| Author |
 Topic  |
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2010 : 16:45:43
|
Burrows isn't lying . . . and no one is starting a mob (although using your avatar as a reference point, FatElvis, you would fit in quite nicely).
What's wrong is wrong, and what's right is right.
Clearly, an investigation should have been and should still be conducted.
Clearly, there should be suspension with pay to Auger until the issue is resolved, just like any other investigation at any other work place.
And yes, perhaps the NHL was correct to fine Burrows . . . but if what I think is true - if Burrows is telling the truth about Auger - then they are punishing someone who is telling the truth.
The only reason the NHL fined him is negative publicity and not keeping silent and toeing the line.
To me, this is as far from a non-issue as you can get . . . it shows a system that SUPPORTS unprofessional behaviour and gross misconduct from it's officiating team. How much more integral can you get, other than a third party deciding games arbitrarily because of grudges held and threats given?!?
Anyone who doesn't think that calling the game correctly, and giving out correct punishments is not important is full of malarky.
That's for both Beans and FatElvis.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
 |
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 16:59:12
|
@ Fat_elvis:
It can (should) be expected that refs will make questionable calls, and some of them have more impact than others. We are in agreement regarding that fact.
When you work in a job that relies heavily on personal judgement like I do, you learn pretty quickly that the frequency of questionable decisions is often an accurate guage of an employee's skill.
The only reason a judge's decision is final in court is because they were appointed based on their qualifications, knowledge of regulation, and demonstrated good judgement. The regulatory authorities intervene when any of those criteria are called into question, don't they?
Refs should act in a way that prevents their judgement from being called into question. (Allegedly) speaking with a player in that manner is unacceptable because it gives a player an opportunity to do something like Burrows is doing here.
The way I see it, the replay doesn't prove one thing or another. Whether or not the play itself was legal, expressing intent to allow personal bias to affect decisions on the ice is enough to call all his decisions into question. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 17:08:23
|
It seems like every time I post here I can't get my thoughts together to form a coherent point. If there's one thing you should take away from my last point:
Lapses in judgement (read: personal bias) should be expected. It should be the exception, though, and not the rule. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 17:52:31
|
Give me a sec while I drag out the 5 gallon drum of petrol....
quote from Alex116;
"First, it seemed like Auger took a little longer to call it than maybe he should have?"
Perhaps he had to see if the contact had any impact on the play, and once he saw that the contact did indeed INTERFERE, with Ward's ability to continue with the play, he had no recourse but to then, raise his arm, and call the penalty when the play permitted the stoppage, standard stuff in my opinion, and actually giving Burrows the benefit of the doubt, had Ward not fallen, Auger may have let the play continue.
" BTW, the first penalty to Burrows (the dive) was absolutely correctly called. From what i see in the youtube clip, Burrows gets up off the ice after having fallen, Hamhuis's stick is at his side near where a lot of brutal hooking calls are made and Burrows pinches it to his body with his arm and goes down to make it look like a hook! Prob could have been called holding the stick too really but it doesn't matter. Auger got that one right for sure!"
Nuff said there....
Quoted from Slozo;
"Burrows isn't lying . . . "
....and my wife is a Playboy Bunny...unless you're here it could be the truth....same idea really, unless you have some sort of concrete evidence to support that it's bluster.
"What's wrong is wrong, and what's right is right.
Clearly, an investigation should have been and should still be conducted.
Clearly, there should be suspension with pay to Auger until the issue is resolved, just like any other investigation at any other work place."
If they watched the same clip I did, and I'm assuming they did, as it took me all of about 5 minutes to see it and call what I saw, they could have easily rendered the decision that the calls were correct and there was no need to do anything to Auger, except of course for that ALLEGED slander regarding his ALLEGED slanderous discussion with Burrows AND it's content, word for word, otherwise anything else is suppostion. In which case any mistake on the interpretation of the ALLEGED comments would not only cause any disciplinary action to be rescinded, but potential lawsuits regarding slander could be explored. I'm just taking a guess here, but I don't think it warranted all that.
"And yes, perhaps the NHL was correct to fine Burrows . . . but if what I think is true - if Burrows is telling the truth about Auger - then they are punishing someone who is telling the truth.
The only reason the NHL fined him is negative publicity and not keeping silent and toeing the line."
I do believe the fine was automatic as per the NHL's Rules and Guidelines regarding speaking out against offiicials. If I am wrong someone please correct me. If I am right Burrows has no one to blame but himself for the fine.
"Anyone who doesn't think that calling the game correctly, and giving out correct punishments is not important is full of malarky.
"
See, here's the thing, I think from the what I saw regarding the calls in question only, Auger DID call the game correctly. Guess that makes me ony about half-full malarky-wise. I can't speak for Beans tho! 
Guest7113 - hopefully my above replies explain my responses to your post, I believe, based on the provided clip, and ONLY, taking into consideration the penalties in question, that Auger did make the correct calls, and like you metioned, any INTERPRETATION of their pre-game discussion is ALLEGED.
-
What Burrows showed in just the clip that I viewed is that he also seems to have a streak of petulant arrogance. What Auger showed me, is that he isn't making the calls that ohters seem to think he was, they were both legitimate.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 18:20:17
|
My contention that Burrows isn't lying (and of course, it is just my opinion, but I will qualify it now) is based on over 15 years working in the security field, and having enough education in that area to be a cop a couple times over. I have a particular skill for telling if someone is lying or not, and of course, one can also apply all the facial ticks and clues one learns about in the security field - involuntary movements of the eyes to the up and left is a sure sign of lying, for instance, as it involuntarily accesses a part of your brain which employs creativity, as opposed to memory recall, which is up and right.
Interesting stuff once you look into it, anyways, but my point is: the sample to examine is excellent: I have a clear view of Burrows' face, we see him for a long time, he is asked many questions over again and has to retell the story, and he is in a somewhat relaxed position (on a bike) but is under enough duresss with the press around to forget about covering up these "giveaway" facial ticks eventually.
In my opinion, he is telling the complete truth, seems extremely earnest, and I even detect a hint of guilt at having to talk about it, almost as if he has had some kind of personal relationship perhaps with Auger, or at least been on friendly terms at some point. Circumstantially, he has nothing to gain other than disdain and distrust from players, media, and obviously every referee by saying this . . . and he has a lot to lose here, think about it. Yet, he doesn't seem so emotional as to lose sight of this, he just thinks it's an extremely important issue and has decided to lay it out there.
That's the way I see it, Fat Elvis, and that is a glimpse into why I hold the opinion that Burrows isn't lying. Just my opinion however, and you can take it for what it's worth.
I have no evidence, on the other hand, that you even have a girlfriend  So believing that she is a Playboy bunny seems silly then, as you have everything to gain by lying to us that your lady is smoking hot*
* please note that I already assume your gf is smoking hot, as ladies love guys with a great sense of humour, which you clearly have
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 19:04:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Circumstantially, he has nothing to gain other than disdain and distrust from players, media, and obviously every referee by saying this . . . and he has a lot to lose here, think about it. Yet, he doesn't seem so emotional as to lose sight of this, he just thinks it's an extremely important issue and has decided to lay it out there.
I think this sums it up best. For anyone who thinks Burrows fabricated this stuff, reread what Slozo points out in the above quote. I immediately thought he was telling the truth just simply by his reaction to the interference call.
Speaking of the interference call, Fat_Elvis, regardless of the stall in calling it, and i agree he might have waited to see the effect, it's still a terrible call. If Burrows had gone down there on what was obviously incidental contact (and very little at that), would he have gotten a diving penalty as well? C'mon, honestly, do you really think after watching that clip that that action warranted a call, regardless of whether or not either player went to the ice? If you really think it was anything but a horrible call, i call *insert Slozo word here*. I hate to bring up the "experts" again, but show me one guy, be it media, a coach, etc, who states that they feel the interference call was warranted and i'll be completely shocked . Trust me, i'll save you the time, there's none to be found. The call was ridiculous.
After seeing the call that was made, I get the feeling that Burrows was gonna be called for something the second anyone even brushed by him. Maybe coach AV shouldn't have had him out there?
As for the investigation, what'd we expect? C'mon, the NHL has a history of brushing incidents like this under the carpet! Look at the tampering charges that the Canucks claimed with the Leafs looking to sign the Sedins. Heard them (oh, oh, there's some of those "experts" again) talking on the radio about that "investigation". Apparently during that one, the Sedin's, their agent nor (can't remember the Leafs guy) were even contacted? Yeah, doesn't take an expert to figure out what sort of level of investigation the NHL goes to on these things. Let's throw a small fine out there and move on! Just did it again. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 19:18:21
|
I graciously concede that you have the experience to make an informed judgement on Burrows' statements. I would even go so far as to even agree that he believed he was telling the truth.
My only point with the clip to support it, was that, again, in my opinion, from what I saw in the clips, there was no evidence to justify Burrows' stance that Auger called those penalties as payback. I saw valid, arguable, but valid calls.
Had Burrows not put himself into positions that warranted penalties called against him, and therefore not had any penalties, would the alleged comments even be a concern with him? Obviously not.
As Beans pointed out, this is a guy who is good for 150+ PMs every year, it was inevitable he was going to get called for something. The clip shows him throwing a tantrum and freaking out after the first call, the dive, which most seem to be calling the right call. If it's the right call, why is he carrying on the way he did? Is he preparing for the after game theatrics already?
Had Burrows not whored himself out to the cameras, this whole topic could have been one of those urban myth type hockey stories, that only the insiders are privy to. By yapping to the cameras, he called attention to circumstances that really, from my view, were overanalyzed with a biased slant due to the alleged comments.
I still maintain that the calls made were justifiable, rendering any comments that Auger may or may not have made irrelevent in regards to his affecting the outcome of game, the Canucks did that all themselves.
And just for the record, my wife hasn't been my girlfriend for about 17 years, and she is smokin' hot!... Good thing love is blind....I'm smokin' not!!! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 19:36:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Circumstantially, he has nothing to gain other than disdain and distrust from players, media, and obviously every referee by saying this . . . and he has a lot to lose here, think about it. Yet, he doesn't seem so emotional as to lose sight of this, he just thinks it's an extremely important issue and has decided to lay it out there.
I think this sums it up best. For anyone who thinks Burrows fabricated this stuff, reread what Slozo points out in the above quote. I immediately thought he was telling the truth just simply by his reaction to the interference call.
Speaking of the interference call, Fat_Elvis, ..... I hate to bring up the "experts" again, but show me one guy, be it media, a coach, etc, who states that they feel the interference call was warranted and i'll be completely shocked. .............. The call was ridiculous.
Alex116,
Please forgive my paraphrasing of your post.
In regards to your reference to Slozo's statement, I agree there is a certain sense in what he is saying, what player would put(Sean Avery) themselves into a postion where(Sean Avery) their comments could ostracize(Sean Avery) and alienate them.
The interference call is what it is, debateable, you see terrible, | see justifiable. I don't need any 'experts', I just see what I saw. I'll gladly concede to your perception of it, if you'll do me the same courtesy, it is a debateable call either way.
And let's not keep forgetting, the interference call isn't what cost the Canucks the game, it was Sedin taking a bad tripping call, totally avoidable penalty, lazy reach around rather than continuing to move his legs with check, elementary hockey rule.
Man, who do you Canuck fans think you are with all these lame excuses for the loss? Leaf fans?
(I do hope you realize the last comment was tongue in cheek)
|
|
|
|
Guest4627
( )
|
Posted - 01/13/2010 : 20:07:49
|
@ Fat_elvis:
Don't get me wrong - I'm an Oilers fan. My opinion of the situation actually runs contrary to my burning desire for the Canucks to lose.
That being said, I hope you consider my ample experience as a fan and concede to the fact that I've become good at making excuses for losing. <3.
~Guest7113 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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. I really wish in fact that this happened to the Leafs or any other team for that matter. I know i'm coming off as biased as a 'Nucks fan and that's not what i want. I truly believe i'd be backing any player on any team if i saw this same thing happen elsewhere. I love the fact that guys like Slozo are sticking up for a guy who they prob don't even like as an opposing player?
Your point about Sedin being the one to actually cost them the game is somewhat valid in that yes, it was the penalty that gave the Preds the pp. You do have to realize though, the other ref called that one (not Auger) and if not for the "debatable" call on Burrows, it'd have been a 4 on 4 instead of the 4 on 3. Auger's call on Burrows was as crippling as it not only cost the Canucks their pp chance, it contributed to the deadly 4 on 3 that ensued.
I certainly don't like to make excuses for losses, but with my view on the debatable call, i have to feel that at least one point was swiped by the zebra! If i really wanted to make excuses, i'd have to blame tonights loss to Minny on the beating that the Canucks took in the fight department! I didn't even see the entire game, but saw enough of the 3rd to agree with comments i heard that we really need more than Rypien! We need a solid, big guy, who can drop the gloves when needed and play 13-15 mins a night on the 3rd line! Our tough guys are not nearly true heavyweights and that monster who pounded Bolduc was clearly just that, a monster! If her were green, he'd have been Shrek! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 05:08:28
|
Sean Avery says stuff to get under people's skin - and he has a long history of doing it.
What history does Alexandre Burrows have for public statements? To my knowledge (and this may be because I am east coast and therefore do not see a lot of Vancouver games past the first period), Burrows has about zero history in regards to public statements where he is accusing others of wrong-doing. We would have already heard about it anyways, as the NHL would have first tried to dig up every single thing they could to cover their tracks. The NHL is run, after all, by a bunch of slimy lawyers, and the tactyic is always smear, smear, smear, deny.
See FatElvis, my issue isn't with going over in minute detail the calls that shouldn't or should have been made that game . . . it's going over the evidence that this referee was utterly unfair, biased, and ridiculously unprofessional, all of which severely altered the game's outcome.
Making a statement about completely unprofessional behaviour that should never happen and should be investigated after the game is not "whoring yourself out to the cameras" in the least. That is a ridiculously unfair statement.
When something like this happens and it's a "he said, she said" situation with little in the way of hard evidence . . . it is ALWAYS INVESTIGATED. How hard is it to get a french lip-reader to examine the grainy video of Burrows being approached by Auger in the pre-game skate? Has Auger been questioned about that, and asked what did he say? What is Auger's official statement on the matter? Etc etc . . . I have conducted many an investigation myself into these kinds of issues, getting HR involved (in this case it would be the player's union, which should be in stalwart defence of Burrows - where are they?) every time it happens, and usually they involve as much investigation as possible, then a lengthy interview with both parties, where we try to substantiate the truth and trip up any of the lies, much the same way a police interrogation goes when grilling a suspect you are not sure is involved.
For instance . . . the first thing I would do is examine with a fine tooth comb the video of Auger going to ?Burrows in the pregame skate, examine conversation length, from a lip reader try to see if any words can be discerned, etc. Then, after Auger is asked what exactly he said to him then, it can be compared to his actions on the tape, etc. Then you go back to Auger and say "well, you say you said this and this, but on the tape, you speak for a longer time than that as you can see . . . can you remember your exact words?"etc etc
To Fat Elvis, Beans, and any others who contend that Burrows should have kept his mouth shut:
Do you think this alleged incident by ref Auger should be properly investigated?
And if not, why?
Do you think refs should be above all laws of conduct?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest1758
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 07:23:18
|
How do you expect the league to investigate this any further? You would basically need cameras that could zoom in accurately enough to read Auger's lips to determine what he is saying to Burrows and even that wouldn't likely stand. At this point the league doesn't have concrete evidence of what was said in that discussion before the National Anthem. How sweet would it have been if Burrows was Mic'd up for that game eh?
Either way, don't expect there to be any further investigation but don't think that this incident will be forgotten altogether |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 07:55:06
|
NHL Stands Behind Referee In Dispute With Canucks' Burrows
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:50:39 +0000
AHN Sports Staff
New York, NY, United States (AHN) - NHL Senior Executive Vice President of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell issued the following statement regarding Alexandre Burrows recent dispute with a league official.
"The National Hockey League will not tolerate the personal nature of the comments Mr. Burrows directed at Referee Auger or the fact that he brought into question the integrity of both the official and the game.
"We have determined that Mr. Burrows' account of Referee Auger's comments to him before the game, and specifically Burrows' suggestion that these comments indicated bias against the player or the Vancouver team, cannot be substantiated.:
"While Referee Auger engaged the player in a brief conversation prior to the opening face-off, I firmly believe that nothing inappropriate was said and that Referee Auger's intentions were beyond reproach."
The $2,500 fine Burrows was assessed goes to the NHL Foundation.
On separate plays during the third period of a 3-2 Vancouver loss to the Nashville Predators Jan. 10, Referee Stephane Auger assessed Burrows minor penalties for diving, interference and unsportsmanlike conduct.
After the game, Burrows made the following comments to the media: "It was personal. It started in warm up before the anthem. The ref (Auger) came over to me and said I made him look bad in Nashville on the Smithson hit (during a game December 8, 2009). He said he was going to get me back tonight and he did his job in the third . . ."
Article © AHN - All Rights Reserved
(Emphasis mine)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like how he starts out saying that nothing can be substantiated, then goes on to say that he firmly believes nothing inappropriate was said. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 08:59:13
|
Hmmm....thanks to Guest7113 for the update, you saved me a lengthy rebuttal...
By using 'I', Campbell is concurring that while nothing can be substantiated, as head disciplinarian, his opinion is warranted and justifies the support for the decision. It may not be the perfect solution, but in the world of bureaucracy, it, in this situation, is the one that counts.
To quickly answer Slozo, I never said it shouldn't be investigated, I only stated that perhaps it was done to the satisfaction of those in charge, as the press release supports. They just didn't see it as the injustice others have, fair enough, that's called democracy.
Anyone know where I can get an application for an NHL executive position? We seem to think alike...
Hope that doesn't make me a 'slimy lawyer type', I'm just a middle aged hockey fan... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 09:39:16
|
It makes me shake my head in disbelief when I got through a short blurb on what COULD/SHOULD have been done in an investigation of this kind, and then a guest says right after that they don't know what the NHL could have done. How do I expect the league to investigate this further?!? 
. . . I JUST EXPLAINED IT IN DETAIL!
As the official statement by Colin Campbell shows, there was no investigation whatsoever. Campbell even says that he believes . . . well, why does he believe Auger, and not Burrows? Burrows made a public statement and went into great length to verbally substantiate his allegations . . . has the league interviewed Auger so that he can verbally explain himself against these allegations? No, they haven't . . . instead, they have chosen to believe one person's word over another.
Making these flimsy excuses like "we couldn't tell from the video what he said" is the most hilarious thing ever, considering that they already took the ref at his word and obviously ignored the serious allegation made by Burrows and treated it as slander rather than as a whistle-blowing allegation (no pun intended).
Trust a person like myself who has undertaken dozens and dozens of investigations like this, where someone is accusing someone else of saying or doing something with no concrete proof . . . an investigation is always involved, the worker's union is always involved if it's a serious case, suspensions with pay usually happen until the investigation is concluded, and many interviews and conversations are conducted to substantiate stories by both parties.
And to cap off Colin Campbell's ridiculous statement about believing Auger (without interviewing him) and having faith that nothing inappropriate was said . . . did he bother to look up Auger's accountability record re: Shane Doan?
No matter what the result, Auger should have been investigated.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 09:41:06
|
Wow, this has gotten deep. Far too deep for my backwoods brain to get into.
Ultimately, to me this is a perfect example of three sides to every story. Burrow's side, Auger's side, and then the truth, somewhere in the middle.
Let's not forget that this Auger fella has never been in the NHL good books. After then Doan incident, the guy has never reffed a played off game (according to a report I watched on TV) and I would bet this year will not be the year he starts. In fact, I would bet huge sums that Auger will not be reffing at all in the NHL after this season.
Personally, I believe that this situation is now blown completely out of proportion. I believe that this Auger guy did say something to Burrows. But, I also think Burrows is being more than a bit of a Martyr in all of this. Why would Burrows not go to his coach or his captain after the statements were made and tell someone at that point?? Why wait until after the game to tell the media about it? Personally, I think Colin Campbell has a lot tougher sitiation to deal with if Burrow stay something to Alain Vigneault during the warm up. That way, the air could have been cleared or at least brought forward. Vigneault could have called both refs over to challenge them on it at that point. He could have told his GM or what ever else.
I mean, if this is such a huge deal, why has Vancouver not lodged a formal complaint to the NHL?? Nothing came from the team as far as I am aware. It all stemmed from a guy yapping to the camera after the game.
This entire situations changes for me if it's handled through the proper channels and not through the media. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 09:52:50
|
I kept kinda quiet on this one because I dont watch Burrows play very often and didnt know he was refered to as a chippy player who has a record of embelishing a penalty or diving. Since then there has been a lot of discussion about how his actions are reprehensible.
When a guy is hooking you from behind, the is no call and you dive, to make a point so the referee will either have to make a call or no call, that is borderline. Grabbing a guys stick as you pass him if you are not being hooked is juvenile and should be penalized. So i got no problem with calling penalties against him for those infractions. The plays as review in full show enough reasons for the penalties to be called against Burrow's, so I figure no issue.
The comments from Burrows prospective seemed harsh considering the month between games and the personal nature of the comments, which then affected the team not the individual. However that is Burrows prospective and would suggest the referee may have said something like "last game you made me look bad with your embellishing. This game be warned I will be watching you closely and if you give me an excuse I will make you pay". Looking at it from this prospective I'd suggest it was not personal but a warning he would should be extra careful of his conduct during this game as he was under the microscope and already suspect.
For me I dont see the personal nature of the comment, if it was said as such and only a juvenile, chippy player, who tries to play every card he has would take it as such. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 01/14/2010 09:54:34 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 09:53:39
|
I sure have a lot to say for a guy who said he was done. You guys are just far too compelling for me to get out of the way on this now.
I have just a quick question for man Slozo.
Your statement was
To me, this is as far from a non-issue as you can get . . . it shows a system that SUPPORTS unprofessional behaviour and gross misconduct from it's officiating team. How much more integral can you get, other than a third party deciding games arbitrarily because of grudges held and threats given?!?
Anyone who doesn't think that calling the game correctly, and giving out correct punishments is not important is full of malarky.
I never once said that I agree with ref blatantly disregarding the rules and not calling the game correctly. But in this case, these calls were both borderline. Some agree they were penalties, others do not. Specifically the diving call but also the interference call. One might also want to take a look back at the tape and see that Auger had the net, the goalie, the Pred's Defensemen, and the player obstructed in his line of sight when he made the call. Is it impossible to think that the ref simply made a bad call when he sees a player fall to the ice while the other player skated untouched to the front of the net???
(And quickly to the point of the one poster who said the two refs should have gotten together and change the call, that NEVER happens during the game. )
I am reminded of a time where McGough(historically known for calling unique penalties against the Oilers) called a play dead and disallowed a goal for the Oilers in the dying seconds of a game against the Stars because he lost sight of the puck. However, the puck was clearly free and the other ref was in clear sight of the puck. I can't recall the exact outcome. I know the game when to overtime but I don't recall if the Oilers won or lost. The outcome is irrelevant as the call still changed the game from an Oilers win to an overtime game.
I don't believe the actions of this one referee, which I personally believe are justified, produce the conclusion that the system supports unprofessional behavior and gross misconduct of the officials.
And if we are talking about unproffession behavior and gross misconduct, maybe we should look no further than the dive artist known as Alex Burrows. I still believe in Karma. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:14:02
|
The idea that an investigation wasn't launched is (I think) the part with which Slozo and I take issue.
If someone calls in an anonymous bomb threat is called in on a major building, would you avoid an investigation just because the tipster didn't provide specifics? That would be ludicrous.
If someone makes a serious allegation regarding the good judgement of a person whose job hinges on that fact, it should be investigated as a matter of procedure, regardless of the opinions of Burrows, Campbell, Bettman, or whomever might be involved. What's the worst that can happen?
Say you investigate and find that Auger is a stand-up individual. Good on him. That's when you make your "I wholeheartedly believe nothing shifty was going on" speech. File it under S for Shredding and let the issue die.
What Slozo and I are getting at is that the lack of an investigation regarding a serious issue that could potentially expose corruption among referees passively endorses the practice. |
|
|
|
Guest4803
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:14:45
|
So lets just say a similar scenario like this happened in the court of law. There is a Judge who found someone not guilty in a previous trial but in the end it turns out he more then likely the person was guilty in the end. Just so happens that same judge gets the same person in court a few years later this time its obvious hes innocent but because he made the judge look bad in the last case the judge holds a grudge and finds him guilty and the person is sentenced? is that ok because this guy had karma looking for him?
Bettman threw this thing under the rug so quick he is the George Bush of Hockey |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:34:17
|
@ Guest4803:
Your analogy suggests (if we are drawing direct parallels) that Burrows was completely in-the-right. I think fat_elvis has demonstrated the the calls Auger made are, at the very worst, borderline. That on its own does not call into question the integrity of the official. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:35:59
|
| The last to points are making this a bigger issue than what it is. It was not a bomb threat, therefore no need to investigate. No law was broken and it really only was a borderline call on a suspect player which may or may not have been a deciding factor in a game. You are taking whatever comment was made and putting personality to it because a player who has a history of embelishing and cheating didn't like it. I think it sounds like the boy who cried wolf. If I was the Canucks and I was playing late in a game, I might think twice about sending out Burrows as it may cost them a close game. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:42:40
|
@ JOSHUACANADA:
Where do you draw the line, then? How serious does an accusation have to be before the league stops ignoring it? What if Burrows had said Auger planned to get him back by making questionable calls and killing Burrows' beloved family pet? No? How about if the accusation was regarding questionable calls and skipping out on an $18,000 restaurant bill? |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:48:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4803
So lets just say a similar scenario like this happened in the court of law. There is a Judge who found someone not guilty in a previous trial but in the end it turns out he more then likely the person was guilty in the end. Just so happens that same judge gets the same person in court a few years later this time its obvious hes innocent but because he made the judge look bad in the last case the judge holds a grudge and finds him guilty and the person is sentenced? is that ok because this guy had karma looking for him?
Bettman threw this thing under the rug so quick he is the George Bush of Hockey
His name was OJ Simpson. Only difference is it was a different judge righting a wrong.
And let's not get crazy here. No law was broken, no people were hurt. This is a one word against the other in a game.
However, let's explore this for a second. Slozo has stated he has some top shelf skills in telling if someone is lying or not. He has said he believe Burrows is telling the truth. So what happens if, using the same unbiased trainging and skills, Slozo watched Auger make a statement that he said nothing of the sort and that his words were not malicious in any way, shape or form. Just for the sake of arguement, Slozo also states that Auger did nothing to indicate he was being dishonest.
Then what???
I don't think the NHL had any other recourse with this. Burrow had to get fined because openly critizising any ref or the league by any player, coach, GM, etc is against the rules. Period. But how could Colin Campbell punish Auger based on what Burrow said?? He simply can't. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 10:52:41
|
@ Beans:
They did not investigate the issue. If they investigated the issue, determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegations that Auger made those statements, and took no action as a result, I would be 100% satisfied. Investigation translates to potential punishment if someone is found to be in-the-wrong. No investigation, conversely, means no potential punishment regardless of what actually happened. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:07:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7113
@ Beans:
They did not investigate the issue. If they investigated the issue, determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegations that Auger made those statements, and took no action as a result, I would be 100% satisfied. Investigation translates to potential punishment if someone is found to be in-the-wrong. No investigation, conversely, means no potential punishment regardless of what actually happened.
Really?? No investigation??
http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/alex-burrows-stephane-auger-ref-investigated-burrows-call-2555384.html
Here is a story saying the NHL was investigating.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=305844
Here is another saying that Colin Campbell held a hearing with Alex Burrows.
Need more?? What can be investigated??? Burrows said one thing, Auger obviously said something completely different. Has anyone else stepped forward to say they heard what was said?? Did Burrows go to his coach or captain after it was said??
It's pretty hard to do much more of an investigation outside of speaking with both parties, which appears has happened. Maybe I am missing something, but I can't find any media report saying there was no investigation. If they are out there, I would like to read them because that would put a different spin on this whole thing. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:14:53
|
Eh, that's good enough for me. I was operating under the assumption that the NHL did not conduct an investigation - which was the status as of Bob McKenzie's blog post yesterday afternoon.
Apparently I haven't been keeping abreast of the issue. I'm satisfied. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:30:18
|
Everyone hang on! I've contacted Gil Grissom(only cause I can't get used to Larry Fishburne), and the rest of the CSI crew to come and do their forensic magic! They always get to the truth!
I mean really, what determines when an investigation is conducted to whatever level of intensity that would be considered satisfactory? Waterboarding? Bamboo shoots and fingernails?
Hmmm....maybe it was as simple as Colin Campbell talking to both parties, hearing differences in their stories, and because it's heresay, he was unable to levy any other decision than what was. Maybe the calls in question weren't as questionable as some would like to think, I've even got some of you thinking any of the calls in question could be justifiable, again removing that whole, 'he made the calls to get back at me' angle. Automatic fine for Burrows regardless. No further punitive recourse for either.
Burrows can't even get the support of his fellow players on this,(according to a previous post), much less the NHLPA or their legal reps.
Good call Campbell, regardless of what anyone's opinions are, it's always going to be heresay........can we get back to hockey now?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:30:33
|
quote:
Ultimately, to me this is a perfect example of three sides to every story. Burrow's side, Auger's side, and then the truth, somewhere in the middle.
That's assuming that Burrows fudged the truth . . . and assuming Auger's side as unnecessary to say. You know, sometimes one person is actually telling the truth . . .
quote:
Let's not forget that this Auger fella has never been in the NHL good books. After then Doan incident, the guy has never reffed a played off game (according to a report I watched on TV) and I would bet this year will not be the year he starts. In fact, I would bet huge sums that Auger will not be reffing at all in the NHL after this season.
Which of course begs the question . . . why the instant "belief" by Colin Campbell for this guy? Why no investigation? Why no outrage from the player's union?
quote:
Personally, I believe that this situation is now blown completely out of proportion. I believe that this Auger guy did say something to Burrows. But, I also think Burrows is being more than a bit of a Martyr in all of this.
What sort of thing do you think Auger said to Burrows that is being blown way out of proportion? What sort of proportional response is required by fans who see that quite possibly the refs can totally change the outcomes of games because of a personal grudge against a certain player?
quote:
Why would Burrows not go to his coach or his captain after the statements were made and tell someone at that point?? Why wait until after the game to tell the media about it?
Why would he go to his coach or captain, hunh? What the heck would they do about it if neither was willing to stick their neck out and risk the NHL's wrath? When was Burrows supposed to say anything about it . . . during the game? In between periods? Not sure what your point is here . . . he told the media right after the game, right after the third period's string of penalties, because that's right after the end of the incident!
quote:
Personally, I think Colin Campbell has a lot tougher sitiation to deal with if Burrow stay something to Alain Vigneault during the warm up. That way, the air could have been cleared or at least brought forward. Vigneault could have called both refs over to challenge them on it at that point. He could have told his GM or what ever else.
A tougher situation? He'd have no situation! lol The culture in the NHL is to cover up, never tell, keep it in the dressing room, etc. It would have gone nowhere.
quote:
I mean, if this is such a huge deal, why has Vancouver not lodged a formal complaint to the NHL?? Nothing came from the team as far as I am aware. It all stemmed from a guy yapping to the camera after the game.
Vancouver is beholden to the NHL. It should be the player's union that steps up to the plate, not management, who will always side with the NHL. The GM said the diplomatic thing in this case, but of course, nothing will be done. And no, apparently it may have stemmed from a threat made by a ref towards a player during the pre-game skate. We already have footage of the ref talking to the player then, at least partially substantiating Burrows claim and pointing out unprofessional behaviour. So at the very least, it came from a referee's unprofessional behaviour, actually, and was brought to light by a substantial allegation from a player.
quote:
This entire situations changes for me if it's handled through the proper channels and not through the media.
Oh, it would change the outcome alright . . . no one would know, and nothing would be done, and nothing would change.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
nux-suk
Top Prospect
41 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:36:53
|
| burrows....the worlds biggest diver, and can now add "rat" to his resume. that POS got what he deserves. His performance in the original Smithson hit/suspensio/overturned suspension, was one of the most disgraceful moments in NHL. GO PLAY SOCCER BURROWS. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:39:57
|
@ Fat_elvis:
How am I to interpret the article I posted above? There is no mention in Campbell's statement of an investigation of any kind, although it did make mention of unsubstantiated support for Auger as an individual beyond reproach. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:46:41
|
No one is saying Burrows fudge the truth. There is truth to his comments. What is more than likely he took a warning made by a referee and turned it into a personal vendetta.
The Vancouver Canucks were injured as a result of this play not Burrows. The players union has no responsibility here. The Vancouver Canucks if feel slighted by this referee should be making a complaint to the NHL not a player complaint.
Being that the team and the team captain havent taken this to higher channels means to me that Burrows is alone in assuming it was a personal agenda. Being that the league held a hearing, listened to both party's, agrees with the referee and fined Burrows means that the issue has been dealt with case closed. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:49:01
|
@ nux-suk:
A $2,500 fine for inappropriate comments to the media translates to 0.125% of his annual salary. Karma must think his diving wasn't very important in the grand scheme of things.
@ fat_elvis:
I don't think player support is an accurage guage for injustice in this situation. If there's a punishment for publically speaking out against officiating staff, why would someone like Sidney Crosby back Burrows? What is there to gain? |
|
|
|
Guest1757
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:56:18
|
Hopefully those articles will help Slozo sleep a little better at night as well. Despite all his so-called 'tell signs' that Burrows was being honest, those wouldn't formally hold up in any sort of deep investigation...but I'm sure he knows that with all his experience.
The fact of the matter is, like Beans has already said, Burrows did nothing about it when Auger allegedly told him that he'd make him pay. You'd think when someone makes a statement like that to you at least tell a team mate or someone next to you what just happened and what the ref just said but he clearly waited until the game was over and he took a couple of costly penalties to tell his 'story' to the media.
There really isn't anything else that can be investigated here as it is one person's word against another and that just doesn't give enough to have the issue looked into further |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:59:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7113
@ Fat_elvis:
How am I to interpret the article I posted above? There is no mention in Campbell's statement of an investigation of any kind, although it did make mention of unsubstantiated support for Auger as an individual beyond reproach.
Your article is dated Jan 14th. Beans reference articles are dated Jan 12th and they state that an investigation is under way. Not picking at you, but just want to ensure the timelines are straight, sounds like there was an investigation BEFORE today's release. |
|
|
|
Guest7113
( )
|
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 12:05:53
|
@ Fat_elvis:
My other source of information was McKenzie's blog post on the issue. As of yesterday at 3pm, McKenzie's opinion was that an investigation should be conducted based on the severity of the allegations.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the topic and I've clearly been proven incorrect. None of the articles I've read on the issue (and I took Beans' word for it re: the ones he posted) have mentioned the fact that an investigation was being conducted. |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 12:11:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7113
@ fat_elvis:
I don't think player support is an accurage guage for injustice in this situation. If there's a punishment for publically speaking out against officiating staff, why would someone like Sidney Crosby back Burrows? What is there to gain?
I guess I would ask you the same thing, if there is nothing to be gained, why would players comment at all?
Yet, this is what was posted by Beans earlier;
(quote)
"During the Oilers Connected Pregame where were interviews from Craig Conroy, Robin Regher, Adam Pardy, and Sidney Crosby. They all said that they though Burrows was a litle less than professional by going to the media and that if there was a beef there, taking it to the NHL through the proper channels is the right way to do it. Conroy said something along the line as you live by the sword you die by the sword. Regher said that as a professional you have to play through that kind of thing.'
Sounds like a bit of gauge on their opinions of Burrows' actions if nothing else. And again, as you stated, if they didn't have anything to gain, by so obviously taking that stance, why did they?
Again not picking at you, you bring very insightful thoughts, deserving of a response. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 01/14/2010 14:41:09 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Alex Burrows: one goal short, ref's revenge? 
