is now considered week-to-week), if it truly was a boarding penalty then I think 100% of the people here believe that a suspension would be merited. The argument is whether it truly was a boarding penalty, and as I mentioned, the only thing that I see that could make this not fall under boarding is that perhaps Carlo wasn't defenseless. If you'd like to point out another reason you don't think it would be boarding, please enlighten me.

The remaining bolded quotes: Please see the explanation I typed for the first two bolded quotes.

I don't think Tom is appealing it because all things considered, 7 games isn't that bad. I wrote it on the main boards, but with Wilson's prior suspension history, and if this truly was headhunting or a hit intended to injure, we're looking at a bare minimum of 20+ games in a regular season. Which was the length for his last suspension on the Sundqvist hit in 2018. That was the last time Tom Wilson got suspended, and initially for 20 games as well.

20 games in a 82 games season is about 13.6 games in a 56 game season. Or 14 games thereabouts.

7 games is nothing, not worth it. And the NHL DoPS doesn't consider the hit to be anywhere as egregious as his priors.

 

[g00n]

First bolded claim: do you not agree? I mean, if a neutral arbitrator agreed with you on the facts of this case (that he shouldn't be suspended at all for the hit), then Wilson would recover his $311,781.61 in salary, and perhaps most importantly this incident would be expunged from his record. I suppose the neutral arbitrator could also make a big mistake and not completely remove his suspension, or only shave a game or two off the suspension as you mention, but if the case is so open-and-shut in favor of Wilson then why not appeal it? It leads me to believe that perhaps it isn't open-and-shut at all, because if it were then the pros would far outweigh the cons in terms of pursuing an appeal.

Second bolded claim: Mostly related to the first bolded claim. Again, if the case were so open-and-shut the pros would far outweigh the cons of pursuing an appeal. It leads me to believe that by not pursing an appeal, perhaps Wilson, his agent, and the NHLPA believe that the case actually isn't so open-and-shut?

Third bolded claim: The suspension was based on 3 claims by the NHL:

1. Tom Wilson boarded Brandon Carlo.
2. Brandon Carlo was injured.
3. Tom Wilson has a suspension history.

Points 2 and 3, I believe, are accepted as fact. Point 1 is based on the definition of boarding, which is as follows:



As mentioned earlier, I think it's pretty black and white that Tom Wilson checked Brandon Carlo and that it caused him to hit the boards violently or dangerously. But as I mentioned in the prior paragraph, what isn't black-and-white is whether Brandon Carlo was defenseless. This is the only route I believe Wilson could have successfully argued in an appeal. I'm not even sure he wasn't defenseless.

Given Tom Wilson's suspension history and the severity of Carlo's injury (he went to the hospital, and is now considered week-to-week), if it truly was a boarding penalty then I think 100% of the people here believe that a suspension would be merited. The argument is whether it truly was a boarding penalty, and as I mentioned, the only thing that I see that could make this not fall under boarding is that perhaps Carlo wasn't defenseless. If you'd like to point out another reason you don't think it would be boarding, please enlighten me.

The remaining bolded quotes: Please see the explanation I typed for the first two bolded quotes.

You didn't answer any of my questions with evidence. Those are you observations and they're subjective.

I already said why they may have chosen to not pursue arbitration.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I don't think Tom is appealing it because all things considered, 7 games isn't that bad. I wrote it on the main boards, but with Wilson's prior suspension history, and if this truly was headhunting or a hit intended to injure, we're looking at a bare minimum of 20+ games in a regular season. Which was the length for his last suspension on the Sundqvist hit in 2018. That was the last time Tom Wilson got suspended, and initially for 20 games as well.

20 games in a 82 games season is about 13.6 games in a 56 game season. Or 14 games thereabouts.

7 games is nothing, not worth it. And the NHL DoPS doesn't consider the hit to be anywhere as egregious as his priors.

IMO 20 games or the equivalent to that in a shortened season would have been an instant appeal and the NHL would have mud on their face over making up the rules under scrutiny of appeal.

7 games was a “moving on” ruling....

 

[twabby]

You didn't answer any of my questions with evidence. Those are you observations and they're subjective.

I already said why they may have chosen to not pursue arbitration.

Evidence can be subjective, and observations can be evidence. For instance, eyewitness testimony in civil and criminal trials in the United States is accepted as evidence despite it being mostly subjective.

Objective evidence is of course preferred (for instance video evidence compared to a person's recollection of events) but subjective evidence is still useful in the absence of objective evidence.

Also, your reasoning for why they might not pursue an appeal was as follows:

Maybe they know the arbitration process better than we do and don't believe it's worth the time and effort to maybe get 1-2 games shaved, if there's any chance of that at all.

Indeed, perhaps the neutral arbitrator would only shave 1-2 games off at most. But that would imply that either the neutral arbitrator would be incompetent, or that they have no valid case to get the suspension removed and to recover $311,781.61.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Evidence can be subjective, and observations can be evidence. For instance, eyewitness testimony in civil and criminal trials in the United States is accepted as evidence despite it being mostly subjective.

Objective evidence is of course preferred (for instance video evidence compared to a person's recollection of events) but subjective evidence is still useful in the absence of objective evidence.

Also, your reasoning for why they might not pursue an appeal was as follows:



Indeed, perhaps the neutral arbitrator would only shave 1-2 games off at most. But that would imply that either the neutral arbitrator would be incompetent, or that they have no valid case to get the suspension removed and to recover $311,781.61.

yes evidence can be subjective, yet in that form it holds no real value (in your case) because it cannot be independently verified, examined, evaluated, etc...(and you’re certainly no verifiable hockey expert akin to getting a medical opinion).

It’s exactly the equivalent of saying “trust me, if you don’t believe me, just ask me”......

sorry if I’m not buying your faith-based argument.