Around the NHL: 2015-2016

[bunomatic]

No excuses for what Wideman did. Not even a concussion. Somewhere along the way Dennis Wideman forgot why he originally suited up to play this game. The guy sitting on that bench after he hit that linesman was a bitter, childish entitled person. You can still see it resonate in his words as he blames the refs for his predicament. No way could this be the result of his actions. Are you kidding me ? This is THE Dennis Wideman. 

[That Aud Smell]

Problem is, it wouldn't have been ok even if it was a player.

 

I take that as a valid point. What would he have received for that sort of hit on a player? A game? Two?

 

Not in the abstract, but in the NHL? DoPS may have given him an under the table bonus for his fine work.

 

Call it The Gudas Doctrine.

 

I am not unsympathetic to Wideman's condition. And I would accept his mental condition as a mitigating factor if the hit was on a player. Refs, however, are in an entirely different class of protective measures. For too many reasons to list and argue here.

 

I won't quibble with this. But, again, that's not the approach the NHL has taken here.

 

No excuses for what Wideman did. Not even a concussion. 

 

As the rule is currently written, I really disagree.

 

If the NHL so desires, it should re-write the rules against contact with an official such that it removes the element of intent on the part of an offending player. Of course, then there'd be situations where players collide with referees in what is clearly an unintentional manner, and those would be susceptible to punishment.

 

I just don't think the NHL can have it both ways here.

[Eleven]

I take that as a valid point. What would he have received for that sort of hit on a player? A game? Two?

 

 

Call it The Gudas Doctrine.

 

 

I won't quibble with this. But, again, that's not the approach the NHL has taken here.

 

 

As the rule is currently written, I really disagree.

 

If the NHL so desires, it should re-write the rules against contact with an official such that it removes the element of intent on the part of an offending player. Of course, then there'd be situations where players collide with referees in what is clearly an unintentional manner, and those would be susceptible to punishment.

 

I just don't think the NHL can have it both ways here.

 

It would have been a game or two for a player, but we all know (1) we have been desirous of more serious penalties for hits resulting in concussions and (2) referees are protected much more heavily than players are, in every sport.  (I mean by the leagues, not by protective gear.)

[K-9]

I take that as a valid point. What would he have received for that sort of hit on a player? A game? Two?

 

 

 

Call it The Gudas Doctrine.

 

 

 

I won't quibble with this. But, again, that's not the approach the NHL has taken here.

 

 

 

As the rule is currently written, I really disagree.

 

If the NHL so desires, it should re-write the rules against contact with an official such that it removes the element of intent on the part of an offending player. Of course, then there'd be situations where players collide with referees in what is clearly an unintentional manner, and those would be susceptible to punishment.

 

I just don't think the NHL can have it both ways here.

I don know, smell. I think that is exactly how the league approached it with Wideman and I think you allude to that by citing Gudas. If it had been another player Wideman hit, the suspension would have been far less severe. The league fully recognized that because it was a ref, different standards applied.

[Eleven]

I don know, smell. I think that is exactly how the league approached it with Wideman and I think you allude to that by citing Gudas. If it had been another player Wideman hit, the suspension would have been far less severe. The league fully recognized that because it was a ref, different standards applied.

 

Yeah, that's a better way of putting my point 2 above.

[K-9]

This got me to thinking that if it WAS another player Wideman hit on the way to the bench, would anyone even be putting forth the idea that he was concussed moments before and that's what made him hit the other player? I doubt it. Because that wouldn't seem so egregious and the need for a mitigating factor is lost. Especially when we look at what transpired afterward with Wideman never missing a shift, etc.

[Eleven]

Solid column on the Subban play from last night and the way Therrien handled it:  http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/p-k--subban-vs--michel-therrien--where-top-dog-meets-lame-duck-150611244.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[That Aud Smell]

I don know, smell. I think that is exactly how the league approached it with Wideman and I think you allude to that by citing Gudas. If it had been another player Wideman hit, the suspension would have been far less severe. The league fully recognized that because it was a ref, different standards applied.

 

I don't think that is how the league handled it, or how they approached it. I didn't read Bettman's ruling in detail (I probably should), but the takeaways I saw reflected that the league did not credit or believe the player's impairment. That they found him responsible for an intentional act -- one for which he has shown no genuine remorse.

 

Even as I type those words, I can feel the anger rising. The league's handling of this has been the most clumsy and hypocritical parade of horse feathers I've seen in a dog's age.

 

My take? Wideman is angry, confused, feeling betrayed, pissed off. But not because he really meant to hit that linesman, and, yeah, fook that fookin guy, eh? No. Because Wideman observed the "code" that so many NHL athletes try to observe, and he is being punished for it by a league that is pretending not to know what the hell actually happened. It's a fiction is what it is. Again: the NHL on this one, boys.

 

And let's be honest: If Wideman had knocked over another player, there would not have been any sort of meaningful suspension, if there was one at all.

 

Especially when we look at what transpired afterward with Wideman never missing a shift, etc.

 

This is the sort of stuff that is making me a little nuts. The fact that Wideman did not conduct himself as a concussed person (no quiet room, didn't miss a shift) is, to me, not so much an indication that he wasn't concussed, but rather an indictment on how concussions are being managed in the NHL. That is: Poorly.

[K-9]

... This is the sort of stuff that is making me a little nuts. The fact that Wideman did not conduct himself as a concussed person (no quiet room, didn't miss a shift) is, to me, not so much an indication that he wasn't concussed, but rather an indictment on how concussions are being managed in the NHL. That is: Poorly.

You misinterpret my meaning and place it out of context by not including my full post.

 

Would ANYONE even be mentioning the possibility of Wideman being concussed moments before he made the hit if he made the hit on an opposing player? Yes or no?

 

His actions afterward support that NOBODY would have paid attention to it, because it was totally ordinary behavior and a concussion wouldn't be needed to explain the egregious nature.

 

Makes me wonder how many untold players have taken hits by players concussed shortly before they were hit. ESPECIALLY when the concussed player didn't exhibit symptoms and didn't miss a shift thereafter.

 

GO SABRES!!!

Edited February 18, 2016 by K-9

[That Aud Smell]

You misinterpret my meaning and place it out of context by not including my full post.

 

Would ANYONE even be mentioning the possibility of Wideman being concussed moments before he made the hit if he made the hit on an opposing player? Yes or no?

 

His actions afterward support that NOBODY would have paid attention to it, because it was totally ordinary behavior and a concussion wouldn't be needed to explain the egregious nature.

 

Makes me wonder how many untold players have taken hits by players concussed shortly before they were hit. ESPECIALLY when the concussed player didn't exhibit symptoms and didn't miss a shift thereafter.

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

Sorry - didn't mean to parse.

 

To your question: I'd say "no." If Wideman had trucked an opposing player in that situation, no one much cares about the incident outside of the teams involved. Given that he has no prior offences, I'm not even sure the league would have suspended him. Maybe they would for a game.

 

I think I am missing your point, though. Still. Weren't you disagreeing with me at some point?  :P

[K-9]

Sorry - didn't mean to parse.

 

To your question: I'd say "no." If Wideman had trucked an opposing player in that situation, no one much cares about the incident outside of the teams involved. Given that he has no prior offences, I'm not even sure the league would have suspended him. Maybe they would for a game.

 

I think I am missing your point, though. Still. Weren't you disagreeing with me at some point?  :Phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

I am laughing because I had the same type of Month Python thought. We must have gone to different schools together.

 

My only point, whether we agreed or disagreed on anything (and I can't remember, either), was that the league applied a much harsher standard of punishment because it was a ref. And the concussion issue only arose because it was a ref.

 

Phuckin' refs!

 

GO SABRES!!!

[Taro T]

I take that as a valid point. What would he have received for that sort of hit on a player? A game? Two?

 

 

 

Call it The Gudas Doctrine.

 

 

 

I won't quibble with this. But, again, that's not the approach the NHL has taken here.

 

 

 

As the rule is currently written, I really disagree.

 

If the NHL so desires, it should re-write the rules against contact with an official such that it removes the element of intent on the part of an offending player. Of course, then there'd be situations where players collide with referees in what is clearly an unintentional manner, and those would be susceptible to punishment.

 

I just don't think the NHL can have it both ways here.

IMHO, you are parsing "intent" too far to an abstraction. (Can we ever TRULY know another's intent?)

 

IMHO, again, the word "intent" is meant to convey a deliberate motion used to enact a primary purpose vs a motion carried out ancillarily to another purpose. So that a player whose leg kicks out as he is striding to catch a player ahead of him ends up slicing the leg of an opponent or a ref (similarly to, but not exactly like when Gaustad got his leg cut a few seasons ago) would not have intentionally kicked his opponent nor ref though he did intentionally kick out his leg. But a kick at the puck that does follow through and slice the opponent WOULD (very likely) be considered intentional as the kicking motion was intentional whether or not injuring the opponent was the "intent" (it likely wasn't - moving the puck WAS the intent).

 

In this particular case, had Wideman run into the linesman at full speed w/out further making the motions of a classic crosscheck, he probably would have had a case that there was no "intent." But, regardless of which portion of his brain was running the show at that moment, the controlling portion definitely "intended" to hit him, thus the crosscheck.

 

Had it been a player he crosschecked in the back, away from the play, perhaps he would've received consideration for the concussion in a disciplinary hearing. He can't get it due to the Pandora's box it could open. (Hey, that SOB just jobbed us AGAIN and I just got hit hard, screw it, me go for it; then (much like Rodney Dangerfield waving his arm around like he'd broken it) before & after he blows the ref up, he grabs his head.) That can't become an option for a player, & upholding the suspension keeps it from becoming an option.

 

As for the NHL handling their wording of their reasoning; them ####ing it up is not newsworthy. It's just another dog bites man. The day they DON'T #### it up will be the "man bites dog" day and THAT will be newsworthy.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Taro T

[That Aud Smell]

My only point, whether we agreed or disagreed on anything (and I can't remember, either), was that the league applied a much harsher standard of punishment because it was a ref. And the concussion issue only arose because it was a ref.

 

Huh. Well, then I don't think we did disagree. I agree with both of those points above.

 

IMHO, you are parsing "intent" too far to an abstraction. (Can we ever TRULY know another's intent?)

 

Disagree. Intent is commonly analyzed under this sort of lens. My rejoinder is essentially this: Can someone who is mentally impaired by a brain trauma act with intent? I.e., Knowing, voluntary, volitional? I think maybe not.

IMHO, again, the word "intent" is meant to convey a deliberate motion used to enact a primary purpose vs a motion carried out ancillarily to another purpose. So that a player whose leg kicks out as he is striding to catch a player ahead of him ends up slicing the leg of an opponent or a ref (similarly to, but not exactly like when Gaustad got his leg cut a few seasons ago) would not have intentionally kicked his opponent nor ref though he did intentionally kick out his leg. But a kick at the puck that does follow through and slice the opponent WOULD (very likely) be considered intentional as the kicking motion was intentional whether or not injuring the opponent was the "intent" (it likely wasn't - moving the puck WAS the intent).

 

In this particular case, had Wideman run into the linesman at full speed w/out further making the motions of a classic crosscheck, he probably would have had a case that there was no "intent." But, regardless of which portion 

 

I get where you're coming from. I'm less focused on body motions, and more focused on what the brain was capable of doing, directing, choosing.

Edited February 18, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[Taro T]

Huh. Well, then I don't think we did disagree. I agree with both of those points above.

 

 

 

Disagree. Intent is commonly analyzed under this sort of lens. My rejoinder is essentially this: Can someone who is mentally impaired by a brain trauma act with intent? I.e., Knowing, voluntary, volitional? I think maybe not.

 

 

I get where you're coming from. I'm less focused on body motions, and more focused on what the brain was capable of doing, directing, choosing.

In courts, absolutely. In the NHL ...

 

 

( Or, to be fair to the NHL, in any sports league is "intent" viewed at that level? IMHO, it isn't.)

[That Aud Smell]

In courts, absolutely. In the NHL ...

 

 

( Or, to be fair to the NHL, in any sports league is "intent" viewed at that level? IMHO, it isn't.)

 

Ah, fair deuce, I reckon.

 

Thing is: If they're serious about concussions, then they ought to be taking their analyses to that level when it's warranted.

[TrueBlueGED]

Ah, fair deuce, I reckon.

 

Thing is: If they're serious about concussions , then they ought to be taking their analyses to that level when it's warranted.

Sir. SIR! They're not. At the very least, they've given no meaningful indication that they are.

[Taro T]

Ah, fair deuce, I reckon.

 

Thing is: If they're serious about concussions, then they ought to be taking their analyses to that level when it's warranted.

:w00t: You veddy funny man.

 

(Though your statement is correct.)

[That Aud Smell]

Sir. SIR! They're not. At the very least, they've given no meaningful indication that they are.

:w00t: You veddy funny man.

 

(Though your statement is correct.)

 

I see that I sorely need to up my cynicism game.

[BagBoy]

Anecdotal story about a concussion:

 

My brother was skiing with some friends and skied straight into a tree head first, lost consciousness, got hauled off by ambulance to the hospital. Concussed, needless to say.

 

My mom arrived at the hospital about 2 hours later. She said he was himself, was coherent, and didn't seem groggy. But he was 100% adamant that he didn't ski into anything, and this whole business of him being in the hospital was just a big preposterous mistake.

[inkman]

If we are telling anecdotal concussion stories, my bro played college football. His sophomore season took a nasty hit to the Mellon. Doesn't remember the hit, the game or the next two weeks of his life.

 

d4rk might tell you he still seems concussed but...that's just my bro.

[TrueBlueGED]

I see that I sorely need to up my cynicism game.

 

Is it really cynicism though?

[Eleven]

If we are telling anecdotal concussion stories, my bro played college football. His sophomore season took a nasty hit to the Mellon. Doesn't remember the hit, the game or the next two weeks of his life.

 

d4rk might tell you he still seems concussed but...that's just my bro.

 

What's d4rk's excuse?

[Weave]

More than just Wideman refusing trips to the quiet room....

 

Ken Campbell ‏@THNKenCampbell

2nd game back from concussion, gets elbowed in the head and Ryan McDonagh is on the Rangers bench and not the Quiet Room. What is going on?

 

 

[darksabre]

What's d4rk's excuse?

Beers of the World.

[josie]

What's d4rk's excuse?

Nyquil and Yukon Jack.