| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/12/2010 : 05:46:16
So Burrows goes out and scores a hattrick in back to back games, and two games later has two goals going into the third, and starts looking at yet another hattrick straight in the eye.
Then Burrows gets penalised in the third period for:
diving (2 min) 3:26
interference (2 min) 15:15
and after the Preds score on their 5 on 3 with Henrik also in the box, Burrows gets
unsportsmanlike conduct - 2 min
misconduct - 10 min
. . . with 4 second left in the game.
To top off that already contraversial ending, Burrows then makes these statements after the game (from AP):
“It was personal,” Burrows said. “It started in warm up before the anthem. The ref came over to me and said I made him look bad in Nashville on the Smithson hit. He said he was going to get me back tonight and he did his job in the third.”
“He called me on a diving call. I didn’t think was diving, he got me on an interference call. I have no idea how he could call that and it changed the game,” Burrows said, adding his teammates “are battling hard for 60 minutes to win a hockey game because every two points are so huge, so important, and because of a guy’s ego it just blows everything out of proportion and they’re making bad calls and the fans are paying for it and we’re paying for it.”
“After my second penalty I skated by him and he said `If you say a word I am going to kick you out,’ so I didn’t say a word because I still thought we could come back and win the game,” Burrows said. “But with 3 seconds left and the faceoff outside the zone I thought I could tell him what I thought about him.”
Auger and the officiating crew declined to comment when approached by The Associated Press as they were leaving the arena.
Thoughts? Comments?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 12:36:01
Crazy the shots on goal in this! Made me think of the OV thread discussing shots on goal and how tough they are to come by! Was almost as if these two teams had read Beans' comments and wanted to prove him wrong or something! 
Prob more likely that some shady d was played. That does worry me a bit, when i see the Canucks giving up 40+ shots to a team near the bottom of the league! Again, didn't see much of it so i'm not sure how or why the game played out the way it did. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 09:19:34
Nope, nothing happened. First penalty called was called by Auger, for an infraction against Burrows, but that was it.
Other than that it was a pretty entertaining game. The Islanders played a pretty good game last night, who do they think they are - contenders??? Made things interesting in the third period. Their goalie (Poulin) was stellar in net, 52 shots against and only 3 goals. Canucks got goals from 3 different lines, and Luongo won a shootout (gasp!). Another balanced effort |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 09:19:01
Only saw the last half of the third, OT and the shootout. Missed the rest as i worked late, and the 4pm start time makes it difficult to see the beginning. Didn't hear anything special but heard the radio guys saying that Auger seemed to be calling things in the Canucks favour early???
Prob just a coincidence i would think? |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 05:35:02
So, it being a school night for me I couldn't stay up late and catch the game, anything of note happen? Was any skunk face or evil eye given? Whispered swear words? Anything?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest9341 |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 10:54:51
Also happens to be exactly one year ago this happened. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 08:44:30
Nice thread, this was before my time... Beans, I have to say your commentary regarding the Canucks and Burrows in this regard is remarkably unbiased
Auger will be refereeing the game tonight between VAN and NYI - its the first game since this incident that Auger has bee an official in a VAN game. We'll be watching! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 15:32:36
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4803
beans if your fine with ron macleans comments and opinion then why should burrows be fined for his? turns out the maximum fine in that situation is $1000 ,not $2500 . You say youve been watching a lot of canucks game recently you might notice theyre doing somethin else different then Edmonton as well...its called WINNING! im glad were your least favourite team because most of the time when someone dislikes someone else jealousy plays a big part ;) and dont pretend were the only team that has embelished in a game it happens everynight in every game its up to the refs to call it just like all the other infractions
Not to add too much to what Josua has already said, I agree that the fine should have been $1000 and not $2500 and that is apparently under greivance right now. However, the reason that Burrows got fined is that there is an established rules against negative comments towards officials by players to the media. That's why he got fined. What he said it irrelevant and if it is a popular opinion or not is irrelevant.
And I still don't get this Oiler bashing?? I mean, are you kidding?? I know that the team is worst in the league. Do you think you are enlightening me by saying that??
For your information, Vancouver always has been one of my least favorite teams, along with Toronto and Calgary. My reasons for that are also irrelevant. I just think that Vancouver, through thier off ice garbage, have become an embarrassment to hockey and they have became my least favorite team. It has nothing to do with the Oilers futility. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 15:29:10
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4803
beans if your fine with ron macleans comments and opinion then why should burrows be fined for his? turns out the maximum fine in that situation is $1000 ,not $2500 . You say youve been watching a lot of canucks game recently you might notice theyre doing somethin else different then Edmonton as well...its called WINNING! im glad were your least favourite team because most of the time when someone dislikes someone else jealousy plays a big part ;) and dont pretend were the only team that has embelished in a game it happens everynight in every game its up to the refs to call it just like all the other infractions
Guest, if your question is "why should Burrows be fined", then it's an easy answer, because he broke the rules of what's allowed from a player. They are not permitted to publicly ridicule, complain about, insult, etc the officials. If your question is why didn't he get fined the minimum, well, i don't know the answer to this? Either way, i don't think Burrows is too concerned about $2,500. |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 13:42:43
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4803
beans if your fine with ron macleans comments and opinion then why should burrows be fined for his? turns out the maximum fine in that situation is $1000 ,not $2500 . You say youve been watching a lot of canucks game recently you might notice theyre doing somethin else different then Edmonton as well...its called WINNING! im glad were your least favourite team because most of the time when someone dislikes someone else jealousy plays a big part ;) and dont pretend were the only team that has embelished in a game it happens everynight in every game its up to the refs to call it just like all the other infractions
Hey, guest, there is a really good reason the NHL could fine Burrows and not Maclean. Actually probably several. Lets start with the common sense one 1st, which you seem to lack. Burrows is employed by a team governed by the NHL and Maclean although a representative of a sportscast which features the NHL, is actually not an employee of the NHL. He works for the CBC.
How about the fact that what Maclean is paid to do is comment on the NHL and Burrows is told when he is authorized to speak to the media and his comments are scrutinized under league and union rules. One is payed to play and one is payed to talk.
How about the fact one is considered an embelisher and the other is considered trustworthy, honest and knowledgible.
Btw, I dont see Beans making personal attacks against the Canucks, just a player who if you aint a fan of the team you hold in contempt. As a fan you feel the need to defend, even if its against good judgement. |
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 12:57:41
beans if your fine with ron macleans comments and opinion then why should burrows be fined for his? turns out the maximum fine in that situation is $1000 ,not $2500 . You say youve been watching a lot of canucks game recently you might notice theyre doing somethin else different then Edmonton as well...its called WINNING! im glad were your least favourite team because most of the time when someone dislikes someone else jealousy plays a big part ;) and dont pretend were the only team that has embelished in a game it happens everynight in every game its up to the refs to call it just like all the other infractions |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 11:24:00
Beans, i agree and i think i did earlier in my post when i said i had no prob with Maclean's piece! It's def something Burrows is gonna have to change or be forever targetted for controversial calls both against him and to him! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 10:52:02
Here's the thing on the original hit. Dive?? Absolutely not. Embelished to make a 2 min penalty into 5 and a game, absolutely. That is exactly what MacLean eluded to and to my eyes, the video supports that dead on.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 00:11:46
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
Alex I watched to get your point of view and dont agree that there was no dive. The hit was a glancing blow with no intent to injure which you can see Burrows watched him coming. Once contact is made Burrows spun in the air like it was the hit of the year. Once landing he looks to see which official makes the call and ducks his head back in. Then when he knows he's got him hooked he waits to move and embelishes a injury until a 5minunte penalty and a game misconduct is given.
[/quote]
Joshua, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Again, this is one of those instances where i think reputation takes over. I swear, some would consider it a dive if Burrows was hit with the exact same hits as Mikael Tam or Ben Fanelli were! Regardless, i see it differently. I see Burrows look to pass the puck and i'll agree, prob knew Smithson was coming, but just because he's coming doesn't mean he's gonna throw a hit like that. Watch Smithsons upper body prior to the hit. He gives it all he's got and in his defense, i'd say he was planning on hitting Burrows in the shoulder, unfortunatley, it was one of those situations where the puck got away from Burrows and he was stretching for it, thus putting himself in a more vulnerable position. Clean? Maybe? Dirty, Maybe? But a dive where he "spun in the air like it was the hit of the year", uh, no.....i seriously don't know what clip you were watching to say that seeing as i never see him or his feet leave the ice?? Either way, i've agreed to the point that Burrows embelished it, that's as far as i'll go.
Baumer, yeah, if it's a ppv game, it's around $12 i think, but $16 or maybe even more if you want ppv! |
| baumer |
Posted - 01/27/2010 : 13:31:48
I can not wait for Vigneault to go on air with Ron McLean. its going to be a great show. Ron McLean doesn't back down from Gary Bettman, has always told him exactly what he thinks of him and does intelligently. This is a battle the Canucks are not going to win. I understand sticking up for your player but let this die. It hasn't been news in a weeks now.
(On a side not: To Alex116: Do you guys actually have to pay $16 bucks a game (for Hi Def) when the Canucks are on PPV?) |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 01/27/2010 : 08:33:24
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Beans, like i said in another thread, i wasn't gonna look this thread up after my return from my week away but you had to go and bring it to the forefront! Arrrrggghhhhh!
Anyway, i missed the McLean thing as well so i googled it last night and watched it. While it was def one sided, as you said, it's his opinion. I really didn't see the big deal but i do see the team sticking together and refusing to do an interview with HNIC as a good thing. They're standing by what they believe in (Burrows) and as a team and an organization for that matter, that's good, you couldn't ask for more. It'll be interesting to see if they hold this "grudge" through HDIC this Saturday when they're featured.
One thing the MacLean interview did allow me to see was the Smithson hit once again. I never really paid attention to Burrows reaction except for the reaction immediately after the hit. I don't care what anyone says, there was NO DIVE here whatsoever. He did get hit illegally and could have pleased many by being hurt very seriously, what he's guilty of though, was the embellishment which drew the 5 and the game. Personally i think it was worthy of the 5 mins but shouldn't have been a game misconduct (unless they go one in one, not sure of the rules). I see it as a dangerous hit, similar to many we chat about and debate about all the time on here. I do agree, he made it look as though he was hurt worse than he was and i don't agree with his actions there. If nothing else, if you're gonna act that way, you'd better do it better, stumble to the bench, miss a few shifts, etc!
Alex I watched to get your point of view and dont agree that there was no dive. The hit was a glancing blow with no intent to injure which you can see Burrows watched him coming. Once contact is made Burrows spun in the air like it was the hit of the year. Once landing he looks to see which official makes the call and ducks his head back in. Then when he knows he's got him hooked he waits to move and embelishes a injury until a 5minunte penalty and a game misconduct is given.
NHL officials have a watch list of players as shown in the Maclean interview and no-matter what Burrows assumed the conversation was with Auger, was the reason Auger gave him a warning. He basically said no more crap we are watching you. Give us an opportunity to make you look bad and we will.
I dont understand why the team is upset with Maclean. If they dont want an indepth discussion focussing on the Embelishments of Burrows join the discussion and show your point of view. Maclean does not work for the Canucks, is a licenced referee with a unique and IMO correct opinion. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 22:56:25
Beans, like i said in another thread, i wasn't gonna look this thread up after my return from my week away but you had to go and bring it to the forefront! Arrrrggghhhhh!
Anyway, i missed the McLean thing as well so i googled it last night and watched it. While it was def one sided, as you said, it's his opinion. I really didn't see the big deal but i do see the team sticking together and refusing to do an interview with HNIC as a good thing. They're standing by what they believe in (Burrows) and as a team and an organization for that matter, that's good, you couldn't ask for more. It'll be interesting to see if they hold this "grudge" through HDIC this Saturday when they're featured.
One thing the MacLean interview did allow me to see was the Smithson hit once again. I never really paid attention to Burrows reaction except for the reaction immediately after the hit. I don't care what anyone says, there was NO DIVE here whatsoever. He did get hit illegally and could have pleased many by being hurt very seriously, what he's guilty of though, was the embellishment which drew the 5 and the game. Personally i think it was worthy of the 5 mins but shouldn't have been a game misconduct (unless they go one in one, not sure of the rules). I see it as a dangerous hit, similar to many we chat about and debate about all the time on here. I do agree, he made it look as though he was hurt worse than he was and i don't agree with his actions there. If nothing else, if you're gonna act that way, you'd better do it better, stumble to the bench, miss a few shifts, etc! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 22:20:55
This thing just won't die!!
THis is the first time I have watched the Colin Campbell/Ron MacLean interview. I love the Canucks for being a bunch of whiny girls for MacLean having an opinion?? I thought that is what MacLean got paid for???
Seriously, right or wrong, I just wish this serious non-issue would just die away.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/canucks-hnic-staff-to-meet-over-burrows-criticism/article1444978/ |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 20:11:54
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2198
Beans,
For the record,
The league was aware that Burrows told Raycroft. But in it's investigation, deamed that Raycroft was not an independant source, so chose not to question him.
I never read that in the article posted. Did I miss something or do you have some other information from somewhere?? If so, please post it. |
| Guest2198 |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 16:57:21
Beans,
For the record,
The league was aware that Burrows told Raycroft. But in it's investigation, deamed that Raycroft was not an independant source, so chose not to question him. |
| Gusteroni |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 15:16:43
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Well of course it was in jest. But I still find it beyond hypocritical that the team known around the league for being one of the biggest group of embelishers around, lead by their biggest diver, complain about a game they lose based on some questionalbe calls.
I agree, this new information coming to light makes things a lot different and I agree that if true, this ref should not be involved in the NHL any longer.
But where was Raycroft last week when this information actually would have been valuable??? Just because the league didn't call him doesn't mean he couldn't have said anything. If you watch a crime happen, do you not say anything unless the police ask you??
This whole thing still smells a little like a conspiracy to me. Although I think any Canuck fan would disagree. Oh, and a Leaf Fan or two as well.
(On a side note, I would like to let all know that Toronto has creeped up from my least disliked team to the 2nd most disliked team. My new most disliked team is Vancouver. Not only the Edmonton game last night, but since this Burrows thing happened I have made a point of watching them closely. Easliy the biggest group of divers and embelishers in the game today. That starts with the GM and the coach condoning that kind of behavior and it's an embarrassment to hockey. )
Watched that game last night and that was a terrible display of reffing and a great display of how to dive and get away with it. Missed calls/phantom calls, Van scoring all goals on the pp (I know Edm has a terrible pk). I too am going to be watching Van very carefully from now on as I swear I seen at least 3 dives, a couple with no calls but the ot call was so far the worst I've seen this year. Come to think of it I have not seen a dive called in a very long time and if I do both players get a penalty...what's up with that? Isn't a dive a dive and not one player getting a dive and the other getting a tripping call? Contradictions...I love em.
"There are only two seasons in Canada...hockey season and not hockey season." |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 09:33:58
Well of course it was in jest. But I still find it beyond hypocritical that the team known around the league for being one of the biggest group of embelishers around, lead by their biggest diver, complain about a game they lose based on some questionalbe calls.
I agree, this new information coming to light makes things a lot different and I agree that if true, this ref should not be involved in the NHL any longer.
But where was Raycroft last week when this information actually would have been valuable??? Just because the league didn't call him doesn't mean he couldn't have said anything. If you watch a crime happen, do you not say anything unless the police ask you??
This whole thing still smells a little like a conspiracy to me. Although I think any Canuck fan would disagree. Oh, and a Leaf Fan or two as well.
(On a side note, I would like to let all know that Toronto has creeped up from my least disliked team to the 2nd most disliked team. My new most disliked team is Vancouver. Not only the Edmonton game last night, but since this Burrows thing happened I have made a point of watching them closely. Easliy the biggest group of divers and embelishers in the game today. That starts with the GM and the coach condoning that kind of behavior and it's an embarrassment to hockey. ) |
| Guest1757 |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 08:30:44
Yah Beans...Big difference.
I hope you weren't actually being serious about that statement because it is completely 2 different situations. There are weak calls in the NHL all the time; it's the fact that Auger allegedly told Burrows he was going to get him that night.
Stop being a poor sport and accept that you're team is horrible this year regardless of calls and look forward to a hopefully brighter next year with a top 3 draft pick and other prospects coming your way! |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/21/2010 : 08:21:57
Great link, guest 9264 - thanks for that.
Whitewash, whitewash, whitewash.
And Beans, your argument about why Burrows didn't complain about soft calls that his team benifitted from is patently ridiculous and clearly a strawman attack on Burrows.
We are not talking about soft calls against bottom-dwelling teams: we are talking about threats made by a ref towards a player before the game, and patently biased officiating.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/20/2010 : 21:47:50
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9264
Burrows told Raycroft about Auger's warnings before phantom penalty.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/canucks/story.html?id=ee671142-3e54-4953-9b01-21bdabab1d73&k=31632
Now this is very interesting. New game.
Hey, did anyone else wonder where Burrows was talking about how the refs handed the Canucks the game tonight with 2 very soft calls. The first on Cogliano which lead to the goal to tie it up, then a phantom dive on Grebeshkov which lead to the OT winner.
Wonder why Burrows doesn't say anything when that happens?? |
| Guest9264 |
Posted - 01/20/2010 : 21:12:21
Burrows told Raycroft about Auger's warnings before phantom penalty.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/canucks/story.html?id=ee671142-3e54-4953-9b01-21bdabab1d73&k=31632 |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/15/2010 : 09:42:16
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Unfortunately Alex, I will be making a return trip to Saskatoon today and will not be home for the Coaches Corner tomorrow. I am hoping someone gets it onto youtube and posts the link.
Now, your comments about "If this played happened ....but it was Iginla." Firstly, it's not really relevant as that's not the issue at play. The issue at play is not if Burrow gets picked on by the refs, it's if the ref told Burrows what he was going to do before he did it. I would agree whole heartedly that Burrows would get that interference call where Iginla would not. That goes back to the difference of playing like Burrows (dive, embelish, etc) or playing like Iginla (classy, strong, fight through the crap).
And why would the team tell someone that would have supported Burrows to be quiet?? Why didn't the Canucks or NHLPA or anyone else get involved?? No formal complaint, no request for a inquiry? Everything came off that rant by Burrows.
No one is running forward to back this kid up in any way, shape, or form?? Not his team mates, his team, his agent, the NHLPA?? No one. From what I have read, only about 1/2 the articles actually side with Burrows at all. And of those, only about 1/2 are actually dogging the NHL for the way they handled it, not backing up Burrows.
Wonder why...........
Beans, my question regarding "if it were Iginla", is in fact relevant if you read the paragraph it's in. I clearly state that i'm simply horrified by the call regardless of the "chat" Burrows the ref had prior to the game. I guess i could start an entire new thread or poll with that question but i don't wanna waste anyone's time on another thread. All i was trying to get across is this: A penalty should be called if it is in fact an infraction REGARDLESS of who the player is. Go back and re-read my second to last paragraph. I've clearly stated i'm dropping the whole "he said she said thing". I just threw the question out there with Iggy as the example to stress that i felt the call, regardless of the situation, was brutal, that's all?
As for the Canucks possibly telling the other players to keep their mouths shut about the situation? Well, is it possible that they knew the NHL was going to look into it, that it was obviously going to be a "he said, she said" thing that prob would amount to nothing and therefore why have another player or group of players say anything? After all this, is Burrows gonna be looked at in a better or worse way by the officials? I'd venture to guess, worse. So, what happens when Kesler, Mitchell, etc start backing Burrows? Gee, more animosity towards the Canucks by the officials. Why no formal complaint? First off, we don't know exactly what the Canucks did but they knew the matter was going to be looked into in some way. Like i mentioned earlier regarding the Leafs tampering with the Sedins, i don't think the Canucks are very confident that an investigation would do them any good. Rather than piss off the entire brotherhood of the officials, the team prob figured it was best to let Burrows take the brunt of it as he brought it on himself and this would be the best way for them as a team to avoid further discression from any of the zebras?
BTW, i don't know this stuff to be fact, i'm just throwing it out there, cuz it makes sense to me. Anyone not agree this is possible or even probable, s'okay by me, it's just my thoughts on the matter.
You say only 1/2 the articles back Burrows? What'd you expect? I'd say half is not bad in a case like this. And as for "dogging the NHL for the way they handled it", i understand that. I'm okay with that too. I just read in the paper that Campbell had a chat with Auger, he denied saying anything about getting revenge, Campbell decided that he saw no shocked reaction from Burrows on the tape of their pregame discussion and therefore believes Auger. Really, what more can the NHL do? They've spokenn to both parties and one is obviously not telling the truth. There's no way to prove either side right or wrong so i guess, case closed?
I'm now okay with the whole situation. I still wish that Auger could have made a call on something that really was closer to warranting a penalty, that's all?
Beans, have a safe trip to Saskatoon.....i'm gone for a week, hopefully this thread is long gone into the archives when i get back! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/15/2010 : 06:52:29
Unfortunately Alex, I will be making a return trip to Saskatoon today and will not be home for the Coaches Corner tomorrow. I am hoping someone gets it onto youtube and posts the link.
Now, your comments about "If this played happened ....but it was Iginla." Firstly, it's not really relevant as that's not the issue at play. The issue at play is not if Burrow gets picked on by the refs, it's if the ref told Burrows what he was going to do before he did it. I would agree whole heartedly that Burrows would get that interference call where Iginla would not. That goes back to the difference of playing like Burrows (dive, embelish, etc) or playing like Iginla (classy, strong, fight through the crap).
And why would the team tell someone that would have supported Burrows to be quiet?? Why didn't the Canucks or NHLPA or anyone else get involved?? No formal complaint, no request for a inquiry? Everything came off that rant by Burrows.
No one is running forward to back this kid up in any way, shape, or form?? Not his team mates, his team, his agent, the NHLPA?? No one. From what I have read, only about 1/2 the articles actually side with Burrows at all. And of those, only about 1/2 are actually dogging the NHL for the way they handled it, not backing up Burrows.
Wonder why........... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/15/2010 : 00:09:40
Beans, or anyone else, please tape the Coach's Corner for me! Okay, PVR it and invite me over! I'm away as of late Friday night for a week! Won't get to see it.
Fat Elvis...."genetic freaks'....awesome description! Sorry for sneaking that little shot in there but i think you misunderstood me or mixed up my posts? Here's what i actually said about agreeing to disagree:
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 23:48:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fat_Elvis..... i'm cool with that, we can agree to disagree. However, i'll concede it's a debatable call, only because ANY call really is in my mind.
To me, this says i need not argue, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even if this is one i've never been able to see the other side of....not even close.
I don't recall ever implying that the delay in "Auger's arm going up" was the only factor here. I've maintained from the start that i think the interference call was ludicrous and was hardly even borderline IMO! I've now watched it more than i've watched the Liambas hit and i still can't see that i could ever consider that a valid call under ANY circumstances!
Beans, while i agree that i too would assume that if Burrows had said something to lets say, a team mate, then yeah, i'd figure that person would have said something by now? BUT, we don't know that for sure. Maybe the team told that person not to say anything more than had been already said? If there'd been a better investigation, maybe these things would be known? How 'bout this.....don't you think Auger would have made a statement by now? Okay, so maybe the NHL told him not to? Couldn't this be similar?
Fat_Elvis...to your play by play quote: "He tries to go around Ward, their legs get tangled up and it almost looks like he sort of gives Ward the old Indian leg lock and gets him to go down, stopping him from making it out to cover the point.
" i say this.......while i love your play by play skills, all i can say is this. I don't really care how the PBP guy called or calls this, i still see an absolutely terrible call. "Indian leg lock"? "Legs get tangled up"??? WTF? I seriously must be watching a different clip!!! AND, i find it very hard to believe that ANYONE would argue otherwise. The best argument thus far has been "well, karma's a bitch" or "Burrows got what he deserved". Those wreak of corruption! That's basically saying "it was a horrible call, BUT he deserved it so i don't care even if the ref had a grudge to settle with that little diving SOB"! No way in my world is that right.
Answer me this...... If this EXACT play happened and it was in a game with Calgary leading Minnesota 5-0 and it was Iginla who was in Burrows spot, would there be an interference call? Here, lemme get that answer for ya....NFW! NO F---ING WAY! There's where my problem is. To be honest, the more i think about it, the more i realize that even if not for the "chat" to Burrows before the game, i'd still be horrified at this call. Even if the Canucks won, i'd be horrified with this call.
Here's the deal. At this point i'm more or less done arguing the whole "i'll get you back" thing. While i believe the ref said it, there's no way to prove it therefore i'll drop it. However, i just can't seem to get over the number of people on here who obviously have the "i hate Burrows" or the "he deserves it for his style of play" attitudes. Too many have these attitudes and refuse to admit that it was a bad call, all while having this attitude really more or less proves they agree.
My apologies to those who have no biased opinion on Burrows and who truly believe that this was a call which could have gone either way. I find it hard to believe anyone could consider this even close to being a call that was fair, but i'll do my best to get over it!  |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 19:39:40
It's interesting to me to see how many respected media folks are really dogging Burrows through all of this.
Here is Dave Hodge's response to the Hodgemail question "Did the NHL handle the Burrows/Auger issue properly?"
And Dave's Reply To All:
The question was: did the NHL act properly? I'm not sure there's anything "proper" about the way hockey deals with dirty business. If there's a code for fighting, there's a code for a mess like this, too. It's entirely too cute to say that Burrows got what he deserved by blowing the whistle on a ref, but I'll say it anyway.
Burrows' first mistake was no big deal - he tried to embarrass Auger on the ice, and it seems he succeeded. Then he reacted to Auger's response - whatever it was, and it would help to know - by blabbing to the media - a $2,500 misdemeanor.
But here's what Burrows did that cost him any support or sympathy: he tried to get Auger fired. There's a code for that, and the league applied it by laying the entire blame on Burrows. Not that he didn't have a case, but Burrows blew it by trying it himself.
Can't wait to hear Don Cherry on Saturday Night. That will be interesting. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 19:38:11
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
...... I ask those of you with that opinion this: Take away the Burrows/Auger situation completely and see this call made. Would you consider this a good call? The ONLY way i can see a call like this being justified would be if a ref had just given a similarly weak penalty to the other team and was making a make up call. I don't agree with calling anything except for real penalties, but in a playoff game, i wouldn't care so much if a make up call was made if the original was truly that bad!
And I ask you the same question right back, take away the underlying story line and judge it without bias.....
I'll pretend to be a hockey analyst calling the replay if you'll bear with me. The clip starts just prior to the faceoff....
"If you look here at them lining up, Burrows is squaring up with Ward. Once the puck is dropped, Burrows is trying to head for the front of the net, as Vancouver is on the power play, and they need to get some traffic in front.
He tries to go around Ward, their legs get tangled up and it almost looks like he sort of gives Ward the old Indian leg lock and gets him to go down, stopping him from making it out to cover the point.
Auger, seeing the play, but not sure yet if it is going to have any bearing on the flow, watches the puck get moved out to the point where Ward couldn't get because of the interference from Burrows.
Auger has no choice but to call the penalty now, raises his arm, and blows the play down.
Holey Moley, what's going on with Burrows? He's doing his best Lou Pinella impersonation out there(chuckle), man that kid plays with passion."
If you read it with Howie Meeker's voice niggling in you brain, it kinda works, I just should added a couple 'stop it right there's' in the playback. I know, I know, most of the young uns' are asking, Howie who?
My point being, as easily as the Burrows supporters can use that sequence and penalty as ammunition for why Auger is crooked, those of us, or maybe just me, who think there are mountains here, where moles used to live, can do the same.
Bad call? Maybe. Good call? Maybe. Definately debatable.
Nothing about this whole rigamarole contains any facts either way, nothing. Of course if it did have facts to ascertain the allegations, this thread would only be about half a page long. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 19:29:07
One would think that if Burrows had told anyone else about what was said, that person would have been exposed by now. Especially if there was an investigation about it. Although I more than likely don't have the training or experience as Slozo does in the investigation area, I do have enough experience to know that one of the first things you do in any investigation is to find and talk to witnesses. If Burrow had said anything to anyone before the media rant, we would at the least know that the story was corroborated by anyone, or if Burrows had said something to another player, coach, ref, etc, we would know. Maybe not a name, but at least that others were told.
Similar to the Blake/Avery situation where apparently Avery said some unsavory things towards Blake and his fight with Cancer, all parties (Tucker, Blake, Avery) were talked to as part of the investigation.
I think that part hold such a huge piece to this. As soon as a player is singled out by a ref, they are actually doing themselves and their team a disservice by not saying anything. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 19:07:29
that was me...sorry bout that |
| Guest6779 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 19:06:32
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Fat_Elvis..... i'm cool with that, we can agree to disagree. However, i'll concede it's a debatable call, only because ANY call really is in my mind.........
May want to downgrade from 'shocked' to something less adamant....perhaps 'concerned', 'agog', maybe even 'perplexed'.
I'll still contend that if the whole sequence I posted in the clip is viewed, there is room there for the call to be justified, he DID make contact with Ward, that INTERFERED with Ward's ability to take up his defensive postion, the only debatable part is whether the ref should have had his arm up sooner, then....it would have been okay? I posted my thoughts on the sequence, and at the time, that was your only rebuttal, why wasn't Auger's arm up sooner. I think I explained my view of that fairly concisely after that.
Geez Alex, I thought you agreed to disagree with me on that, here you go sneaking in a quick shot!!
PS. I did watch the clips of the Minn/Van game, what the hell is with Minny dressing not 1 but both of their genetic freaks? Fodder for another post I think.... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 18:32:14
Is it possible that Burrows did say something to someone on the bench, maybe not the coach, but a team mate? I've not heard anyone on the team or in mgmt say that he did, but did Burrows ever answer the question as to why he didn't tell someone? I'm not being sarcastic, i've not really heard much other than his original rant at Auger so i'm just wondering if he ever did address this?
I find it strange that Auger hasn't made a statement to defend himself? Maybe the NHL told him not too? I dunno, if i'm him and all i said was "you embarrassed me last time, you better behave tonight...." then there's really nothing wrong with that. It's the claim by Burrows that he said "i'm gonna get you back tonight" or something along those lines that is beyond what should be said by a ref to a player during the pregame skate!
As i read through this thread, i'm still shocked that some actual call the interference call "debatable"? In debatable, i assume they mean, yeah, not a great call, but not a terrible one either. I ask those of you with that opinion this: Take away the Burrows/Auger situation completely and see this call made. Would you consider this a good call? The ONLY way i can see a call like this being justified would be if a ref had just given a similarly weak penalty to the other team and was making a make up call. I don't agree with calling anything except for real penalties, but in a playoff game, i wouldn't care so much if a make up call was made if the original was truly that bad!
|
| irvine |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 17:40:36
I have only read roughly the first page of posts regarding this topic, but here is where I stand regarding the situation:
If infact, Auger did make these statements to Burrows before the game began (Although, you'd think Burrows would mention this to somebody Coach? Teammate?) either way, if he did say this to Burrows, no matter how much this guy (or any) may embelish a call, you do not hold this against him.
I do NOT want to see referees making a call for "payback." Not payback from a previous game, or even the current game. I want to see all calls as fair as they can be. Whether it's Iginla, Burrows, Crosby, Avery or Ovechkin. Call them FAIR, to the best of your ability and judgment. No grudges. No excuses.
---
I'm having a hard time believing that Auger said -- what Burrows claims. The only reason I do, is that Burrows did not mention this to anyone? You'd think once he got on the bench, he'd say something to a fellow player or even a coach? "The Ref just said he was going to get payback on me." Or something along those lines, as it's likely not common for a referee to say this. I'm sure he'd say something, to someone. Which leads me to believe that although it may be why the terrible calls on Burrows occurred, Burrows may have added that little tidbit in to make his case more believable.
Now, if Auger did say that -- we have a real issue here. I don't want to see any ref - player grudges, resulting in terrible "payback calls" no matter the reason. This is your profession, act like it.
But for some of you who say "live by the sword / what goes around comes around." I can't agree with you.
Just because the guy likes to dive/imbelish, does not give reason for a referee to make biased calls, no matter the player or reason. It just ruins the game.
Irvine/prez. |
| Guest4627 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 15:31:54
^ ~Guest7113 |
| Guest4627 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 15:31:20
There's one thing we agree on, Beans. I find it really difficult to disagree with Bob on a lot of things. He always comes across very rational and well-measured.
I would have been interested to hear his explanation of why he didn't think CuJo deserves to be inducted into the HHoF, though. It was in the intermission of the Flames/Pens game, and I was at the pub so there was no volume. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 14:47:35
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=305937
Seriously, I think I might be Bob Mackenzie!! I don't know why, I just really see eye to eye on him about this.
Take a read through this, as I think it makes some pretty valid and interesting inferences towards this whole situation. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 13:35:39
My Slozo,
1) You are also assuming that Auger is lying without him making any kind of statement. You are basing you opinion purely on Burrows.
2)There does appear to have been an investigation. It appears that Campbell has spoken to both of them and said it's can be substantiated. I understand that to mean that it's irrelevant as to who is lying or telling the truth. Just that the stories don't match so that's as much as can be determined. And just because the NHL did not publicly say the matter is closed, does not mean that the NHLOA or the NHL themselves did not do anything else. You just weren't told about it.
3)I never said that any comments were blown out of proportion. I think the situation has been blown out of proportion. Ultimately, the two calls in question were borderline calls. That happens in every NHL game every night. We don't sit here and question every single call made by every referee and that there is something personal behind every 'bad call'. That's what I find blown out of proportion.
4)What exactly is the difference between a ref making a borderline call and a player taking a dive? Both make an impact on the outcome of the game, but only one is viewed as a negative impact to the sport?? That's a little hypocritical isn't it??
5) Bollocks. If a ref went to a player and said he was gunning for them, the dead right thing to do is take it to your coach. That type of action is not something a player can change or deal with on their own. They take it to their coach, who in turn handles the sitaution, normally with the GM and they get the league involved. The player can also take that to the NHLPA/agent if he wishes. Taking it to the media only forces things to happen more hastily and more often than not the player loses some credibility. Rarely do you see a positive impact from a player taking things public rather than keeping them internal.
The issue at hand is not the calls that were made. The issue at hand is the alleged premeditated actions of the offical based on alleged comments made. If Burrows takes those allegations to his team directly after they are said, they have significantly more validity to them. These comments were made prior to the Anthem being sang. That gave Borrows a TON of time to tell ANYONE else about the comments. But he waits until the end of the game. Here's a question. What happens if the Canucks would have won?? Would Burrows have said anything?? Would it have made the sitation and different?? Burrows used this to be a Martyr in my opinion. He wanted to have it in his hip pocket and only used it when his team lost. If his team won, I don't think he says a word.
6) The culture of the NHL is to cover up?? Were racial slurs alleged by various players (Laraque, Brashear, etc) covered up?? Was the situation with this ref and Doan covered up?? Was the Avery Sloppy seconds thing covered up?? There is a significant difference between a cover up and dealing with something behind closed doors. Steroids in baseball is a cover up. This is not a cover up.
7)You make the assumption that Burrows is 100% accurate in everything he said, yet again. The only fact in this is that words were exchanged. No one has any idea what was said. For all we know, Auger could have said something like, 'You know you made me look bad the last time you played these guys," and that could have been it. From that, Burrows very easily could have extended any meaning he wanted from that. In that case, Burrows isn't lying at all. But was that the intention?? You don't know that. I don't know that. Burrow's doesn't know that. Only Auger knows that. All everyone else can do is assume.
I just find that one can't define fact from fiction based solely on Burrows comments. Everything after Burrows comments were searched and speculated upon. If Burrows says nothing, do you(or anyone else) even for a second tie two and two together and say that questionable calls were based on a hit from a month ago?? Nope. Not a chance.
|
| Guest7113 |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 12:20:34
@ Fat_elvis:
I was getting at the fact that there is no consequence for speaking to the media if a player disagreed with Burrows. That, to me, is enough to account for the fact that we see half a dozen guys give an opinion leaning the same way.
If you were a player that had no stake in the issue but disagreed, there would be no benefit for speaking up in support of Burrows. There would, however, be a high chance that you would be punished in a similar fashion because the NHL wants to make it clear that speaking publically about bad officiating is unacceptable - whether justified or not. That, to me, is enough to account for the lack of players voicing an opposing opinion. |
|
|
