Hockey Trash Talk & BS thread

Last minute holy fack moment that ends up with the linesman and player down after a full speed in the play collision on the ice versus a slow speed player full on crosschecking a linesman out of the play. Enough said.

 

Isn't it a rule the players should try to stay out of the way of the refs & Linesman? Oz quote me some rules here please

 

I'm not sure how the location of the incident in relation to the play implies intent, or as pertaining to the rules "intent to injure". Players lie about injuries quite often in order to stay in the game as was the expectation until fairly recently. The text messages make him look bad, that's why the NHL released them, but they're not an admission of guilt ("intent to injure") by any means.

 

We get it, you think he's innocent.

 

Yup.

 

I guess with how Ferland pussies out every time someone hits Gaudreau Wideman had to hit a linesman to keep the Flames looking tough.

 

Do I agree with the arbitrators decision to reduce the suspension to 10 games based on the fact that "intent to injure" could not be proven? yes.

 

Do you see a crosscheck or not? Given Wideman's speed do you think he guarded himself or threw the linesman? Or is your Flames jersey you got when you were twelve just so tight now on your that the blood isn't going to your head anymore?

 

What qualifies intent to injure than?

 

Skating up to a defenseless ref and cross checking him

 

Yup.

Actually I've seen a match penalty, aka intent to injure in other hockey rulebooks, stand up when a player threw his glove at a ref in a junior A game. I'd suggest what we saw here was a little more sever than that.

I wonder if @Saskquatch11 also questions the infamous Bertuzzi sucker punch...

 

I don't know what pads the refs or the linesman where but I know the have helmets. Probably the only thing that made it a non messy hit

 

Usually refs wear elbow pads (small ones), an undershirt sometimes with minor rugby padding, a padded girdle with cup, and light shin pads at most. I know plenty of guys, including myself, that skip the padded shirt because it has so many gaps in it that it's more of a hindrance than an asset.

Without a visor his face would of smacked the ground at full force. As is he might have a long road of recovery ahead with the concussion he has.

 

Nah, no intent to injure at all.

 

There doesn't appear to be an NHL definition of intent to injure, but I would assume it would require some level of premeditation. I have a hard time believing that Wideman was going to the bench thinking "hey, the refs didn't call that in the corner. I'm gonna fuck up that linesman".

 

There isn't a minor hockey definition either. It's up to the league chairman in Hockey Canada with no right to appeal. The league chairman in the NHL, aka the commissioner, determined there was intent to injure and gave out the 20 games. It's always been his mandate to determine if there is intent to injure as it has been with every other league up to the last CBA. An old Harvard law professor, who knows dick all about hockey, determined the reduction under these new mickey mouse rules and I have a problem with that. Not only is he impartial, but he has no clue about the spirit of the rule. Here's his own words:

What a joke.

 

amd the NHLPA got pissed, Shame they're isn't a NHLRA

 

You mean the NHLOA?

 

yea or something like it

 

Think about it this way. If IRL a guy gets the shit kicked out of him by some random person, is it not murder if he kills someone on the way home because of his mental state? Food for thought.

If anything the rules all need to be changed now because obviously everything that involves discretion could be successfully appealed. That's a problem and I can tell you the officials won't operate under such a system. Do you think the NHLPA wants to give up their new power either to some rule changes? I would bet heavily on No. Which likely means the new officials CBA, which comes up this year, could be very interesting and we could see an officials lockout.