Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wideman's Hit From Behind on Linesman

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    What an asinine article by that guy... I'll agree that I don't see intent to injure, but that wasn't deliberate contact? Give me a break!

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by hellfish21 View Post
      You gotta send a message to him, the other players and even the young hockey players watching at home. Hitting an official can not be tolerated.
      ​Right. I feel like even if you buy the, "Oh, I didn't see him coming" story, it should still be a 5-10 game get-your-head-out-of-your-*** suspension just to establish that there is no good reason for making that kind of contact with an official. The people saying that he should just get off with nothing, I can't understand.

      Comment


      • #13
        I have no reason to not believe Wideman. Is there a history between him and the official? Has he ever been suspended in the past? I've only seen the one replay over and over again. It would be unbelievably useful to see another angle where you can see his facial expression before and after the collision.

        Comment


        • #14
          best take I've read on it so far:

          http://www.tsn.ca/talent/c-mon-ref-a...ident-1.429965

          Comment


          • #15
            I don't think Macramalla's article is asinine. He makes a pretty strong argument that the requisite intent to impose a 20 game suspension under Rule 40.2 is open to serious question.

            But I think he stretches his case by saying that the contact wasn't deliberate.

            Fraser is, probably, closer to the mark with his opinion that Wideman violated Rule 40.3 for deliberate physical force without intent to injure.

            10-15 games(a $640,000 to $960,000 fine to Wideman) probably makes sense to assure that all the players know that this kind of stuff can't be done.

            What would Fred do?

            Comment


            • #16
              Macramalla's always taken a very player friendly position on things..his take onthis hit is just as strained. I do agree that he doesn;t really fall under 40.2...but to then try and argue around 40.3 is crazy...

              It's worht noting...Macramalla's also the guy who insisted Richards would eat the Kings and the NHL's lunch....and that really didn;t turn out as he insisted...he strains the notion of benefit of the doubt to the point of almost ignoring fact.

              Comment


              • #17
                if widemans legs looked like sami kapanan or petr svboda.....then sure maybe he was dazed and out of control. but he didn't. he skated pretty straight, strong and normal directly towards the bench. his trajectory also showed he could see. and if he couldn't see well, then how did he know to put up his stick into a cross checking position at just the right moment?

                you have to protect the officials and the integrity of the game. 20+ for sure. personally i think it should be over 40 to really make a statement.


                {inhale} I HEART CLAUDE GIROUX {exhale}






                sigpic

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Hookah_McGirk View Post
                  if widemans legs looked like sami kapanan or petr svboda.....then sure maybe he was dazed and out of control. but he didn't. he skated pretty straight, strong and normal directly towards the bench. his trajectory also showed he could see. and if he couldn't see well, then how did he know to put up his stick into a cross checking position at just the right moment?
                  Not only that, but why the hell didn't he fall over? If he was so dazed that he didn't see an official coming from 40 or 50 feet away and he had to make a last second adjustment to avoid contact, how did he skate straight through the guy as if no one was there rather than getting thrown off balance and likely falling to the ice? The story is just ridiculous.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Foggy View Post
                    I don't think Macramalla's article is asinine. He makes a pretty strong argument that the requisite intent to impose a 20 game suspension under Rule 40.2 is open to serious question.

                    But I think he stretches his case by saying that the contact wasn't deliberate.

                    Fraser is, probably, closer to the mark with his opinion that Wideman violated Rule 40.3 for deliberate physical force without intent to injure.

                    10-15 games(a $640,000 to $960,000 fine to Wideman) probably makes sense to assure that all the players know that this kind of stuff can't be done.
                    That's why it's asinine. Fraser is spot on. But Macramalla loses any credibility to the article with the lengths he goes to to try to make it seem like the contact wasn't intentional.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by salzy View Post
                      I have no reason to not believe Wideman. Is there a history between him and the official? Has he ever been suspended in the past? I've only seen the one replay over and over again. It would be unbelievably useful to see another angle where you can see his facial expression before and after the collision.

                      That's kind of an odd take, in my opinion.

                      So they don't have history... so he hasn't been suspended before... Does that mean he can't lose his cool for a minute and do something that is suspendable?

                      I mean, it's just kind of weird. There's only so much benefit of the doubt that can be given, but when you start giving so much as to say "well he hasn't been suspended before" then that's really one of the major issues people have with the NHL. If a guy doesn't have a history of suspensions he doesn't get suspended, but how can you get a history if they never suspend you because you don't have history?

                      I'll agree the other angle would be extremely helpful, and I'm curious to see if he was blinking or looking elsewhere, but I've seen enough with the one angle to know he was not dazed like people want to say. He doesn't waver at all while skating. He's completely in control and he hits the linesman with intent. You can tell by the way he doesn't try to catch the linesman in a sort of hug, which is what people do in accidental contact... but instead he forcefully crosschecks through the linesman. That's intent.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X