DeNiro Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Quote The National Hockey League has applied for a judicial review, a form of a lawsuit, against the NHL Players' Association to vacate the reduced 10-game suspension of Calgary Flames' defenceman Dennis Wideman. Wideman's suspension for hitting linesman Don Henderson on Jan. 27 originally drew a 20-game ban from the league, but a neutral arbitrator later reduced the suspension to 10 games. The league's goal is to have the suspension restored to 20 games. NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said in a statement, "We can confirm that the National Hockey League today filed an action in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York seeking to vacate Arbitrator James Oldham's arbitration decision reducing the League's supplementary discipline suspension to Player Dennis Wideman from 20 to 10 games. We believe that Arbitrator Oldham, in reaching his decision, exceeded his contractual authority by failing to properly apply the parties' collectively bargained standard of review. "Today's action was motivated primarily by our regard for the collective bargaining process and the importance of maintaining and safeguarding the parties' reasonable expectations arising from the agreements made in that process. The timing of today's filing was dictated exclusively by the requirements of the federal rules governing these actions. We do not intend to offer any further comment pending the conclusion of the court's review." NHLPA spokesman Jonathan Weatherdon told TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun, "We are disappointed that the NHL has chosen to challenge the award of the Neutral Discipline Arbitrator (NDA) in court, as the collective bargaining agreement clearly provides that the decision of the NDA is final. We are confident this action is completely without merit and that the court will agree." The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the League and Union states that "the (Neutral Discipline Arbitrator's) decision shall be final and binding in all respects and not subject to review." http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-sues-nhlpa-to-vacate-wideman-suspension-1.503888 Basically the third party arbitrators ruling is supposed to be final under the terms of the CBA, yet the NHL wasn't happy with the result so they're trying to take it back to court. The NHL is so arrogant they can't even honor the process they agreed to in the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Tempest ina teapot. Doin the Flamers a favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Nhl trying to stroke their ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I legit forgot what Wideman did until you made this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I for one believe Wideman deserves a 20 game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 He deserved the 20 gamer, but the NHL should've respected the process in the CBA - makes everyone look Micky Mouse after all this bickering. Similar to deflate-gate, yet on a much smaller scale of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 i'm sure the next cba talks are gonna go very smoothly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 NHLPA strike incoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 28 minutes ago, Fanuck said: He deserved the 20 gamer, but the NHL should've respected the process in the CBA - makes everyone look Micky Mouse after all this bickering. Similar to deflate-gate, yet on a much smaller scale of course. Yeah, pretty much. When the NHL's on the flip side of these they sure want the players and NHLPA to respect the process. The arbitrator reduced it, it's over, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I'm actually on the NHL's side on this one. The key verbiage is thus: "We believe that Arbitrator Oldham, in reaching his decision, exceeded his contractual authority by failing to properly apply the parties' collectively bargained standard of review." I'm not a lawyer, nor well versed in CBA law, but it would seem to me that set out in the CBA are specific guidelines dictating how NDA's are supposed to perform their reviews, which result in their (supposed) final verdicts. However, if those guidelines were not followed per the CBA, then the NHL could have grounds to have this review thrown out and the initial penalty upheld. In skimming through the current CBA, there is only one instance of the phrase "standard of review" which is referenced in Article 18-A.4 for Appeal from Commissioner Determination. Article 18-A deals with Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct. Article 18-A.4 makes reference to Article 17: "The proceeding shall thereafter be governed by the provisions of Article 17 of this Agreement." Now it would seem clear cut that the NHL is trying to use a rule that doesn't apply, except that the definition of Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct as set forth in Article 18-A.1 is as follows: "18-A.1 Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct shall mean discipline imposed by the Commissioner or his designee for Player conduct not governed by "Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct" as defined in Article 18 and that falls within the scope of the Commissioner's authority to discipline as set out in Section 18-A.2. Disciplinary proceedings for Commissioner Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct will be conducted in accordance with the procedural rules set forth in this Article. " Article 18-A.2 is defined as: "18-A.2 Commissioner Authority to Impose Discipline for Off-Ice Conduct. Whenever the Commissioner determines that a Player has violated a League Rule applicable to Players (other than Playing Rules subjecting the Player to potential Supplementary Discipline for On-Ice Conduct), or has been or is guilty of conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League or the game of hockey, he may discipline such Player in any or all of the following respects: (a) by expelling or suspending such Player for a definite or indefinite period; (b) by cancelling any SPC that such Player has with any Member Club; or (c) by imposing a fine on the Player not exceeding the maximum permissible fine under Section 18.7(b). As for Article 17 and NDAs, the only thing that seemed relevant is as follows: "17.13 Arbitrator's Decision and Award. The Impartial Arbitrator will issue a written decision within thirty (30) days of the close of the record and receipt of the hearing transcript. The decision of the Impartial Arbitrator will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the Grievance, as the case may be, and will be binding upon the Player(s) and Club(s) involved and the parties to this Agreement; provided, however, that the Impartial Arbitrator will not have the jurisdiction or authority to add to, subtract from, or alter in any way the provisions of this Agreement, including any SPC. In resolving Grievances, the Impartial Arbitrator has the authority to interpret, apply and determine compliance with any provision of this Agreement, including any SPC. Otherwise, the Impartial Arbitrator shall have no authority to alter or modify the contractual relationship or status between a Player and a Club, other than where such remedy is expressly provided for in this Agreement." So, it would seem that the NHL is resting its case with this lawsuit against the NHLPA, that the NDA violated their jurisdiction and wrongly interpreted conventions within the CBA pertaining to player discipline, namely the evidence for the initial disciplinary action ("18.4 Evidence. (a) If the League intends to rely, and in fact relies, exclusively, on any of the following: (i) video footage, (ii) reports of on-ice officials and/or Officiating Managers"). In other words, what they intend to try and prove in the courts is that the NDA negated what was obvious intent based on many analyst (former player) testimonies as it were, delivered on air when the incident occurred, video footage as well as the testimony of the on and off ice officials in attendance. It was pretty clear to everyone who witnessed the issue, and furthermore after the analysis and breakdown of the event that Wideman was visibly ticked off at a supposed obvious non call against him, and decided to take it out on the official who blew the non-call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 31 minutes ago, Fanuck said: He deserved the 20 gamer, but the NHL should've respected the process in the CBA - makes everyone look Micky Mouse after all this bickering. Similar to deflate-gate, yet on a much smaller scale of course. It's roughly the exact same scale. Just about 1/4 of the regular season in each scenario. Unless you were specifically referring to how prolonged the Brady situation has been, or how much larger in scope the NFL is compared to the NHL. I think he deserves 20, and have no problem with the ruling being overturned. Yell at the refs if you want as there is a very large grace area permitted there, but don't crush them in the back on your way to bench. Just don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 This league never fails to disgust me. Can't even abide by the rules they created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaku Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Supporting the NHL this time. Usually I'll advocate for the players and side with them, but as an ex-official (minor hockey) seeing the hit disgusts me. Even as a non-official it should disgust people. Then to have the suspension shortened to 10 games is garbage. I thought he deserved way more than 20... Dennis should be ashamed of himself. Makes me shake my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I don't blame th NHL for doing this, an arbitrator effectively halved the minimum suspension for hitting an official (because good luck trying to make a 20 gamer stick if it happens again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Why would the arbitrator half the suspension period? What does he know? Anyone not blind can tell Wideman hit the official intentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Don't mess with a official. They are trying to send a message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 he's a bum give him 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I fully agree with the NHL on this one. Wideman should've gotten more in my opinion. He had a tantrum and deliberately attacked an official. The fact that his suspension was reduced to 10 games was appalling. The worst part of the whole thing was the fact that Wideman didn't even seem remorseful for what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Am I really the only one who's torn on this ? On the one hand, I've had a couple concussions myself - and anyone who can categorically state he absolutely knew what he was doing or absolutely did not know what he was doing has never had a concussion before... On the other hand, you have to send a very real message that Refs are a 110% always, without exception, off limits... He's had no history of doing anything like this before, he's not a dirty player... the ruling came down, they aren't following it... so many variables going either way... This kinda reeks of some backroom politics coming out in the light and we're not getting the full story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon45ca Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Twilight Sparkle said: i'm sure the next cba talks are gonna go very smoothly Don't they always? Oh, wait...no. No they don't. But this should help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.