| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 06/10/2011 : 19:16:52
Most people know Alex Burrows has a reputation as a diver, but I saw something interesting/funny in tonight's game.
With about four minutes to go in the second period, there was a bit of a melee, and Burrows was bumped into by one of his own players.
It wasn't much of a bump, but through force of habit, Burrows fell to the ice. Sorry Alex - there's no referee who's going to call a penalty on the other team when your own player knocks you down!
|
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Utemin |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 12:53:33
burrows diving in this series is stupid end of story!
Don't hate me because i'm Beautiful |
| Guest0763 |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 10:26:23
sorry to say i'm not a fan of vancouver, but there was alot penalty not called on boston in this whole series, vancouver may dive but boston knows that certain guys are fair game and they wont get a penalty if they go after them. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 10:16:59
Nux, the highstick was just that and he did not embellish anything on that. On the cross check, you are 100% correct in that any player would have went down, but Burrows did add a little something onto it. At least in my eyes it did. As most every video shows, Burrows does appear to embellish every time he is touched. Including at least once by his own player. I still think the 2nd time Sedin put him down was also a dive but I don't have to argue it. There is more than enough evidence that shows Burrows acting like Greg Louganis on every other play.
I'm sorry, but this is really sad. It's guys like Burrows who give hockey a bad name. Seriously, I thought the headline on Sun.com yesterday was a bit of a stretch but I'm not so sure anymore. The question raised by the Sun was is this the World Cup or the Stanley Cup? I am mistaking a number of players (Burrows, Lapierre, Thomas, and Marchand) for Pele, Bebeto, Romario, and Ronaldinho.
It unfortunate as the hockey between the whistles is some of the best hockey I have watched in years. It almost makes up for a really average season in many ways. Unfortunately, I think these finals will be remembered more so because of the flopping and diving garbage. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 10:13:09
quote:
Nuxfan wow you were probably booing team Canada in '72 as well.
My point was that everyone knew that they needed Luongo in game 5 so how about supporting the guy instead of humiliating him by cheering???
I was 1 year old in 72, the only thing I probably cheered for was food and sleep.
Who said anything about not supporting him in game 5, anywhere? I was happy to see him yanked in game 4 - it was the right decision for the coach to make, and unlike game 3, he made it and did it. You can't let your goalie stay in the net after a performance like that.
You want him yanked in game 4 because you know he needs it to regroup for game 5. We all know we're riding Luongo win or lose, and we're all behind him.
That being said - the coaches would simply not be doing their job if they didn't at least think about game 5 goaltending - they are not cheerleaders and are not there to hope the Canucks win. The last time Luongo turned in 2 bad performances in a row (in round 1), they started Schneider in game 6. It seemed to work, because Luongo came back very strong in game 7. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 10:05:44
quote:
It's obvious that he falls on his own here, and you can see that he keeps his feet together and never takes a step for balance -just tries to slowly fall to the ice.
Your clips show 2 different incidents. The latter one was certainly a dive. The former, as I've said, simply appears to be a non-incident - I agree, he just simply falls down. He might have even tripped over the ref's skate as Daniel was pushing him away, although its hard to tell. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 10:03:36
quote:
Nux, take at look at this(youtube link below) and tell me what you see.
OK, that video definitely shows a dive, absolutely - it a good angle, and not one I'd seen before. So good stuff, the refs got it right and made the right call. As did you it seems.
quote:
I saw a very similar thing with the Seidenberg cross-check(al beit the cross check was far worse of a non-call) and the spill, err, loss of balance when a stationary Sedin reaches out his arm and Burrows falls down. What I mean is the call would most likely be made if Burrows didn't try to sell it more than he has to.
I guess we'll agree to disagree on the crosscheck, I haven't found any video replay. It was a hard cross check, and I still do not think that Burrows dove - that would have knocked nearly any player down. And I still maintain that Burrows was not even looking for a call in the fall down - do you really think the ref would have called a knockdown by his own guy?
Your silence on the subject tells me you agree that the high stick was indeed a high stick and he acted like any player would - regardless of who's stick it turned out to be in the end. |
| Open_Ice |
Posted - 06/12/2011 : 09:52:47
The Burrows dive after being pushed by his own teammate: (haven't found any great quality clips yet)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3wIAkeRjM4
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzW-YkuHjdc
It's obvious that he falls on his own here, and you can see that he keeps his feet together and never takes a step for balance -just tries to slowly fall to the ice. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 23:13:03
Nux, take at look at this(youtube link below) and tell me what you see. I will tell you exactly what I see and that is Burrow's shoulders and torso falling backwards and his left skate hardly moves. In fact, his left knee bends. Now, I don't know how others handle themselves on skates, I know I am not great. But I can tell you that I have no ability to fall on my a$$ while I am bending a knee. Not only this, but when Burrow's left skate actually starts moving, it moves out and to the left. How does that happen when Lucic is pulling him to the right??? When I am falling, my body instictively attempts to regain my footing under my body, not outside of my body.
Sorry pal, but I gotta see this as nothing but a pure embellishment of the situation. Not saying that he would not have gone down anyway which would deserve a call. But by making it out to be worse than what it was, he gets a call too.
I saw a very similar thing with the Seidenberg cross-check(al beit the cross check was far worse of a non-call) and the spill, err, loss of balance when a stationary Sedin reaches out his arm and Burrows falls down. What I mean is the call would most likely be made if Burrows didn't try to sell it more than he has to.
Just another thing and then I am done with this. Not sure if anyone has been following Kerry Fraser's blog/Q&A on TSN through the playoffs but it has been an interesting view that we don't normally consider. Here is the latest that talks at lengths about the embellishments from both teams. Not only did Fraserr put his piece on this, he also quotes Pierre McGuirre and Bob MacKenzie making comments specifically about Burrows and Lapierre and thier embellishments. Not saying this for any other reason than to prove to myself that I am not the unsilent minority. Others see this happening too.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Enjoy game 6
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=368656
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnY_foVY0ME |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 19:37:36
Nuxfan wow you were probably booing team Canada in '72 as well.
My point was that everyone knew that they needed Luongo in game 5 so how about supporting the guy instead of humiliating him by cheering???
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 18:13:10
I don't know what to tell you Beans. On all the replays I saw (and probably you too, as we were watching the same feed), I see Lucic's stick in Burrows feet before he falls. Now, it is certain that neither of us has any idea how much Lucic's stick contributed to Burrows falling - did Burrows feel a tap and fall backwards in a dive? Or did Lucic take his feet out? Or was it somewhere in between? Hence, debatable. The refs obviously saw it one way and called it as such, and I have no problem with that. I certainly don't think it was a clear dive by measure, and neither did the refs.
I don't automatically defend Burrows because he is a Canuck - he has a reputation that is well deserved, and I have felt embarrassment in years past for his behaviour, and more than once wondered if the Canucks were best served by trading him a-la SOB or Hordichuk.
I certainly saw other incidents during the game where Burrows and Lapierre were doing their best to get calls, and embellishing otherwise innocent plays. But you're talking about 4 specific incidents from last night: 2 of which I see as absolute non-dives, one of which I think he just simply fell down and did nothing to try to get a call and skated away, and an in-between play that certainly could be any number of things, and the refs called it the way they saw it.
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 18:09:08
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And your bias towards the Canucks is also well documented. Amazing how one can put a positive spin on what other perceive as dives by saying things like "how much Lucic's stick was responsible is debateable."
I will not deny that I despise Burrows and for no other reason than his diving. I would not say he took a dive crossing the street but I can see how I would see a 50/50 call as a dive by Burrows. However, a straight up dive is a dive regardless of the player involved.
it's also amazing how someone can put a negative spin on something
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 17:30:00
And your bias towards the Canucks is also well documented. Amazing how one can put a positive spin on what other perceive as dives by saying things like "how much Lucic's stick was responsible is debateable."
I will not deny that I despise Burrows and for no other reason than his diving. I would not say he took a dive crossing the street but I can see how I would see a 50/50 call as a dive by Burrows. However, a straight up dive is a dive regardless of the player involved. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 15:50:04
quote:
I don't have it PVR'ed, but I have watched it a number of times on highlights and I see it completely differently. Much like Salo's stick coming into Burrow's face and him flopping. Seidenbrgs cross check and a flop, Lucic tie up at the face off circle and a flop.
No doubt you see it differently - your hate for Burrows is very deep and well known. If Burrows tripped over a curb on Georgia Street you'd probably think he was trying to draw a penalty...
I watched it both on PVR and whatever highlights were on TV. I couldn't find a video of the play, probably because it was so insignificant in the overall play of the game - mainly because it was a big pile of nothing. He wasn't stationary when he got hit by Sedin, he went down without a headshake or much extra montion, and he got up and went straight to the bench, he didn't even look at the ref. I see plenty of hockey players fall down when they go off balance - they're standing on 2 blades of steel while getting jostled around, it happens. If you want to think every time Burrows falls down he's trying to draw a penalty, but every time someone else falls down its just them falling down, then I don't think any video replay of the event is going to change your mind.
As for the other plays you mentioned:
- Burrows did take a high stick in the face, he could never have known it was Salo's stick. He reacted the same way any other player that takes a high stick to the face reacts. Go on, find me the video of the guy that takes a stick to the face and keeps on trucking like nothing hit him.
- the cross check from Siedenberg was hard and up high in the chest, and Seidenberg has more than 20 lbs on Burrows - I'm pretty most players would have gone down from that hit. Are you saying that Burrows dove after taking that check? Wow.
- the fall on the slewfoot from Lucic, perhaps an embellishment. Too hard to tell, and as we know the benefit of the doubt is not going to Burrows, so they both got penalties. However, the replay was pretty clear that Lucic got Burrows's skates from the back, while they were jostling, so its not like Burrows just fell to the ice. But how much Lucic's stick was responsible is debatable.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 15:08:55
The reputations of Nux and Slozo took more than a step backwards if they can not see that as a dive. That about as bad as the phantom check to the throat! Seriously, he lost his balance?? So this solid NHL player who can skate like the wind falls over from a straight arm from a stationary team mate???
I don't have it PVR'ed, but I have watched it a number of times on highlights and I see it completely differently. Much like Salo's stick coming into Burrow's face and him flopping. Seidenbrgs cross check and a flop, Lucic tie up at the face off circle and a flop.
I'd like to see a clip of it again. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 11:52:11
quote:
It's pretty hard to find anyone here in BC who will admit they wanted Schneider to start game 5 or cheered???
I think its pretty natural to wonder if your backup will start the next game when your starting goalie gives up a dozen in 2 games and looks bad doing so. Certainly in the regular season, Schneider starting the game after those 2 bad outings would be a no-brainer - why would you not have the same thought process in the playoffs?
As for cheering the yanking in game 4, I was happy he was yanked as well - he was not playing well and deserved to be yanked. Hell, he should have been yanked in game 3 after letting in 4 in the second period. Being in the finals should not stop coaches from making good decisions about players.
In the end, everyone knew AV would go with Luongo in game 5 - this isn't like the CHI series where Schneider started a game that the Canucks could burn if need be. Game 5 was (IMO) the pivotal game of this series, and arguably the most important game of the post-season for VAN, you have to go with your guy in that situation. |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 10:42:53
Regardless of these antics Canucks played a great home game and bounced back after the uninspired effort in Boston. Thanks to the goaltending they have bounced back. The real travesty is the fans cheering when this same goaltender was pulled. Then abandoning him after being hung out to dry......... It's pretty hard to find anyone here in BC who will admit they wanted Schneider to start game 5 or cheered???
Kinda like finding anyone who admitted they didn't vote liberal a year after they got a 77 - 2 seat mandate........  |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 09:26:29
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
[quote]
No, this was a backwards lunch with a headsnap. This guy is an embarrasment to hockey. Tons of skill but classless.
I went back and re-watched the play (had the game on PVR). No, there was no headsnap or backwards launch, he simply lots his balance and fell. He fell down, got up right away, and skated to the bench. Why do you think he was trying to sell a call? Burrows isn't trying to sell a call every time he falls down.
However, the reputation is that he is - so when he takes a pretty hard crosscheck from Siedenberg beside the net beside the ref (as clear a penalty as I've seen), no call is made. It is what it is.
[/quote
I agree with nuxfan here - I think it was just a matter of his reputation preceding him. And don't get me wrong, he has that reputation for a good reason . . . but he now has The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome working against him, and the other team is at times taking liberties with him, knowing there won't be a call.
He can still burn you in O/T with some amazing tenacity and skill, however . . . if I were the Bruins, I would not prod him that much. He has a lot of pride, as we saw in his amazing game 2 of this series.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 08:46:32
quote:
No, this was a backwards lunch with a headsnap. This guy is an embarrasment to hockey. Tons of skill but classless.
I went back and re-watched the play (had the game on PVR). No, there was no headsnap or backwards launch, he simply lots his balance and fell. He fell down, got up right away, and skated to the bench. Why do you think he was trying to sell a call? Burrows isn't trying to sell a call every time he falls down.
However, the reputation is that he is - so when he takes a pretty hard crosscheck from Siedenberg beside the net beside the ref (as clear a penalty as I've seen), no call is made. It is what it is. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 07:42:44
you know what all these classless and embarassment to hockey comments make me laugh i have a favorite expression "if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough" selling to the refs is part of the game and as much as guys like Lapierre and Burrows are bad at it because they over sell and now the refs won't even give them a normal call but if you think for a second your favorite "classy" players won't try and sell a call you don't know the game, it is an important part of the game live with it or stop watching but most of all quit bi tching about it
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 07:15:36
I was watching the game at the local establishment. When Burrows went into a full swan dive, complete with triple lutz and a no handed superman fall to the ice the entire crowd was howling at it. Then you saw Sedin lean down and say "hey idiot, it was me who bumped you". At least thats what I think he would say.
Sorry nuxfan but even the diehard canucks fans where I was saw it as a huge embellishment worthy of some sort of an award. |
| Guest4847 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 06:31:47
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
Burrows probably fell to the ice because he was knocked off balance. He was clearly aware who had done it (Sedin leaned down right after), and he skated off right away.
Sometimes people fall to the ice because something actually caused them to fall...and sometimes, everyone knows that its not malicious or illegal...
No, this was a backwards lunch with a headsnap. This guy is an embarrasment to hockey. Tons of skill but classless. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 05:12:12
I watched the play and started laughing immediately. Even my wife looked at me and said, "Who was that guy who flopped when he got hit by his own guy??"
It's a tough thing for Vancouver and they are pretty lucky in that respect so far. I watched 5-6 calls last night that could have been called by the refs but because of the infraction happening against Burrows and Lapierre, no call was made. The one really specific example was when Seidenberg was going to clear the front of the net after the whistle and hit Burrow pretty hard with a cross check. If Burrow would not have added his flop to the end of it, I can see how a call couldn't have been made. But because he felt the need to act like he was shot, no call. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/11/2011 : 00:25:49
Burrows probably fell to the ice because he was knocked off balance. He was clearly aware who had done it (Sedin leaned down right after), and he skated off right away.
Sometimes people fall to the ice because something actually caused them to fall...and sometimes, everyone knows that its not malicious or illegal... |
|
|
