apollo Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I hate the lames and don't like Wideman but he was taking a path straight to the bench after being concussed... He didn't go after the ref. He was clearly dazed and again concussed and he appeared out of no where and Wideman just put his hands up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 15 minutes ago, apollo said: I hate the lames and don't like Wideman but he was taking a path straight to the bench after being concussed... He didn't go after the ref. He was clearly dazed and again concussed and he appeared out of no where and Wideman just put his hands up. Nope. He took a straight path to the other team's bench and directly into the linesman's path. He actually steered away from the straight path to his own bench, likely also in recognition that the play was coming back up ice and he was in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, elvis15 said: Nope. He took a straight path to the other team's bench and directly into the linesman's path. He actually steered away from the straight path to his own bench, likely also in recognition that the play was coming back up ice and he was in the way. Meh, honestly don't care about the lames enough to argue over it. Too bad it wasnt Sutherland or Devorski... OK nvm I kinda do wana argue a little... I think either of us could be correct to an extent, but one thing for sure is, it's not like he literally went to get to the refs area. It was all within vicinity of where he wanted to get to. Like had he chased the ref to the other side of the rink where the bench wasn't, for example the penalty box side... Regardless, he must have been extremely woozy and his decision making was off after being concussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Wow @ defending weidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 7/30/2016 at 10:49 PM, Toews said: "Your Honor, the defendant may not have been in full control of his mental faculties having suffered a concussion just seconds before, but we should pretend this wasn't a factor and punish him to the fullest extent of the law." And I guess this would be the one time in history that a player without control of his faculties attacked someone on the way to the bench? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 7/30/2016 at 10:37 PM, Chris said: Anybody saying a concussion isn't an excuse for this has never been hit in the head hard enough to understand what a concussion feels like. Is your outrage meant to stand in for an argument? I've skated to the bench dizzy. I found the right bench, but attacking someone with a high hard hit was off the menu. But oh yeah, anyone who's had a concussion is gonna call fair ball. Nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 7/31/2016 at 10:55 AM, Hairy Kneel said: Wideman's a bald faced liar. Do you mean 'bold-faced', or are you suggesting this is a facial hair thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Just now, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Is your outrage meant to stand in for an argument? I've skated to the bench dizzy. I found the right bench, but attacking someone with a high hard hit was off the menu. But oh yeah, anyone who's had a concussion is gonna call fair ball. Nailed it. Nyeh, Honestly, I stopped caring about this thread when I realized how much effort I'd have to put into it to defend my arguments. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Chris said: Nyeh, Honestly, I stopped caring about this thread when I realized how much effort I'd have to put into it to defend my arguments. XD Yes, it is a colossal effort to defend terrible arguments. You could use outrage though. For example, "so what, you SUPPORT concussions...." - that would a usual CDC argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: And I guess this would be the one time in history that a player without control of his faculties attacked someone on the way to the bench? Without "full" control of his mental faculties. The wording is important here. Wideman is a player who has no history of any egregious hits not only throughout his professional career but also during his time in major junior. His history should factor into what happened just as his concussion should. Now we can theorise what was actually going through Wideman's head when he hit Henderson but ultimately only he knows what exactly happened. He claims he didn't intend to hit Henderson and I am inclined to believe him primarily because he has shown no history of such behaviour. 14 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Is your outrage meant to stand in for an argument? I've skated to the bench dizzy. I found the right bench, but attacking someone with a high hard hit was off the menu. But oh yeah, anyone who's had a concussion is gonna call fair ball. Nailed it. Your experience with concussion has nothing to do with Wideman's. Edit: I retract the last part as I just read the entire exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 7/30/2016 at 9:37 PM, Chris said: Anybody saying a concussion isn't an excuse for this has never been hit in the head hard enough to understand what a concussion feels like. Your comment is laughable. I've played competitive Hockey for almost my whole life, including playing Junior. I've had 5 Concussions and ongoing Post Concussion Syndrome for years as a result. I can honestly say that I have never even considered doing what Wideman did. A Concussion is zero excuse to hit someone with such a dangerous hit like he did to this Linesman from behind. Not only are the officials off limits (everyone knows this from an early age), but hits like this from behind where the person has no ability to protect themselves are unacceptable for any reason. In my opinion, Wideman was upset about an earlier play, hit the Linesman on purpose in retribution, and is conveniently using this Concussion as an excuse for the hit in order to limit his punishment and liability. This is much more about him covering his own ass than it is him getting his bell rung and not knowing what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Yes, it is a colossal effort to defend terrible arguments. You could use outrage though. For example, "so what, you SUPPORT concussions...." - that would a usual CDC argument. Nah, if I'm going to defend something I'll put the effort in, I just don't really give a damn what you think about anything regarding anything so its irrelevant to put anymore effort in either way, even these keystrokes right now are a complete waste of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 11 minutes ago, Toews said: Without "full" control of his mental faculties. The wording is important here. Wideman is a player who has no history of any egregious hits not only throughout his professional career but also during his time in major junior. His history should factor into what happened just as his concussion should. Now we can theorise what was actually going through Wideman's head when he hit Henderson but ultimately only he knows what exactly happened. He claims he didn't intend to hit Henderson and I am inclined to believe him primarily because he has shown no history of such behaviour. Your experience with concussion has nothing to do with Wideman's. Edit: I retract the last part as I just read the entire exchange. I will grant you the possibility of the slight mitigating factor, but the point is simple: do you think that he is culpable for this action, or not? Also, if your theory is so reasonable, why is there not a single other episode resembling this? Also, I can't believe that you rely on the good behaviour argument. Vey's dad will rely on the 'first-time offender' argument in his appeal, but I suspect the judge will not find that to be impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Chris said: Nah, if I'm going to defend something I'll put the effort in, I just don't really give a damn what you think about anything regarding anything so its irrelevant to put anymore effort in either way, even these keystrokes right now are a complete waste of This is an epic surrender. (I like how you wished post-concussion symptoms on everyone though - that was a nice touch.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: I will grant you the possibility of the slight mitigating factor, but the point is simple: do you think that he is culpable for this action, or not? Also, if your theory is so reasonable, why is there not a single other episode resembling this? Also, I can't believe that you rely on the good behaviour argument. Vey's dad will rely on the 'first-time offender' argument in his appeal, but I suspect the judge will not find that to be impressive. No I don't believe that he is culpable for what happened. He had suffered a brain injury just seconds before which we do not understand the full effects of. Just because this scenario hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it's not plausible. The concussion is the primary argument. The history of good behavior just supplements the main argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I fully expect Wideman to be a target, not just from the ref.'s but from the players as well. Nikita I am looking at you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Just now, Tre Mac said: I fully expect Wideman to be a target, not just from the ref.'s but from the players as well. Nikita I am looking at you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 49 minutes ago, Toews said: No I don't believe that he is culpable for what happened. He had suffered a brain injury just seconds before which we do not understand the full effects of. Just because this scenario hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it's not plausible. The concussion is the primary argument. The history of good behavior just supplements the main argument. I find that to be a very surprising opinion. I thought you'd say "not fully" rather than let him completely off the hook. How is an incident like this "plausible" considering that there are 1200 games a year and they all include hard hits? Surely you need to be able to point to at least one example of compromised decision-making, which is very physical, following a hard hit. Would you say that the Keith elbow on Daniel Sedin is probably the same situation? (Since you are going to point to a flimsy superficial argument like good behaviour, I can do the same and note that his post-incident demeanor and comments were indicative of neither injury nor remorse for such a vicious "accident".) Also, are you personally related to Wideman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 58 minutes ago, Toews said: No I don't believe that he is culpable for what happened. He had suffered a brain injury just seconds before which we do not understand the full effects of. Just because this scenario hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it's not plausible. The concussion is the primary argument. The history of good behavior just supplements the main argument. But apparently we know for sure that it can be a catch-all excuse for any action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Toews said: No I don't believe that he is culpable for what happened. He had suffered a brain injury just seconds before which we do not understand the full effects of. Just because this scenario hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it's not plausible. The concussion is the primary argument. The history of good behavior just supplements the main argument. It's a long way to go from plausible to giving him a full get out of jail free card. Having experienced concussions myself and seen plenty of others with them over the years, it's very unlikely he had the amount of control he had over just his skating alone without being wobbly or something similar and yet was totally unaware of his surroundings to the point he wouldn't have known he was cross checking a ref. Add to that his reaction - both at the bench and after the game - and it certainly points to him being culpable. Now that uncertainty does factor in. That's why they couldn't do more than the minimum suspension based on the part of the rule used. If the case was more concrete then Wideman wouldn't have had a leg to stand on (excuse the pun) and would have gotten more than 20 games. But again, based on the rule, his thought process or emotional state doesn't enter into it. If he is aware of his surroundings (which is what the evidence suggests) and he causes injury to an official through contact that's not incidental, then it's a minimum 20 games. It wasn't an accident considering the cross checking motion, and there wasn't enough to suggest he wasn't aware of his surroundings, so whether he meant it or not that's the suspension that should be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.