McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 22 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: The league can make the game safe by suspending every single player that makes a dangerous play regardless of outcome. McNabb's headshot on Henrik is a perfect example. Henrik is clearly part cyborg and part Viking, so he was able to soldier on. However it was still a dangerous move that showed zero respect. Now McNabb (subconsciously or otherwise) sees the lack of any supplementary discipline as a get out of jail free card, as well as a license to reoffend. The officials in the NHL are bottom of the barrel. They can't be relied upon to do their jobs efficiently in any way, shape, or form. The amount of actual incidences not called, and the amount of phantom calls made to make up for the missed ones is egregious. The Department of Player Safety (oh the *%#*ing irony) is the biggest farce in the league next to the officials. The fact that they base suspensions on outcome versus intent is a huge miscalculation. The intent to injure should factor far greater in how long a player is suspended, and any offending player who has effectively injured a player, should stay out at least as long as the injured player takes to recover. The fact that the longest suspension doled out this season is against a player who hit a referee speaks volumes as to where the leagues sympathies lie. The DOPS, in order to operate correctly, has to be an independent body of both the league and the players association. That way, collusion wouldn't factor into any decision. However, without collusion, where would Bettman's league be? It's not a miscalculation, it's poor legal reasoning. Intent goes to the very heart of the issue. The difference between someone tripping and having the blade of their skate cut someone else versus someone stepping with their blade on another player's calf. Comparable perhaps only in the potential damage. As to where their sympathies lie, the league needs to protect their referees. Otherwise no one would referee. Hence rule 40.2 which is a very fair rule in my opinion. If a player intends to injure a ref then the minimum suspension is 20 games. But like you said, it has to turn on intent, which in this case the league didn't prove. That's why I said earlier that Bettman should have indicated his standard for judgment. Here the player was guilty without proof of intent. Very low standard of proof indeed. This is punishment, and punishment should not be doled out without proof of violation. I agree with you that the league has an agenda as to how penalties are called and it's fishy in the extreme. Also, someone please photoshop a picture of Henrik as a cyborg-viking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said: It's not a miscalculation, it's poor legal reasoning. Intent goes to the very heart of the issue. The difference between someone tripping and having the blade of their skate cut someone else versus someone stepping with their blade on another player's calf. Comparable perhaps only in the potential damage. As to where their sympathies lie, the league needs to protect their referees. Otherwise no one would referee. Hence rule 40.2 which is a very fair rule in my opinion. If a player intends to injure a ref then the minimum suspension is 20 games. But like you said, it has to turn on intent, which in this case the league didn't prove. That's why I said earlier that Bettman should have indicated his standard for judgment. Here the player was guilty without proof of intent. Very low standard of proof indeed. This is punishment, and punishment should not be doled out without proof of violation. I agree with you that the league has an agenda as to how penalties are called and it's fishy in the extreme. Also, someone please photoshop a picture of Henrik as a cyborg-viking! Fair enough. If I ever run into legal trouble, can I PM you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said: Fair enough. If I ever run into legal trouble, can I PM you? Sure, but here's my first bit of advice: Stay out of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Just now, McIlhargey the Lesser said: Sure, but here's my first bit of advice: Stay out of trouble. Well, that's no fun. How much did that run me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Well, that's no fun. How much did that run me? A couple of reputation posts. Fortunately for you you paid in advance. After this it depends on the trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Just now, McIlhargey the Lesser said: A couple of reputation posts. Fortunately for you you paid in advance. After this it depends on the trouble. You drive a hard bargain, but a fair one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 40 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said: The problem for me is that Bettman acknowledged that Wideman was concussed off the bat. That being the case it seems pretty ridiculous to me for him to then dismiss the evidence relating only to symptoms of the only people being called to testify on whether Wideman did indeed have a concussion. This is very odd, and why I compare him to the guy that called those involved in the class action suit "pukes." Rejecting just the possibility of symptoms makes judgment on something that is not knowable, namely: Wideman's mental state at the time given that he was concussed. If he was concussed, which Bettman agrees that Wideman was, then the evidence given related to possible effects. Video evidence may show confusion, but I think largely can't, especially in arenas (yes, that's a pun) where a person has developed instinctual reactions. Bettman should have called into evidence the training staff's testimony and rejected, based on that, and Wideman's post game interview and the video evidence, that Wideman was concussed at all. The NHLPA had to ask for a rejection of the suspension in its entirety since their claim rested on the assertion that Wideman did not have the capacity to be culpable. A reduction in the sentence would literally be a reversal of their position, and an admission of some culpability. I agree with your fourth paragraph, but these should have been reasons to reject to diagnosis of concussion and not just the possible symptoms. I know this was not a court and does not have the same standards as one, but Bettman should also have stated the standard for his findings. Preponderance of evidence? Balance of probability? And then based on this found that Wideman was in fact not concussed. For a lawyer who's supposed to be shielding the NHL and owners from lawsuits this was not a very good document. As to your conclusion, I agree with you completely. I am shredding this as a legal document, not the conclusion. I think Wideman deserved the suspension. I just think Bettman went about coming to that conclusion with poor legal reasoning. Let's say Bettman is convinced he was concussed. Concussion isnt the question, its whether Wideman lost control of his physical and mental faculties thus rendering him incapable of responsibility. The video evidence clearly shows that Wideman could: -Skate directly to his bench under his own power with no physical sign of confusion -Signal a line change with his stick -Engage in contact with the linesman with enough force to topple him into the boards -FINISH THE HOCKEY GAME Even IF it could be established without question that he was concussed, you still have a long way to go to prove that he had no control over his actions. Speaking of concussion, why didn't the NHLPA ask for the testimony of the Flames trainers? My guess is they didn't observe any behaviour one would associate with a concussed player, otherwise they would have tied in his behaviour with the experts' list of possible symptoms they had at the hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Also, who diagnosed Wideman with a concussion, and what was the reasoning for the diagnosis? I keep hearing this as a fact, yet he's been out on the hiking trail or at a golf course days after. Must be a mild concussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mustapha said: Let's say Bettman is convinced he was concussed. Concussion isnt the question, its whether Wideman lost control of his physical and mental faculties thus rendering him incapable of responsibility. The video evidence clearly shows that Wideman could: -Skate directly to his bench under his own power with no physical sign of confusion -Signal a line change with his stick -Engage in contact with the linesman with enough force to topple him into the boards -FINISH THE HOCKEY GAME Even IF it could be established without question that he was concussed, you still have a long way to go to prove that he had no control over his actions. Speaking of concussion, why didn't the NHLPA ask for the testimony of the Flames trainers? My guess is they didn't observe any behaviour one would associate with a concussed player, otherwise they would have tied in his behaviour with the experts' list of possible symptoms they had at the hearing. That was the point. They didn't observe any. But It's also a poor legal standard to have to prove innocence when punishment is in question. The onus needs to be on proving guilt, even if it's just on a balance of probabilities. This decision showed that Wideman was guilty first, and then the NHLPA was given an opportunity to contradict that. Which is why Bettman should have called those trainers for testimony. What is this? The UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mustapha said: Also, who diagnosed Wideman with a concussion, and what was the reasoning for the diagnosis? I keep hearing this as a fact, yet he's been out on the hiking trail or at a golf course days after. Must be a mild concussion. It's not a fact, but it was accepted as fact by Gary Bettman in the preamble of the decision. It was based on the testimony of two neuro-psychological experts hired by the NHLPA. They made this determination based on skype interviews with Wideman several days after the fact in which Wideman recounted for them what he remembered, which according to him, was not that much. Basically they diagnosed him based on what he said he remembered days later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said: That was the point. They didn't observe any. But It's also a poor legal standard to have to prove innocence when punishment is in question. The onus needs to be on proving guilt, even if it's just on a balance of probabilities. This decision showed that Wideman was guilty first, and then the NHLPA was given an opportunity to contradict that. Which is why Bettman should have called those trainers for testimony. What is this? The UK? If Wideman had bumped into the official, and make an attempt to hold him up and reduce the impact, that would show there is no intent to injure. Instead of doing the above, Wideman chose to make a fairly violent cross-check to someone who he knew was in his path for a couple of seconds... more than enough time to make the better decision. IMO, that's proof enough. I get that he was pissed at the non-call... he should be. But he effed up big time, and earned the 20 easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said: It's not a fact, but it was accepted as fact by Gary Bettman in the preamble of the decision. It was based on the testimony of two neuro-psychological experts hired by the NHLPA. They made this determination based on skype interviews with Wideman several days after the fact in which Wideman recounted for them what he remembered, which according to him, was not that much. Basically they diagnosed him based on what he said he remembered days later. I read the report. Bettman writes in the report that he doesn't accept the experts testimony as evidence of concussion because they did not treat Wideman, they just asked him some questions and when pressed in the hearing, hedged their conclusions. Maybe you could link the paragraph where Bettman believes the their testimony to be proof positive of a concussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, Mustapha said: I read the report. Bettman writes in the report that he doesn't accept the experts testimony as evidence of concussion because they did not treat Wideman, they just asked him some questions and when pressed in the hearing, hedged their conclusions. Maybe you could link the paragraph where Bettman believes the their testimony to be proof positive of a concussion. You're right. In paragraph two of the summary of facts Bettman said that they were both subsequently diagnosed with concussions. My bad. I mis-remembered it as him having acknowledged that they were concussed. I still think he should have called testimony from the trainers to support that he rejected the diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, Kragar said: If Wideman had bumped into the official, and make an attempt to hold him up and reduce the impact, that would show there is no intent to injure. Instead of doing the above, Wideman chose to make a fairly violent cross-check to someone who he knew was in his path for a couple of seconds... more than enough time to make the better decision. IMO, that's proof enough. I get that he was pissed at the non-call... he should be. But he effed up big time, and earned the 20 easily. I agree with your last line. Also, I'm glad you're not a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 34 minutes ago, Mustapha said: Let's say Bettman is convinced he was concussed. Concussion isnt the question, its whether Wideman lost control of his physical and mental faculties thus rendering him incapable of responsibility. The video evidence clearly shows that Wideman could: -Skate directly to his bench under his own power with no physical sign of confusion -Signal a line change with his stick -Engage in contact with the linesman with enough force to topple him into the boards -FINISH THE HOCKEY GAME Even IF it could be established without question that he was concussed, you still have a long way to go to prove that he had no control over his actions. Speaking of concussion, why didn't the NHLPA ask for the testimony of the Flames trainers? My guess is they didn't observe any behaviour one would associate with a concussed player, otherwise they would have tied in his behaviour with the experts' list of possible symptoms they had at the hearing. Not defending the end result but the smashing of the stick on the ice was not a signal to change lol He was building his rage mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said: That was the point. They didn't observe any. But It's also a poor legal standard to have to prove innocence when punishment is in question. The onus needs to be on proving guilt, even if it's just on a balance of probabilities. This decision showed that Wideman was guilty first, and then the NHLPA was given an opportunity to contradict that. Which is why Bettman should have called those trainers for testimony. What is this? The UK? The video shows clear evidence that Wideman knocks the linesman over with force. It wasnt someone else.There is no question that in that capacity, Wideman is 'guilty'. It's not about 'proving innocence' in this case. Wideman and the NHLPA state that he was not not in control of his actions, which would be difficult to prove considering his actions on the ice seemed within his control, if not deliberate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelownaCanucksFan Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 45 minutes ago, Mustapha said: Also, who diagnosed Wideman with a concussion, and what was the reasoning for the diagnosis? I keep hearing this as a fact, yet he's been out on the hiking trail or at a golf course days after. Must be a mild concussion. There is no way if he had a concussion, that he would be out there. I have had 7 and every one I couldn't stand any light for weeks, let alone be in the Arizona sun light and be hiking and golfing. Don't buy it at all, he knew what he was doing and screwed up... Be a man take your punishment and frack off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIlhargey the Lesser Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, Mustapha said: The video shows clear evidence that Wideman knocks the linesman over with force. It wasnt someone else.There is no question that in that capacity, Wideman is 'guilty'. It's not about 'proving innocence' in this case. Wideman and the NHLPA state that he was not not in control of his actions, which would be difficult to prove considering his actions on the ice seemed within his control, if not deliberate. I concede that you're right. My argument was based on my thinking that Bettman accepted that Wideman was concussed. Also that for no reason other than how he comes off in the media and what I perceive as his agenda I very much dislike Bettman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said: I concede that you're right. My argument was based on my thinking that Bettman accepted that Wideman was concussed. Also that for no reason other than how he comes off in the media and what I perceive as his agenda I very much dislike Bettman. Bettman works for the owners interests, so there are lot of things that he has done that have enhanced the NHL as a business, but set it back as a sport. There will be a day when the product will be unwatchable for hockey purists, 3 point games, shootouts, 3 on 3 overtime are all gimmicks to sell the game to casual fans. With the clamp down on fighting and most likely hitting as well, we may see the NHL become a semi-contact league with stick checking only. Not sure if I could stomach that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 IMO suspension should be upheld AND a fine to the Flames for not following concussion protocol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.