-Vintage Canuck- Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Well you shouldn't hit refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 about right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Seems about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Still think it should have been 10 based on the circumstances. I don't think Wideman was all there when he ran into the linesman and therefore lacked the intent required to give the 20 game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Prophet Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 No complaints from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 How many games for Tom Kowal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzy Desjardins Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I think I heard on sportsnet last night that the flames and Wideman would appeal if it was over 6 games. I could be wrong though, I was dozing off. Fair suspension, first offense or not, the league has to protect its officials. He's marked for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyLuciano Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Mother&^@#! Now they actually have a shot at making the playoffs. This guy has been one of their consistent slow and worst dman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Ouch, idiot. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, Fateless said: Still think it should have been 10 based on the circumstances. I don't think Wideman was all there when he ran into the linesman and therefore lacked the intent required to give the 20 game suspension. Clearly the league, after reviewing the entire circumstance, believed there was intent. Plus, the Flames didn't follow concussion protocols, so even his team felt the player was not concussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 That's what he gets for being an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SvenBae Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, Fateless said: Still think it should have been 10 based on the circumstances. I don't think Wideman was all there when he ran into the linesman and therefore lacked the intent required to give the 20 game suspension. Speculation, and less apparent than the motion of the check which was likely taken as more indicative of intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 And Muzzin got away with drilling Sutherland. Well done. Though of course this looks unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, Alflives said: Clearly the league, after reviewing the entire circumstance, believed there was intent. Plus, the Flames didn't follow concussion protocols, so even his team felt the player was not concussed. I didn't say Wideman was concussed, but he was clearly woozy and not thinking straight on his way to the bench. If you watch Wideman's reaction on the bench, the guy didn't even realize what he did until his teammates came over and started talking about it. I think this is the league just laying down the law (albeit incorrectly) because of the hate a lot of people feel towards the referees. I hope Wideman appeals it because I honestly don't see him intending to run over a referee on his way to the bench. Rules dictate 10 games for unintentional "abuses" and 20 games for intentional. The fact they called this intentional just doesn't seem all that supported by the circumstances in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I think it is a little on the high side, but the league is clearly making a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueberries Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Good. Idiot play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cromeslab Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Deserved but I honestly didn't think he'd get 20,he will appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Based on the rules, 20 games is what he should have gotten, and he got exactly that. For once, the league gets it right. Now we just wait for the appeal and see whether the league has the balls to uphold, which I think they will. You don't mess with the refs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Just now, Fateless said: I didn't say Wideman was concussed, but he was clearly woozy and not thinking straight on his way to the bench. If you watch Wideman's reaction on the bench, the guy didn't even realize what he did until his teammates came over and started talking about it. I think this is the league just laying down the law (albeit incorrectly) because of the hate a lot of people feel towards the referees. I hope Wideman appeals it because I honestly don't see him intending to run over a referee on his way to the bench. Rules dictate 10 games for unintentional "abuses" and 20 games for intentional. The fact they called this intentional just doesn't seem all that supported by the circumstances in my mind. If he was "woozy" (as you say) then why didn't the Flames follow the league standard for such circumstance? The Flames are responsible for having "woozy" players go to a quiet room. They didn't, so clearly the player's own team felt he was not too "woozy" to be responsible for his actions. The Flames should have sent him to the quiet room, especially after seeing him hit the ref. That just supports the idea he knew what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.