Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wideman's Hit From Behind on Linesman

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by dsl135 View Post

    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.
    Not sure how can Fraser be spot on, while Macramalla is asinine. They're both saying the same thing about Rule 40.2 (intent to injure an official) which is the biggest element in this whole deal.

    If Wideman gets tagged for intent to injure, he'll face a huge suspension, and his reputation will take a massive hit. He'll go down as a guy who tried to injure a linesman. A lot of folks have jumped to the conclusion, based on a bad angle video, that that's what Wideman was trying to do, despite Wideman never showing this type of behavior in a long career.

    Macramalla and Fraser both do a good job pointing out the flaws in the "intent to injure" claim. If the NHL agrees, that will be a big win for Wideman, even if he gets suspended under Rule 40.3.
    What would Fred do?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Foggy View Post

      Not sure how can Fraser be spot on, while Macramalla is asinine. They're both saying the same thing about Rule 40.2 (intent to injure an official) which is the biggest element in this whole deal.

      If Wideman gets tagged for intent to injure, he'll face a huge suspension, and his reputation will take a massive hit. He'll go down as a guy who tried to injure a linesman. A lot of folks have jumped to the conclusion, based on a bad angle video, that that's what Wideman was trying to do, despite Wideman never showing this type of behavior in a long career.

      Macramalla and Fraser both do a good job pointing out the flaws in the "intent to injure" claim. If the NHL agrees, that will be a big win for Wideman, even if he gets suspended under Rule 40.3.
      I'm honestly very confused how you could think the two are expressing even remotely similar sentiments. The articles couldn't be more different, especially in their conclusions.

      Yes, they both agree there was not intent to injure, which I agree with as well. But the hit was intentional and was deliberate. And that is where the similarities end.

      Fraser ends his with "I determine that Wideman’s needless and dangerous shove from behind with total disregard for the safety of the linesman to be worthy of a suspension not less than 10 games under Rule 40.3—category ll."

      Macramalla does everything he can to excuse Wideman's actions, and ends his article with "Overall, though, it would be a surprise to see Wideman suspended for what amounts to an accident."

      Macramalla is saying no suspension, and Fraser is saying 10+ games. The only point they agree on is that it doesn't fall under 40.2 which I agree with as well. But other than that, they don't agree at all.

      And while I would like to see the other angle, this isn't "a bad angle." You can clearly see Wideman extend his arms and cross check the linesman. You simply don't do that if you're accidentally bumping into someone. You just don't. That's pushing someone out of your way. That's not protecting yourself or anything else.

      Fraser is spot on because of things like this:
      This is where any free pass for Wideman ends for me. While I believe contact at this point was unavoidable, I do not accept or condone the finishing push of Widemanís hands that exacerbated the degree of impact and caused a hard fall to the ice by the linesman.

      I would ask Wideman why he didnít bear hug the defenseless linesman to minimize the contact. Why didnít he decelerate his forward motion in any way to reduce the impact? Finally, I would ask why he felt it necessary to extend his arms and finish the contact with a strong push on the back of linesman Henderson.

      As hockey operations reviews this incident they have the option to impose a 10-game suspension under Rule 40.3ócategory ll (Any player who deliberately applies physical force to an official in any manner, which physical force is applied without intent to injure, or who spits on an official, shall be automatically suspended for not less than ten (10) games.)
      It's abundantly clear to me that Wideman deliberately applied physical force to an official. The extending of the arms makes that clear, regardless, because the opposite angle isn't going to change that.
      Last edited by dsl135; 02-01-2016, 03:39 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by dsl135 View Post
        I'm honestly very confused how you could think the two are expressing even remotely similar sentiments. The articles couldn't be more different, especially in their conclusions.
        dsl, when this first happened, a lot of people looked at the bad angle video and called Wideman's contact with the linesman a Rule 40.2 violation that deserved a huge (20+ games) suspension.

        Macramalla was one of the first guys to analyze it and say "slow down" because the actual intent to injure was questionable. Fraser agrees with Macramalla on this. They're expressing very similar sentiments on what is, for Wideman, the rule violation with the most serious consequences.




        What would Fred do?

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Foggy View Post

          dsl, when this first happened, a lot of people looked at the bad angle video and called Wideman's contact with the linesman a Rule 40.2 violation that deserved a huge (20+ games) suspension.

          Macramalla was one of the first guys to analyze it and say "slow down" because the actual intent to injure was questionable. Fraser agrees with Macramalla on this. They're expressing very similar sentiments on what is, for Wideman, the rule violation with the most serious consequences.



          No I know. I realized they agreed on that aspect but Macramalla is still asinine with how far he goes to absolve Wideman and act as if he doesn't even deserve anything.

          Like I said, Fraser has it right, Macramalla is an idiot.

          Comment


          • #25
            Wideman is a POS and I have no doubt that the hit was intentional, if he gets nothing it sets a bad precedent. JMHO

            Comment


            • #26
              "intent to injure"

              this phrase is tossed around a lot and i think its worth discussing.

              I don't think any player ever truly tries to injure or not injure another player when either choosing to attack a player or even when doing so impulsively.

              Intent to hurt another player is more accurate to what the players true intentions are. They want the other player to feel the emotion of pain.

              injury is simply the result of certain types of contact. sometimes its caused by velocity, sometimes its caused by the placement of the contact. Placement is sometimes calculated, sometimes accidental, or sometimes caused by the vulnerability of the victims positioning and sometimes the sheer speed of the game dictates the chaos involved in attacks and collision/attack placement.

              I don't think any of these hockey players have trained in the mountains with Shaolin monks or have medical degrees that give would empower them to have surgical attack abilities. When your mad at someone or want revenge, you are only choosing that you want to hurt the other person. An injury is just a result of the contact sometimes, and sometimes its not. So many factors come into play when a player is injured or not and its rarely something within the power and control of the players on the ice. This is why so many times you will see a player get completely smashed and walk away....and sometimes a player barely looks like they were hit and they have a bad injury. So many variables are involved. The majority of which are well out of the range of a players knowledge.

              So to me this "intent to injure" is a way of trying to place a measurement on how reckless an attack is but its not accurate in its wording or definition.

              Its very rare that i have seen attacks where its 100% clear that the player is actually trying to injure another player.

              baseball stick swing at a players head....kicking a players ankle with a skate blade etc...

              and even in those cases i bet a case can be made that the maniac attackers were still only trying to hurt the other player and not injure them. this is why in many of the really bad cases where player gets very hurt you see the aftermath regret from the attacker. In the moment they only wanted to make the other player feel pain.


              {inhale} I HEART CLAUDE GIROUX {exhale}






              sigpic

              Comment


              • #27
                Biggest problem I have with giving the guy the benefit of the doubt is the way he extends his stick into the ref as he makes contact. Looks like he was pissed he got no call on the initial check and took it out on the nearest official-who had his back turned..............

                Comment


                • #28
                  Suspension just handed down... he got 20 games.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    I would've liked to have seen more, but 20 games is good.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      I'm fine with 20. It's double what I was expecting, so good for the league trying to play tough. It will be interesting to see if he appeals and gets any leniency from Bettman.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X