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

[twabby]

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.

Which piece of subjective evidence are you disagreeing with?

I think you're getting confused with evidence, and the conclusions I am drawing from said evidence.

I believe that Tom Wilson is not going to appeal mainly because he and his camp do not have a realistic pathway for successfully removing this from his record and recovering his money. I believe that given the rule on boarding, they don't actually have ground to stand on because it's not possible to prove that Brandon Carlo wasn't actually defenseless. It's a gray area, not black-and-white as you and other posters such as @g00n believe.

 

[tenken00]

Which piece of subjective evidence are you disagreeing with?

I think you're getting confused with evidence, and the conclusions I am drawing from said evidence.

I believe that Tom Wilson is not going to appeal mainly because he and his camp do not have a realistic pathway for successfully removing this from his record and recovering his money. I believe that given the rule on boarding, they don't actually have ground to stand on because it's not possible to prove that Brandon Carlo wasn't actually defenseless. It's a gray area, not black-and-white as you and other posters such as @g00n believe.

But could the reasoning be because the NHL has already given Tom the benefit of the doubt?

If this was the NHL putting down the hammer, a 20+ games suspension would be the likely sentencing. And they weren't going to levy that because they already agree that the defenselessness argument is highly subjective and their own rules make it such.

 

[searle]

Wonder a big a role the PR angle played in his decision now to appeal - he hired a company a while back, right?

Might have thought it easiest to just get out the news cycle ASAP and keep his head down to try and lessen the blowback, not like any reduction in suspension would mean he would play any additional games with this short schedule.

 

[g00n]

Which piece of subjective evidence are you disagreeing with?

I think you're getting confused with evidence, and the conclusions I am drawing from said evidence.

I believe that Tom Wilson is not going to appeal mainly because he and his camp do not have a realistic pathway for successfully removing this from his record and recovering his money. I believe that given the rule on boarding, they don't actually have ground to stand on because it's not possible to prove that Brandon Carlo wasn't actually defenseless. It's a gray area, not black-and-white as you and other posters such as @g00n believe.

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.

I assume you're using the full 7 game salary amount for dramatic effect even though we all know there's practically zero chance a "neutral" arbitrator will come in and just erase the entire ruling instead of compromising, especially given the ambiguity of the rule and the mandatory inclusion of "past history" no matter how old or irrelevant.

A neutral party like that isn't going to want to rewrite the rule book to remove the vagueness, which is what would be required, even though the NHL has already said the hit was arguably legal. Rules/disclaimers/etc are often written to give one party a distinct advantage in interpretation. Wilson and the Caps know this and even though they believe the hit was legal they know the NHL has the upper hand.

This has been stated MANY TIMES here but you keep ignoring that, instead choosing to insert your own narrative that the hit was clearly illegal based on the refused appeal. That's an inaccurate assumption.

Maybe most importantly, in asking for evidence I'm pointing to why your disdain for the "eye test" or other non-empirical forms of analysis is overly narrow. Interesting that you now value observation and subjectivity as evidence when you didn't before.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Which piece of subjective evidence are you disagreeing with?

I think you're getting confused with evidence, and the conclusions I am drawing from said evidence.

I believe that Tom Wilson is not going to appeal mainly because he and his camp do not have a realistic pathway for successfully removing this from his record and recovering his money. I believe that given the rule on boarding, they don't actually have ground to stand on because it's not possible to prove that Brandon Carlo wasn't actually defenseless. It's a gray area, not black-and-white as you and other posters such as @g00n believe.

you just gave a bunch of opinions...unlike Goon, I won’t waste a lot of time on you.

 

[twabby]

But could the reasoning be because the NHL has already given Tom the benefit of the doubt?

If this was the NHL putting down the hammer, a 20+ games suspension would be the likely sentencing. And they weren't going to levy that because they already agree that the defenselessness argument is highly subjective and their own rules make it such.

I don't think he was given the benefit of the doubt per se, but I do believe the NHL realized that with a highly subjective ruling like boarding, they didn't think that throwing the book at him (20+ games) would be very fair. I think if someone else threw the same hit with the same force they would have maybe only been fined, or gotten a game or 2. But given Tom Wilson's extensive history I think that's why they upped it to 7 games.

 

[tenken00]

I don't think he was given the benefit of the doubt per se, but I do believe the NHL realized that with a highly subjective ruling like boarding, they didn't think that throwing the book at him (20+ games) would be very fair. I think if someone else threw the same hit with the same force they would have maybe only been fined, or gotten a game or 2. But given Tom Wilson's extensive history I think that's why they upped it to 7 games.

Well that was what I am trying to say. The 7 games is solely based on Tom Wilson's past history and reputation and not with the actual hit itself based upon their own rulebook as it currently written.

We all know Wilson's history and reputation, that is already set in stone. So there is no point in attempting to wipe out games that are given out for just that.

 

[twabby]

I assume you're using the full 7 game salary amount for dramatic effect even though we all know there's practically zero chance a "neutral" arbitrator will come in and just erase the entire ruling instead of compromising, especially given the ambiguity of the rule and the mandatory inclusion of "past history" no matter how old or irrelevant.

A neutral party like that isn't going to want to rewrite the rule book to remove the vagueness, which is what would be required, even though the NHL has already said the hit was arguably legal. Rules/disclaimers/etc are often written to give one party a distinct advantage in interpretation. Wilson and the Caps know this and even though they believe the hit was legal they know the NHL has the upper hand.

This has been stated MANY TIMES here but you keep ignoring that, instead choosing to insert your own narrative that the hit was clearly illegal based on the refused appeal. That's an inaccurate assumption.

Maybe most importantly, in asking for evidence I'm pointing to why your disdain for the "eye test" or other non-empirical forms of analysis is overly narrow. Interesting that you now value observation and subjectivity as evidence when you didn't before.

If the penalty was so obviously not boarding, as you have claimed, then why wouldn't a neutral arbitrator rule in Tom Wilson's favor completely? After all the arbitrator has his or own reputation to consider when handing down a judgment, so why would they decide to rule one way even though the visual evidence clearly points another way as you believe?

The arbitrator also wouldn't have to rewrite the rulebook, they could just say that Carlo wasn't defenseless at all. No change in rule necessary to come to that conclusion, just a different interpretation of the hit is needed.

I also think you are mischaracterizing what the NHL said about the legality of the hit. There's a wide gulf between "the hit was arguably legal" as you claim, and "there are elements of the hit that are legal" as the NHL claims. For instance, there were elements of Tom Wilson's hit on Oskar Sundqvist that led to a 14 game suspension that were legal: Tom Wilson didn't leave his feet, he didn't hit him into the boards violently, etc. That doesn't mean that hit was arguably legal.

And I don't have a disdain for the eye-test, but I don't trust it when it runs counter to objective data. For instance, if you said it feels hot outside but a thermometer says it's 30 degrees outside, I'd wager that your internal thermometer was way off.

There's no objective data to point out that this wasn't boarding, so I'm using a subjective view to say that every criteria was satisfied except maybe Carlo being defenseless. I've even admitted that I'm not sure I fully agree that he was defenseless. If the standard were reasonable doubt, I wouldn't vote to convict Wilson based on the evidence I have seen. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that it wasn't boarding. But I also think there is a reasonable case to be made that it is boarding. I think the NHL realized this, and because of this only levied a 7-game suspension when a more clear-cut boarding could have been 20+ games, given Wilson's history and Carlo's injury.

Reasonable doubt isn't the standard, and nor should it be in my opinion given that I think the NHL should err on the side of protecting the players.

 

[twabby]

Well that was what I am trying to say. The 7 games is solely based on Tom Wilson's past history and reputation and not with the actual hit itself based upon their own rulebook as it currently written.

We all know Wilson's history and reputation, that is already set in stone. So there is no point in attempting to wipe out games that are given out for just that.

I don't fully agree with this. I think the fact that he got only 7 games was because while the NHL does believe it to be boarding, there's a reasonable case to be made that maybe Carlo wasn't entirely defenseless. Certainly Wilson's past history plays a role in the length of the suspension because an otherwise clean player likely wouldn't (or shouldn't) get the same length of a suspension, but I don't think the decision to suspend in the first place was based on it being Tom Wilson.

 

[g00n]

If the penalty was so obviously not boarding, as you have claimed, then why wouldn't a neutral arbitrator rule in Tom Wilson's favor completely? After all the arbitrator has his or own reputation to consider when handing down a judgment, so why would they decide to rule one way even though the visual evidence clearly points another way as you believe?

The arbitrator also wouldn't have to rewrite the rulebook, they could just say that Carlo wasn't defenseless at all. No change in rule necessary to come to that conclusion, just a different interpretation of the hit is needed.

I also think you are mischaracterizing what the NHL said about the legality of the hit. There's a wide gulf between "the hit was arguably legal" as you claim, and "there are elements of the hit that are legal" as the NHL claims. For instance, there were elements of Tom Wilson's hit on Oskar Sundqvist that led to a 14 game suspension that were legal: Tom Wilson didn't leave his feet, he didn't hit him into the boards violently, etc. That doesn't mean that hit was arguably legal.

And I don't have a disdain for the eye-test, but I don't trust it when it runs counter to objective data. For instance, if you said it feels hot outside but a thermometer says it's 30 degrees outside, I'd wager that your There's no objective data to point out that this wasn't boarding, so I'm using a subjective view to say that every criteria was satisfied except maybe Carlo being defenseless. I've even admitted that I'm not sure I fully agree that he was defenseless. If the standard were reasonable doubt, I wouldn't vote to convict Wilson based on the evidence I have seen. I think there is a reasonable case to be made that it wasn't boarding. But I also think there is a reasonable case to be made that it is boarding. I think the NHL realized this, and because of this only levied a 7-game suspension when a more clear-cut boarding could have been 20+ games, given Wilson's history and Carlo's injury.

Reasonable doubt isn't the standard, and nor should it be in my opinion given that I think the NHL should err on the side of protecting the players.

Pretty sure I already answered this.

Let's not walk back your well-known preference for data over the reviled eye test.

 

[tenken00]

I don't fully agree with this. I think the fact that he got only 7 games was because while the NHL does believe it to be boarding, there's a reasonable case to be made that maybe Carlo wasn't entirely defenseless. Certainly Wilson's past history plays a role in the length of the suspension because an otherwise clean player likely wouldn't (or shouldn't) get the same length of a suspension, but I don't think the decision to suspend in the first place was based on it being Tom Wilson.

You just contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences though. Are the 7 games based on Tom Wilson's history or are they not?

Or do you mean to say that the actual decision to suspend is based on the hit, and the actual length of the suspension is because of Tom Wilson's history? Thereby saying if it wasn't Tom Wilson, it's a 1 game suspension for that hit.

And in which case, appealing for less games would be appealing to Tom Wilson's history and reputation, which we all know would be pointless.

 

[twabby]

Pretty sure I already answered this.

Let's not walk back your well-known preference for data over the reviled eye test.

I'm not walking this back, in fact I agree with it. I prefer objective data over the subjective eye-test. I suggest you re-read my prior post.

 

[Empty Goal Net]

Apologies if it's already been pointed out, but a 7-game suspension during a 56-game season is equivalent to >10 games during a traditional 82-game season. Kinda harsh, all things considered.

 

[twabby]

You just contradicted yourself in two consecutive sentences though. Are the 7 games based on Tom Wilson's history or are they not?

In my opinion yes, but only partially. The other factors contributing to the 7 games are the nature of the hit itself (boarding) and the fact that Carlo was injured.

Or do you mean to say that the actual decision to suspend is based on the hit, and the actual length of the suspension is because of Tom Wilson's history? Thereby saying if it wasn't Tom Wilson, it's a 1 game suspension for that hit.

Yes. If a player with a previously clean record made that hit, I am almost positive they would have received a lesser suspension, or possibly just a fine. But I believe the decision to discipline is independent of who made the hit.

And in which case, appealing for less games would be appealing to Tom Wilson's history and reputation, which we all know would be pointless.

Not entirely, the point of appealing would be to argue that the hit was not suspendable at all (as many here are claiming) or at the very least to say that it might be suspendable, but that the evidence is murkier than even the NHL is saying. They could also make the argument that the NHL didn't correctly ramp up suspension lengths, and indeed if my recollection is correct that is exactly the argument that they made with the Sundqvist hit that allowed them to reduce the suspension from 20 games to 14. I haven't explored that avenue myself for this hit, but unlike posters here the arbitrator in that case actually used calculations and past data for deciding why 20 games was too long of a suspension for the Sundqvist hit, rather than just having an emotional response to the suspension length.

 

[crazy8888]

Apologies if it's already been pointed out, but a 7-game suspension during a 56-game season is equivalent to >10 games during a traditional 82-game season. Kinda harsh, all things considered.

Just like everything else in our times, the length of suspension is based mostly on keeping the twitter mob satisfied. 7 games is 15 + games during the normal season. Plus do not forget the repeat offender label. Even when he returns every single play and every single hit is going to be under microscope. NHL has effectively neutered Wilson for the next 18 months if not forever.

 

[twabby]

Just like everything else in our times, the length of suspension is based mostly on keeping the twitter mob satisfied. 7 games is 15 + games during the normal season. Plus do not forget the repeat offender label. Even when he returns every single play and every single hit is going to be under microscope. NHL has effectively neutered Wilson for the next 18 months if not forever.

The NHL doesn't factor in the length of the season when handing out supplemental discipline. The only adjustment is made during the postseason, where 1 playoff game is treated as the equivalent of 2 regular season games.

 

[crazy8888]

In my opinion yes, but only partially. The other factors contributing to the 7 games are the nature of the hit itself (boarding) and the fact that Carlo was injured.



Yes. If a player with a previously clean record made that hit, I am almost positive they would have received a lesser suspension, or possibly just a fine. But I believe the decision to discipline is independent of who made the hit.



Not entirely, the point of appealing would be to argue that the hit was not suspendable at all (as many here are claiming) or at the very least to say that it might be suspendable, but that the evidence is murkier than even the NHL is saying. They could also make the argument that the NHL didn't correctly ramp up suspension lengths, and indeed if my recollection is correct that is exactly the argument that they made with the Sundqvist hit that allowed them to reduce the suspension from 20 games to 14. I haven't explored that avenue myself for this hit, but unlike posters here the arbitrator in that case actually used calculations and past data for deciding why 20 games was too long of a suspension for the Sundqvist hit, rather than just having an emotional response to the suspension length.

Im my opinion, they did not appeal because they know the process is rigged against them anyway. The appeal date would probably not even be set until the 7 games are up. Last time he won the appeal but didn't he still end up sitting more than 14 games because the appeal process took so long?

 

[illicit]

Murphy didn't get a suspension or fine for his hit on Cernak the other night. Very similar play to Wilson's, defender doesn't see the hitter, makes contact with chest/shoulder then head. Your thoughts? Bit of a joke that Tom gets 7 games and Murphy gets off free.

 

[tenken00]

In my opinion yes, but only partially. The other factors contributing to the 7 games are the nature of the hit itself (boarding) and the fact that Carlo was injured.



Yes. If a player with a previously clean record made that hit, I am almost positive they would have received a lesser suspension, or possibly just a fine. But I believe the decision to discipline is independent of who made the hit.



Not entirely, the point of appealing would be to argue that the hit was not suspendable at all (as many here are claiming) or at the very least to say that it might be suspendable, but that the evidence is murkier than even the NHL is saying. They could also make the argument that the NHL didn't correctly ramp up suspension lengths, and indeed if my recollection is correct that is exactly the argument that they made with the Sundqvist hit that allowed them to reduce the suspension from 20 games to 14. I haven't explored that avenue myself for this hit, but unlike posters here the arbitrator in that case actually used calculations and past data for deciding why 20 games was too long of a suspension for the Sundqvist hit, rather than just having an emotional response to the suspension length.

the point of appealing would be to argue that the hit was not suspendable at all (as many here are claiming) or at the very least to say that it might be suspendable, but that the evidence is murkier than even the NHL is saying.

The point of appealing is to also show that the actual penalty was not justified as well.

Department of Player Safety FAQs

The standard of review will be whether the League's finding of violation of the League Playing Rules and the penalty imposed were both supported by substantial evidence.


Even by your admission, this hit would only be a 1 game suspension or a fine just solely based on the hit alone.

When you attach Tom Wilson's name to that hit, it's a 7 game suspension.

So what is there to appeal to based on the hit? Nothing. So the reason to appeal is nothing. It's a reputation suspension.

 

[g00n]

The NHL doesn't factor in the length of the season when handing out supplemental discipline. The only adjustment is made during the postseason, where 1 playoff game is treated as the equivalent of 2 regular season games.

*sigh*

The only reason we have such a conversion is how many times we've had seasons with playoffs. We've never had a season shortened due to a pandemic. I don't think the point was that there's a definite conversion value, but that in a shortened season the games mean much more to the standings, so each game lost is more important, and the DoPS probably knew this.

 

[twabby]

Murphy didn't get a suspension or fine for his hit on Cernak the other night. Very similar play to Wilson's, defender doesn't see the hitter, makes contact with chest/shoulder then head. Your thoughts? Bit of a joke that Tom gets 7 games and Murphy gets off free.

Murphy did not break any rules. Wilson did, unless you believe that Carlo wasn't defenseless.

 

[twabby]

Im my opinion, they did not appeal because they know the process is rigged against them anyway. The appeal date would probably not even be set until the 7 games are up. Last time he won the appeal but didn't he still end up sitting more than 14 games because the appeal process took so long?

Even ignoring the $311,781.61 that Wilson stands to recover, wouldn't it be worth it to get this suspension off his record, even if he would still end up missing the full 7 games due to the length of the appeals process? He's likely to be on the DoPS's radar in the future, so it would behoove Wilson to get this off his record if indeed it was a clean hit. Otherwise, the next suspension will be even longer.

 

[twabby]

*sigh*

The only reason we have such a conversion is how many times we've had seasons with playoffs. We've never had a season shortened due to a pandemic. I don't think the point was that there's a definite conversion value, but that in a shortened season the games mean much more to the standings, so each game lost is more important, and the DoPS probably knew this.

That's not a factor in their calculation though.

The other thing to consider is that Brandon Carlo's injury also is more impactful because the length of time he is injured represents a higher percentage of the season he will miss due to being boarded by Tom Wilson.

And before you mention it, yes I think that means the NHL considering a playoff game worth 2 regular season games in terms of suspension length is malarkey.

 

[g00n]

That's not a factor in their calculation though.

The other thing to consider is that Brandon Carlo's injury also is more impactful because the length of time he is injured represents a higher percentage of the season he will miss due to being boarded by Tom Wilson.

And before you mention it, yes I think that means the NHL considering a playoff game worth 2 regular season games in terms of suspension length is malarkey.

It's not a stated or official factor but that doesn't mean it isn't a working factor.

Here's what I think: TW's people believe this is bullshit as the rest of the Caps org have basically said, but they realize they're not going to get anywhere since the rules are worded vaguely enough the NHL will have the upper hand in any arbitration, especially since past history CAN be considered. So they see no value in wasting time/money/PR resources fighting a 12-13 day suspension for maybe 45K in pay if they manage to get 1 game knocked off after the fact, and practically zero chance of the event being expunged, again due to the wording of the rule which leaves too much room for interpretation in the NHL's favor. And the NHL is not interested in ruling in TW's favor due to the injury, which is again ruling by injury rather than infraction. Additionally the reputation factored into the infraction determination. So it's basically use of a broad rule to punish TW for being TW simply because Carlo may have put himself in harms way during an otherwise legal hit.

 

[HTFN]

Murphy did not break any rules. Wilson did, unless you believe that Carlo wasn't defenseless.

He wasn't, he was unaware.