SterioDesign Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said: Oh no? ahhhh you beat me to it lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) All kidding aside, I think it was as simple as the NHL not wanting to set any kind of precedent where a Wideman-type incident in the future could lead to a "Well why am I getting 20 games when Wideman only got x games?" rebuttal. That's why I wasn't surprised to see him get 20...this was definitely about "zero tolerance, no gray areas, no extenuating circumstances, no taking of past history into account". Edited February 3, 2016 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunninWithTheDevil Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Any news on whether he'll appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 5 minutes ago, mfitz804 said: Any news on whether he'll appeal? Yes, already appealing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 He almost had to. That's a lot of coin to lose for a guy on a very low value contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'm glad they didn't waver. Hitting an official is unacceptable. Whether or not Wideman knew what he did, I can't say for sure. Obviously, he got nailed and was wobbly. But his explanation made no sense. So, they gave him the full 20. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostondevil11 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 So now the can of worms has been opened that he did have a concussion and he refused to go in the quiet room. Will be interesting on where this goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Man.. this situation is turning pretty ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, bostondevil11 said: So now the can of worms has been opened that he did have a concussion and he refused to go in the quiet room. Will be interesting on where this goes. Yup. NHL did what it needed to do and played Calgary's/Wideman's bluff. Now they're coming out and saying he was concussed. I think they should reassess the situation, maybe lower the amount of games on Wideman later on, but harshly penalize Calgary for its medical team not taking charge and making him go to the quiet room. The league and its players will be better off if they use this incident to take a strong stand on concussion issues and protocol. If this were New Jersey, we would've been hit with a $1 million fine and lose a 1st and 3rd round pick, to be made an example of league-wide of how not to handle an even possibly concussed player. Edited February 4, 2016 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 9 minutes ago, DJ Eco said: Yup. NHL did what it needed to do and played Calgary's/Wideman's bluff. Now they're coming out and saying he was concussed. I think they should reassess the situation, maybe lower the amount of games on Wideman later on, but harshly penalize Calgary for its medical team not taking charge and making him go to the quiet room. The league and its players will be better off if they use this incident to take a strong stand on concussion issues and protocol. If this were New Jersey, we would've been hit with a $1 million fine and lose a 1st and 3rd round pick, to be made an example of league-wide of how not to handle an even possibly concussed player. The above is where it gets a little interesting. I still maintain that the NHL doesn't want any gray areas when it comes to contact with officials...and on the surface, that Wideman hit looks bad enough that the NHL doesn't really have to justify why they gave him 20 games. If Wideman were to win his appeal and get a reduced suspension, I'd be very surprised, simply because I think that opens so many other cans o' worms. I think this is a great example of an ironclad punishment that needs to remain ironclad (thankfully it's not like this kind of thing is an epidemic, but at least anyone who's even thinking of making deliberate contact will know "That's costing me 20 games if I do it, end of story"). But now that Wideman officially being concussed is part of the equation...now what? Was Wideman honest with anyone at the time with how he was feeling? Did he show symptoms that were somehow glossed over? When did the Flames know he was concussed? Yeah, get the feeling this is going to be about a lot more than Wideman bumping a ref. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Yup, the implications are pretty big. The league needs to come down hard on Calgary. I think whether obvious symptoms or subtle (although he definitely showed a few seconds of symptoms just skating back), the medical trainer needs to take him out back. I think in football, it is never up to the player to decide what to do, the medical trainers are held accountable. I'd be surprised if it were any different (in the rule book) in the NHL. You shouldn't take a player's word for it. You take him back there even against his will and if he refuses, you (the team) suspend him for a game. If they come down hard on Calgary, that protocol will start being followed, yesterday. There are tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements/court fees at stake for the league when there's any indication that any teams in the league in 2016 are not following protocol to the strictest standards. It is a shared profit league so these cases and settlements affect every single one of our teams; traditionally small-money teams like the Devils a bit more. Edited February 4, 2016 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 11 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said: The above is where it gets a little interesting. I still maintain that the NHL doesn't want any gray areas when it comes to contact with officials...and on the surface, that Wideman hit looks bad enough that the NHL doesn't really have to justify why they gave him 20 games. If Wideman were to win his appeal and get a reduced suspension, I'd be very surprised, simply because I think that opens so many other cans o' worms. I think this is a great example of an ironclad punishment that needs to remain ironclad (thankfully it's not like this kind of thing is an epidemic, but at least anyone who's even thinking of making deliberate contact will know "That's costing me 20 games if I do it, end of story"). Agreed, and I think their desire to eliminate any gray area when it comes to deliberate contact with an official is shown by the fact that the rulebook itself actually lays out the minimum suspension lengths for these kinds of incidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 http://deadspin.com/the-nhl-is-afraid-of-dennis-widemans-defense-1757055675?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 http://deadspin.com/the-nhl-is-afraid-of-dennis-widemans-defense-1757055675?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow I disagree with the article. The way I see it: 1) The NHL was in the driver's seat. Wideman's "explanation" was not enough to satisfy them, so they had no choice but to play his bluff and suspend him. 2) Once he or the team admitted it was concussion-related, it benefits the league; they can come down hard on them and take a stand on what is expected concussion protocol. This would benefit the league and all other teams in the long run. I think the Flames and Wideman were in a bind, not the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.