Wheel o' Stephanie (formerly Shanny)

20 game suspension for Wideman.

 

TORONTO -- Calgary Flames defenseman Dennis Wideman has been suspended 20 games for his hit on linesman Don Henderson in last week's home loss to Nashville.

Wideman will forfeit $564,516.20 with the suspension, money that will go to the Players' Emergency Assistance Fund.

 

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/n...--strongly--disagrees-with-nhl-002500157.html

 

What is there to appeal? Isnt it a mandatory 20 for hitting an official? The alternative go to the khl loser.

 

good-so happy he got suspension!

 

Mitigating circumstances can be considered, so mandatory is not automatic. If the player has, as we used to say "had his bell rung" then they could soften the proscribed penalty.

I have still not heard if Wideman was concussed before hitting the ref. If he was then that would be grounds for an appeal and a possible reduction. I agree that if all we go by is a few seconds of vid. that he deserved 20 games. If he has a history of dirty play, (which I do not believe is the case), then they should have been more harsh - again strictly by the few facts that we all have.

 

i think 20 is about right. while this wasn't heinous, they need to protect the refs and giving in at all would set an ugly standard.

 

He was diagnosed with a concussion after the game, but didn't follow the concussion protocol during. Sounds just fishy enough that some (enter your own adjective) lawyer will get it reduced.

 

Looked like he knew exactly what he was doing, too bad, do the crime, do the time.

 

PA probable just testing boundaries. I can't imagine they're doing anything other than trying to get the bar lower for future suspensions. Too bad Wideman didn't give the zebra a flying elbow to the back of the head, would have only had 2 or 3 games.

 

Things are not always what they look like. That is how we end up with cases where mandatory is not always automatic.

Wideman has been given his penalty. I am now going to step back and let the system sort this out. None of us have the facts to draw any solid conclusions.

 

like this ---

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypgpoP02JM[/video]

 

he hit a ref from behind on his way to the bench after getting hit himself. what other facts are you looking for dan k ? not trying to be a smartass here but this seems pretty cut and dry.

and how does he having a concussion get his suspension reduced? so bc of the concussion it's ok to level a ref from behind like he did? to me that's a terrible excuse for what he did.

 

You've answered the first question yourself.

Part II: Because concussions do matter. For a lot of reasons, some real and others more litigious. But we cannot deny that they are a factual concern for which we do not have the data.

 

Although he doesn't have a history of doing this shite, not too many players do. There's always a first, he refused to be looked at when he was on the bench. My opinion is that he went from slowly skating to the bench to a sudden a deliberate and aggressive crosscheck. All the ex players like kypreos and rob ray weighing in, well, you don't what its like, damn, he could've put out that zebras back for a long time, they don't have equipment nor are qualified to take a hit like a pro hockey player.

 

Was that Macho-Man?
Greatest meat-ish product salesman the world has ever known

 

I hear what youre saying Dan, I do. The facts are that anything can be argued. The video speaks for itself IMO. He gets up and skates to his bench. He wasn't laboring, wobbly etc., nothing seamed out of the ordinary. He gets to the ref and aggressively hits him and calmly takes his spot on the bench. He continued to play the game. He didn't do anything questionable or away from the norm the rest of the game. He and/or his council is going to blame it on a concussion. I call bullshit.

 

All we know is what we see , we can't speculate on other things. Is there an excuse for striking someone because you were tired, hungry, just lost your job and got dumped, and you punch the old man in front of you while lining up to pay for your groceries. In no other world can you get away with that, it's not in their job description and totally at odds with their union.

 

The counter argument is that he didn't know what he was doing. If thats what some people believe, that's fine, I just don't see it in this case, that's my view of it.

 

come on - who else could it be? no rocks the pint tights better than the Macho Man! Yeah!