mfitz804 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 1 hour ago, jagknife said: 10 per the rule book, any additional to get his head checked. One of the most head scratching things I've seen in a little while... and I've seen some sh!t recently Isn't the minimum 20 games under the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 10 per the rule book, any additional to get his head checked. One of the most head scratching things I've seen in a little while... and I've seen some sh!t recently Isn't the minimum 20 games under the rules? I believe there are two degrees for misconduct on a ref, one at 10 gms and the other at 20. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Pretty sure there are even 3? 3, 10, 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 5 hours ago, Marshall said: Pretty sure there are even 3? 3, 10, 20. I thought intentional contact was 20 games minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDfan1711 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Looks like there's a few categories: http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2015-2016-Interactive-rulebook.pdf EDIT: The paste didn't format properly, so I'll just put the link and it's on page 65 with the other categories. Here's the one I think it would fall under: Quote 40.3 Automatic Suspension – Category II - Any player who deliberately applies physical f orce to an official in any manner (excluding actions as set out in Category I), 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. Edited January 29, 2016 by NJDfan1711 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Pig Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 20 hours ago, Zubie#8 said: Ok you didnt see the guy until the last second fine... So you viciously shove him to the ice? This was my thinking exactly. You're "woozy," so you just cross-check whoever happens to be in front of you on your way to the bench? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Brick Pig said: This was my thinking exactly. You're "woozy," so you just cross-check whoever happens to be in front of you on your way to the bench? If he's semi-blackout or seeing stars and then a flash of white/black and a body startles you and enters your line of sight, sure, it's conceivable to stick your arms out and think you're protecting yourself from an onrushing skater. Depth perception, vision are all altered immediately following a concussion or concussion-like situation. It happened to me once in a soccer game in high school. I took a big hipcheck-like hit, landed on my head. I was told I did nothing out of the ordinary afterward, I was told I looked dazed for a second, was helped up by my teammates and walked off the field for a breather looking fine. But I don't really remember most of those 30-40 seconds. And when you're playing soccer, you don't even think about concussions, so I didn't think of it after I gained my breath and my wits; went back in the game. Lucky for me, I didn't experience any after-effects. We don't know what happened in his brain that moment, and I don't think we'll find out. The scenarios now are that he either digs Calgary staff/medical into a mountain of sh!t with what he tells the NHL, or he takes the fall himself. You'd think we're beyond that kind of stuff, with all we know about concussions and the lawsuits, etc., but who knows... No other explanation really makes sense. "He was angry at the REF, so he hit the LINESMAN from behind," is not even close to being plausible. Wideman is not Rinaldo. Edited January 29, 2016 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) the linesman is NOT looking out for him thats his job Edited January 29, 2016 by lazer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 the linesman is NOT looking out for him thats his job The linesman was busy watching the damn play. I mean, really? C'mon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 15 hours ago, MadDog2020 said: The linesman was busy watching the damn play. I mean, really? C'mon... youre saying as long as the linesman has his eye on the play he doesnt have to look out for other players...really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 The linesman was busy watching the damn play. I mean, really? C'mon... youre saying as long as the linesman has his eye on the play he doesnt have to look out for other players...really Kinda hard when you don't have eyes in the back of your head... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 46 minutes ago, lazer said: youre saying as long as the linesman has his eye on the play he doesnt have to look out for other players...really How quickly would officials start getting fired if we started hearing "I missed the penalty because I was making sure I wasn't going to get run off and had my head the wrong way"......as much as its Internet meme fodder.....you have one job sir referee!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 13 hours ago, Brick Pig said: This was my thinking exactly. You're "woozy," so you just cross-check whoever happens to be in front of you on your way to the bench? Not to mention he didn't miss a shift the rest of the game. If he was woozy the first move should have been to take him to the quiet room, if only for appearance's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfitz804 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I think Wideman was not paying attention, because of the prior hit or otherwise, someone popped up in his path and he delivered the hit rather than just colliding. It wasn't an especially vicious impact, the ref went flying because he was hit from behind. I don't believe it was his intention to hit the ref. That being said, all the excuses I've heard have been stupid. I think if he said something along the lines of "I was skating with my head down (or without paying enough attention), I didn't see him until the last second, I didn't know who it was. It's my fault and I take full responsibility", that would have been more plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) On 1/28/2016 at 3:18 PM, Jimmy Leeds said: Any angles showing his eyes? Because all I saw was from the rear and I thought he might have been following the puck, heading off, but ready to get back into the play if needed before he got to the boards, and hit the ref unintentionally. I just don't know The guy who was replacing him had already hopped off the bench, so he can't jump back into the play at that point. On 1/29/2016 at 0:58 PM, lazer said: youre saying as long as the linesman has his eye on the play he doesnt have to look out for other players...really You have obviously never officiated a game of hockey before. An official is primarily supposed to position themselves in the best spot to make the calls, not to look out for oncoming players first and then look to make calls second, especially since the play was coming towards him, and Wideman was going in the opposite direction of the play to get back to the bench. Why on earth would the linesman look behind him with the play coming towards him? This seems pretty clear to me that it is at least a 20-game suspension. The rulebook even says as much. I believe I read that the linesman spent the night in the hospital, so if that's the case it seems like it easily fits the 20-game suspension category. There was a player who was suspended for 20 games in 1983 for tripping an official on a faceoff, this is obviously worse than that. I don't think the excuse of him possibly being concussed holds much water considering he didn't even mention that himself, did he? Edited January 31, 2016 by devilsfan26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 There's almost no chance Wideman gets 20 games for this. The NHL has already said that because it was not called a penalty on the ice, Campbell is free to give whatever suspension he sees fit. I doubt that it will be 20 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 10:26 PM, devilsfan26 said: You have obviously never officiated a game of hockey before. An official is primarily supposed to position themselves in the best spot to make the calls, not to look out for oncoming players first and then look to make calls second, especially since the play was coming towards him, and Wideman was going in the opposite direction of the play to get back to the bench. Why on earth would the linesman look behind him with the play coming towards him? obviously eyeroll...not a great arguement but at least its smarter than "stupid" i maintain my statement; the play is coming right back down the boards at him players cant skate wherever they want without looking lol im not defending hitting an official but that official was in the way of the play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, lazer said: obviously eyeroll...not a great arguement but at least its smarter than "stupid" i maintain my statement; the play is coming right back down the boards at him players cant skate wherever they want without looking lol im not defending hitting an official but that official was in the way of the play Where, in your expert opinion, should the linesman have been then? Further off the boards directly in the way of the puck carrier? He was not in the way of the play, the play was going in the opposite direction that Wideman was headed. Wideman was no longer engaged in the play, his replacement had already hopped onto the ice, taking the extra second to go around the linesman instead of shoving him to the ice would not have impacted the play at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpathianForest Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 It's possible he was a bit rattled after the hit and thought the linesman was a NSH player. If you watch the video the incident happens right by the NSH bench. If I'm a bit dazed skating back, I'm right by the NSH bench where they're giving me sh!t, out of the corner of my eye I see a person on the ice right by their bench so I cross check them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazer Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 18 hours ago, devilsfan26 said: Where, in your expert opinion, should the linesman have been then? Further off the boards directly in the way of the puck carrier? He was not in the way of the play, the play was going in the opposite direction that Wideman was headed. Wideman was no longer engaged in the play, his replacement had already hopped onto the ice, taking the extra second to go around the linesman instead of shoving him to the ice would not have impacted the play at all. the player with the puck is skating up passed the flames bench as the official is in between wideman and the puck...when the official is hit the player with the puck goes right by and by the time wideman is off the ice the play is in the corner where he got hit...true story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Pig Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 On 1/30/2016 at 5:32 PM, mfitz804 said: I think Wideman was not paying attention, because of the prior hit or otherwise, someone popped up in his path and he delivered the hit rather than just colliding. It wasn't an especially vicious impact, the ref went flying because he was hit from behind. I don't believe it was his intention to hit the ref. Just to clarify what I said previously: I don't necessarily think he intended to hit the ref, specifically. If we're to take him at his word, then he didn't know who was in front of him. I'm saying if that's true, then cross-checking that unidentified person seems like a horrible decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsfan26 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 4:18 PM, lazer said: the player with the puck is skating up passed the flames bench as the official is in between wideman and the puck...when the official is hit the player with the puck goes right by and by the time wideman is off the ice the play is in the corner where he got hit...true story. I don't see how any of this is a response to my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 On 1/28/2016 at 10:34 AM, Triumph said: I don't think he should be suspended. Dude barely knew where he was and was making his way back to the bench. I don't really understand why he continued to play in the game, though. This from Elliotte Friedman: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-all-eyes-on-dennis-wideman-hearing/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 So Wideman does in fact get the 20 game suspension. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 On 1/31/2016 at 2:22 AM, Triumph said: There's almost no chance Wideman gets 20 games for this. The NHL has already said that because it was not called a penalty on the ice, Campbell is free to give whatever suspension he sees fit. I doubt that it will be 20 games. Oh no? 2 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.