"It was personal. It started in warmup, before the anthem," Burrows said of Auger's penalty calling. "(Augers) came over to me and he said I made him look bad in Nashville on the (Jerred) Smithson hit and he said he was going to get me back tonight."
"When Smithson hit me from sideways and he (Auger) said, "I saw the replay, you had your head up, you weren't really hurt and you made me look bad so I'm going to get you back tonight," and he did, and he cost us two points."
"He did his job in the third, I think. He got me on a diving call I didn't think was diving. He got me on an interference call that I had no idea how he could call that. It changed the game. It sucks right now for teammates who are battling 60 minutes to win a hockey game because every two points are so huge, are so important. And because of a guy's ego, it just blows everything out of proportion and the refs - they're making bad calls and the fans are paying for it and we're paying for it."
"He comes into the game and he knows he's going to make a call against me to give Nashville an advantage and I don't think that's fair for my teammates and for the fans," said Burrows.
"After my second penalty, I skated by him and he said, 'If you say a word, I'm going to kick you out,' so I didn't say a word because I still thought we could come back and win the game. But with three seconds left and a faceoff outside the zone, I thought I could tell him what I thought about him."
"I think he should stay out for the rest of the year making calls like that that are making us look bad. Every two points are so important in this league. We just blew two points because of his officiating tonight."
7 months ago
Sean Zandberg
285 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Besides...
Yes, a slight resemblance…maybe a weird evil universe one.
Mr Bean’s douchy twin.
Great pic BTW…
Thats a real pic of him? I can see the douchiness just around the eyes and that smug smirk.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I already had a face-based hatred for him when he was reacting to Sedin’s arguing right at the end of the game. The way he did it was somehow, even without sound, totally infuriating.
I think, based on amateur lipreading ability, that he was saying “I heard you.”
"He'll play, you know he'll play. He'll play on crutches if he has to... and he'll play at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday night! This game is over!"
I watched the game, the calls looked pretty weak. I just watched the highlights and both calls against Burr were terrible. None worse than the ‘interference’ call where Burrows barely even touched the Nashville player let alone interfere with him.
If these allegations are true then this whole game was complete bullshit. But I would suspect Burrows is going to get in trouble, I’d be surprised if he walks away without a fine/suspension.
I actually thought the Canucks answered the Predators pretty well tonight, a much better effort than in Calgary. They battled them hard but I admit they did lack finish. I was expecting OT but a 4 on 3 PP really was a game changer. It’s sad when the refs become the story, but seriously those calls on Burr were horseshit.
I thought the Canucks came out a bit flat, however there were some flashes of intensity and pressure throughout the game. It seemed like they were a little “off” on some plays where they are usually solid. Like passing and the defensemen keeping the puck in the offensive zone.
The reffing was absolutely terrible. The worse reffed NHL game I can remember. After the great reffing in the Calgary game (they realized the playoff atmosphere at let them play), this game looked like it had refs from another league.
Although Burrows remarks were unprofessional, I’m glad he pointed it out. It’s not like he was complaining about all refs. He said that they do a great job. He just had an issue with how Auger augmented the game for what Burrows thought was personal influence. And it did seem that way. I’m not making excuses for the Canucks loss, because they didn’t have the best game either, but that Auger’s reffing was absolutely TERRIBLE and the Canucks would have got at least a single point had their not been a 5-3.
Did you see the interference and diving penalties on Burrows? Auger should be fired. Seriously.
wow..
that was efficient.
However, the league’s gotta crack down on Burrows, I wonder how much of a suspension he’s going to get, which might hurt the team even more, since Burrow’s been white-hot in the last couple of days.
The league doesn’t need to crack down on players that point out this sort of bullshit in reffing. They need to crack down on the refs that pull this. They can’t have this sort of shit happening if they want the league’s popularity to grow (in the US).
Refs need to be held accountable, and (to outside eyes) they never are.
This is assuming Burr’s retelling is accurate, of course.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 9:02 AM PST up reply actions
The league doesn’t need to crack down on players that point out this sort of bullshit in reffing
This will never happen in Bettman’s authoritarian universe.
by Bobby Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions
This actually falls on disciplinarian Campbell.
If you ask me, he’s the worst for this league of the higher ups.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
True, but regrettably, “Bettman will be heavily involved” (see the Sportsnet article at the bottom).
They will deal will Burrows publicly, as they should, and the ref will be dealt with internally. The thing is, how on Earth is Burrows going to prove these accusations? It’s he said, she said. The ref will deny, deny, deny and nothing will come of it. Burrows should not have been allowed to address the media. In these types of situations it is better to keep your mouth shut and then go to the league. They will take you much more seriously in that scenario than they will after you just finished embarrassing them for 5 minutes. End of the day though. Gotta find a way to get the 2 points.
What makes this even worse is when you juxtapose it with the OT situation against Calgary when one of the refs told Louie that he didn’t call what was an obvious penalty to Pheneuf because he (the ref) didn’t want to decide the game.
So, on the one hand Ref A swallows his whistle and incorrectly doesn’t make the penalty call, and tonight Ref B illegitimately hands the Preds a couple of power plays, which decides the game.
by east_van_joe on Jan 12, 2010 1:14 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
just to add to this. It even far worse the Pred game because we got nothing a least if you get screwed in overtime you get to keep the loser point. The lack of loser points could mean we miss the post season. What went down here last night was serious and could cost the fans of the Canucks dearly.
Not sure what the Canucks can do other than swallow hard and do everything they can get into the Refs good books- that means no diving and no whining. I know every team does it but the league officials have vendetta against only the Canucks. So that change the situation.
Wonder what, if anything, Gillis will do in regards to Luongo’s (Calgary) and Burrows’ (Nashville) discussions with the refs and the actions the refs did and didn’t do.
by Bobby Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
The whole “I didn’t call it cause I don’t want to decide the game” argument is absolutely ludicrous. The Ref is never “deciding” the game by correctly applying the laws of the game. In that scenario, that correct application of the laws of the game by a ref which results in a penalty late in a game, the player (See Phaneuf) is the one who broke the rules and took a penalty. If that ensuing power play results in the GWG then the “players” did in fact “decide” the game. They decided it by taking a dumb penalty. If the laws of the sport are not applied correctly, ie not calling an obvious penalty late in a game, then the Refs are in fact helping to “decide” the game by changing the rules mid-game.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The sad thing is even if Burrows is 100% correct, Burrows will be the one getting the fine and Augers will receive no punishment. imo this is just as bad as the ref in the NBA fixing games by purposely making bad calls against a certain team.
Absolutely terrible calls this game. The league should be embarassed by this sort of act. However, I’m fully expecting them to back the refs calls. It’s really sad that there’s no accountability for the refs even when they are making blatantly bad calls.
The ref’s disciplinary system is atrocious. They will protect their refs regardless of the situation. They are completely incapable of admitting they fucked up, which destroys their credibility.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 9:03 AM PST up reply actions
Auger is skating on thin ice
Hi everybody! I discovered this blog back in November and this is my first post. After waiting 5 or 6 years since my last visit to GM Place, I took my wife to see this game tonight and this had to be the one! We were not happy with the result, of course, but it was a memorable game that will be talked about for a long time (as in “it won’t be forgotten”). It doesn’t matter what Stephane Auger said or didn’t say to Alex Burrows before the game. He was caught on tape talking to Burrows. From what should be the league point of view, he had no business even approaching Burrows, given the prior history between him. If Burrows was an assistant captain then a ref might have some game business to communicate. If Auger had something friendly to say his timing was really bad. This action on his part could only give the appearance of trying to bully a player. What was he thinking? Just for this indiscretion alone he should be suspended given what happened in the game. If it could be proven or if he later admits to the league that he said half of what Burrows alleges, then Auger should be fired.
Here we have a player who last week was the toast of the league and this week he’s plunged into this situation. I just hope the Canucks will stand behind him 100% and insist on a complete investigation.
Great Post Uncle Phil...nice first one!
Its sad that he took his power and abused it. Burrows also said that Auger would not even allow him and the Sedins to skate around during a break as is “de rigeur” most any other time.
The Province quotes AV as giving support, and I thinkI heard of Gillis doing the same thing to “send Alex’s comments to the NHL”. They aren’t doing that to get him suspended, to be sure.
Should be interesting. An official has to be pretty egregious to get in trouble.
But this may qualify.
BTW Sean…I have to disagree. The Canucks carried the play a great percentage of five on five, and it took a four on three on the third of all horrible calls on the Canucks in the third.
Of a tie game they were, if nothing else, carrying the play in.
The calls on Mitchell and Henrik in the third were suspect to say the least…but had less of a stench than the Burrows interference call. That was a “phantom” call to end all phantom calls. The fact that it came four seconds after LaRue at least tried to even the game up is further proof that Steven Auger cannot be trusted to referee an NHL game again without some form of punishment.
It was an overt act, and together with his call on Henrik, malicious to ensure that the Predators got a break.
Phil, you were there, so tell me. To me, it looked like the Preds realized they were getting the calls and went down pretty easy when they had the chance. Ward is 6’2" and 215 lbs. He skated into Henrik’s stick and gave Auger an opportunity that he was only too happy to take advantage of.
Burr’ is right. That is wrong.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Dan,
If you’re right about LaRue trying to mitigate the damage … either he knew what was up from the way Auger was calling the game, or perhaps he overheard or was informed beforehand by Auger about what he, Auger, was planning to do.
Big if.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Or, as evidenced by the hooking call on Henrik in the first and the roughing call on Ellis in the second, the Refs were just having a stinker?
The interference call on Burr was more than a “stinker.”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Watch
the interview just minutes after the game and ask yourself if that looks like he made it up? Put that together with the fact that the ref did indeed have a motive, did indeed “chat” with Burr pregame, and did indeed fcuk Burr over late in a tie game right when Burr was in position to possibly score not only his 3d hatty in 4 games, but also the game winner (something that Auget must have been seethiing at the possibility of) and I think we can all put 2 and 2 together and make 4 here.
by yoata on Jan 12, 2010 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
good point…on CSI they have sent men to the gas chamber with just as much coincidental evidence….
Where is Gil Grissom or Horatio Cane when you need them?
Or, maybe, because Head Office is NYC, …good ol’ Mac’
I hear he is a hockey fan!
LOL
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Well I am glad you aren’t a judge. That’s all I will say.
by Section 312 on Jan 13, 2010 12:17 AM PST up reply actions
here is the evidence
youtube clip of the phantom penalty.
by runningquicklynowhere on Jan 13, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
That is evidence of a bad call. I have already said about a hundred times now that that was a terrible call. Where is the evidence it was pre-meditated?
by Section 312 on Jan 14, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I’ve noticed Canucks fans LOVE a good conspiracy theory. Calgary put their farm team in Abbotsford to undermine the Canucks?
Conspiracy? No, we said the opposite, that LaRue was NOT in on anything.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
LaRue is savvy and veteran enough to have known EXACTLY what was happening. The fact that he tried to make it fair is a good thing, not a bad one.
Lets just say that I think his game report and Auger;s will be pretty different when they fall on Campbell’s desk.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Old debate. Make-up calls are accepted by most fans when a ref obviously blows a call and knows it right away. But a vendetta is a diff thing entirely.
As for PROOF, we can all see the video of Auger coming up to Burr beforehand. Hopefully, a video and a good lip-reader will confirm the rest.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Burrows vs Auger
i was at the game, and i saw what burrows was referring to. I found it kind of interesting that a ref was skating next to burrows for a full lap around (i dont go to games much, so i dont know if these types of things happen a lot) I dont know what was said, but it does fit in with what burrows was saying in the interview. but man, it was frustrating watching that game live.
Sigh
Bigtime fail by the Canucks staff to let him out there like that, not to mention Burrows going off like that. There’s a place for that sort of thing, it’s called an official complaint to the league, made by the team – NOT by a player who will now never get another call in his life.
Burrows needs to know when to talk to the media and when not to. The league now has no choice but to slam him, because if they don’t, it’ll spark a wave of these sort of incidents. If he had gone to the league privately for an investigation, perhaps the league won’t have to make an example of him.
Burrows should have kept his mouth shut, and the team should have kept him away from the mics until he calmed down.
I say this without commenting on the admittedly atrocious refereeing. The team and the players HAVE to maintain their control.
There is also the effect that now that this stuff is out on the open it may put fan pressure on the league to try to do something to hold refs accountable or something to gain credibility (like never having Rooney ref another Bruins game).
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
By saying that Burrows will never get another call in his life, IMO, is a big indictment of the integrity of the league’s officials.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Flames fan here
That was ATROCIOUS. Burrows handled it the wrong way and likely damaged his rep with all refs, but that many brutal calls (and the timing of them) can not possibly be coincidental. That is a sad, sad man who is that petty, when his job is to be fair and unbiased, and I hope the NHL will discipline him (they will have to do so in secret of course, because admitting one of your refs screwed up like that is just not going to happen).
by brisulph on Jan 12, 2010 5:16 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I have to agree with both thoughts that there was another way to handle it, and Burr’ should have been kept away from a mic. But he obviously wanted to say it, and maybe they decided to let him.
I certainly don’t agree with the assertion that he has screwed himself for calls from other refs. He was getting marginalized in other calls occasionally in the past, but these two calls were BOTH so far beyond the pale that talented refs that know the game won’t hold it against him.
Just as many are probably embarrassed by the actions of Auger as might think ill of Burrows.
Regardless, it had to be said. Probably right that they will come down hard on him…but when even Weber is saying on the TEAM afterward that he was “amazed by the calls”…it is in the other players’ interest and even the PA’s interests to support Burrows.
At the very least…it is not over!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I am not saying he will be Avery or something
but Augers will have buddies in the reffing circles that might not give him the benefit of the doubt anymore on close calls. Again, this comes back to being fair and balanced, but even a momentary hesitation on a call/non-call can be enough to influence, you know?
I’m sure burrows is correct in his allegations. However, I fear he has now fucked us with every referee in the league. They are going to give the Canucks a hard time game in and game out. Yikes. Plus burr will likely get suspended. This is not good at all.
by Beantown Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 5:41 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Bullshit. Never back down if you’re right.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Wow… muchos drama in Canucksland the last couple games. I agree that this warrants an investigation by the league and either a whopping fine or a few games’ suspension to Burrows.
Just wondering, though, if it was Auger that gifted us Burrows’ PP goal in the 2nd – because that was an extremely, in the words of John Shorthouse, “chintzy” call on Ellis. That warranted one make-up call… but not, like, four or so. Nonetheless, if it was Auger, it works somewhat against the whole personal bias angle.
Eight minors for the Canucks in the game to the Preds four. Five minors in the 3rd of a tie game, the last a Fuck You from Auger to Burr’ with four seconds left.
Wonder what is being said here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbZ0L7VtHuE&feature=player_embedded
If someone can jack it up through their HD and then read lips in French, we have a Zapruder film.
As for all good conspiracies…there is this…from 11 months ago…. http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+suffer+first+loss+Canadiens+eight+years/1325205/story.html (saw the link on Hockeybuzz…been up anyhow, the reaction all over is pretty intense! )
Before the Smithson hit that was a direct attempt at a head shot that was worthy of a serious call.
For those that missed it, here’s Alex’s rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkG0fyvAeA0
Regardless of the outcome ( and I disagree that refs like say…Fraser or McGoegh would fuck the Canucks because of some kind of brotherhood … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT0WEFs2S90
;-)
… just because Auger is a dick. Don’t forget that this guy is the one that said that Doan disparaged him and other French people and caused untold bullshit as a result, before the NHL dismissed the charge “without merit”. After he had fucked with the rep of Doan pretty thoroughly…to the point that an MP was writing letters.
I expect Burrows to get a game to keep the party line, but even if it is done quietly, Auger should and hopefully will be punished for his abuse of power.
Haven’t read this whole thing, but somewhere in there, http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=27011 is it possible something is in there about what is right and fair.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
by vancitydan on Jan 12, 2010 7:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If he’s the same one who went after Doan, that may actually be the final straw. At least we can hope.
Here's the link...again from one of the 'Buzz posters
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/01/17/qc-doan20060117.html
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Wow
I forgot it was the same guy who went after Doan.
The NHL needs to investigate this big time. Regrettably, Burrows way of dealing with it will undoubtedly result in suspension or fine or both. Hopefully this doesn’t lead to him never getting a call ever again.
Actually, hopefully it leads to Auger getting canned.
Preds fan here...
…I watched the game and I agree with pretty much everything you guys have said.
I called “shenanigans” on more than one occasion last night, but especially in the third. The officiating was pretty horrid. And it wasn’t one-sided as it often is; both teams were called for non-penalties. However, the calls against the Canucks in the third were horrible, just horrible.
With the standings in the West being as they are, I call do-over. I’d much rather play on even ice, rather than this abortion of officiating.
Hey rusherman, welcome & thanks for the even-handed comments. Noble of you to request a do-over even when the win’s already yours!
And, as pointed out further up this comments stream, the chintziness did cut two ways. (Though definitely it was Burrows who took the overt worst of it.)
I’d take a do-over too, but I doubt the league will listen. Maybe if you’re up in Canada sometime it can be a table hockey version.
"He'll play, you know he'll play. He'll play on crutches if he has to... and he'll play at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday night! This game is over!"
Well, as long as its the version with the metal men. The big men you can exchange with different teams.
Though, I doubt the Preds were on any of those decals.
Nice thought tho’..
How about our best PS3 wiz versus yours?
Points count!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
True, I’ve never seen Preds figures on a table game. (Mine were always Leafs/Habs. I pretended the Habs were the Oilers and the Leafs were the Canucks, and I’d replay our losses to the Oil and force a different outcome. Once I even had Gretzky get confused and do a breakaway own-goal. Sad childhood, now that I think of it.)
Plus the reffing on those things is always brutal. Every call is dodgy, seeing as the players never actually come into contact.
"He'll play, you know he'll play. He'll play on crutches if he has to... and he'll play at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday night! This game is over!"
Morning all
Normally I would have the Morning Coffee post up already, but as I am sure you can understand, the hockey world is reeling right now. I ended up getting out of bed to read more reactions last night to try and calm myself. The morning post isn’t gonna have any revelations as such, just my thoughts and a recap of what we know so far. This one is going to get huge, and we have a front row seat.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 7:59 AM PST reply actions
Ultimately, Burrows has nobody to blame but himself. He’s gained his reputation fair and square, and he now has to live with it. For the Canucks, the issue becomes one of whether his baggage is worth keeping him around. Right now, most certainly yes, but they have to accept that he is not going to get the benefit of the doubt from anybody any more, especially after this.
Didn’t see the calls last night, but Auger is one of the poorer officials in the league. Even the best refs aren’t going to give a douchebag the benefit of the doubt very often. A bad ref might well kill you. Suck it up Alex, you are simply reaping what you sow.
I think this analysis is turdy poop
by Beantown Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:10 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
We’ve run Bertuzzi and Simon out there in recent years. So yes, we are aware that when you pick up a reputation, you are not going to get the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, guys like Iginla, Sakic and Stevie Y typically do/did get the benefit because of the respect level they have earned.
Like it or not, Burrows has that reputation. His antics on the ice has made him no friends, and it seems the issue has boiled over. Whether or not he is right – and frankly, I don’t trust the word of either Burrows or Auger – there are now 30 other NHLOA referees who just watched Burrows throw one of their brothers under the bus. Bad, bad decision making on his part.
I said off the top I thought it was stupid of Burrows to go to the media (it should have been said through league channels), but I don’t think this is “issue boiling over”.
Burrows has essentially alleged that the ref said that he was going to get him. Pre-game threats that are acted on generally invoke the most extreme NHL discipline.
I dare you to find anyone who could possibly think that interference call to take the Canucks off a PP was legit. It’s ridiculous.
I haven’t seen it, but I will take your word on it. You can’t tell me that the Canucks have never benefited from similarly egregious calls in the past, however.
If incompetence resulted in the removal of referees, then Auger, Lee, Kowal and Kozari would be the first four on the chopping block. Incompetence does not prove a conspiracy, however.
Sure. Incompetence doesn’t prove it.
If Auger comes out with some perfectly reasonable explanation as to what he was saying to Burrows, then yeah, Burrows is full of it and he should get suspended and fined. But what possible benefit is that to Burrows? He’s riding high, 9 goals in 5 games, 1st star of the week, team is rolling…and then he concocts a detailed rant against an official, with precise allegations? Doesn’t make any sense for him to be making it up like that, assuming he had the foresight, time and ability to do so.
You know what
that’s fine, he’s a diver, he’s got that rep, so don’t call borderline infractions against him, let opposition players have their way with him for the most part, that’s one thing and should be expected if you dive.
However, what should not be expected is to have a game decided by a fabricated call based on a blatant personal vendetta.
If that’s your idea of “reap what you sow” go watch WWE.
Whether or not he has a reputation (he totally does) is not relevant to the kind of bullshit that took place last night. There’s a difference between getting the benefit of the doubt and having a ref blatantly trying his best to send you to the box. I can live with it if a player doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. For example, Alex Semin will rarely get the hooking call or tripping call because he has the balance of a baby giraffe, and a reputation as a diver. Refs not calling the other player for a HHT against him is reasonable.
But blatantly trying to get a player in the box, as Auger was doing to Burrows, is not acceptable, ever. Not even Avery or Ruutu (the two biggest scumbags in the league) get that sort of treatment. They’ll get called for things they actually do, even very minor actions, but the point is they still did something.
Assuming what we’ve heard is true, there is absolutely no way to defend Auger’s actions.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Auger is incompetent, there is no doubt about that. And Vancouver has benefited plenty from phantom penalties themselves. As everyone else says, it typically evens out in the end.
But to be perfectly blunt, I am going to need a hell of a lot more than Alexandre Burrows’ given word before I accept that an incompetent officials incompetency was the result of a vendetta. What is Auger’s excuse every other time he calls a game?
I think Puck Daddy does a decent job of giving Auger’s history of questionable calls. I agree with you that Burrows has a reputation and a “vendetta” may be extreme, but the calls were obscene and the guy has a checkered past.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed fully. Not necessarily defending Auger here – as I said, it is a case of incompetent vs. douchebag.
If this results in Auger’s removal for any length of time, then I’m happy. But lets not kid ourselves on Burrow’s dealings with the officials. He’s whined in the past about the officiating, and he broke a cardinal rule last night by naming a ref specifically. Whatever he was told by Auger, the words were spoken because of Burrows’ reputation and history. Auger isn’t the only zebra who views him that way. And that is completely Burrows’ own responsibility.
Yeah I agree. This morning is the first I’m learning of Auger’s other calls so, as I said below, if fining the hell out of Burr at least brings to fruition some possible changes (again if the claims are true) that benefits all teams, then it has a twisted happy ending. IMO.
Then again, I have zero faith in the NHL HQ to make tough decisions.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
As you’ve touched on below, this isn’t just a case of incompetence. Incompetence would imply that the ref didn’t understand the rule, didn’t see the infraction, saw things indifferently, etc. But (assuming Burrows’ account is accurate), this was not the case. Auger knew exactly what he was doing, it wasn’t a show of incompetence. Incompetence sucks but it doesn’t piss me off nearly to the extent that this bullshit does.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed
except for Ruutu, still think the Nucks miss his energy, and he’s no where near Apery’s league of douchebag.
Whether or not the Nucks miss his energy, he’s still a scumbag. They both can definitely be productive players that add to their teams, but their scumbags.
Avery’s antics are well documented. Ruutu bit Andrew Peters, and takes any chance he get to throw a dirty hit, and make it as dirty as he can.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
No disrespect Steckel, but the Caps had the all-time king of D-baggery, Dale Hunter.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
No Smo’…Steckel is cool….I mean…for a Caps fan anyway!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I know, Steckel’s cool. He ain’t no Boutrous though.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
And let’s not forget Fehr and Balanced.
That fucker is always stirring those guys up…
;-)
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
You dare to comment without even seeing the calls? Cheeky.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
If I said “the calls were correct” without seeing them, that would be one thing. I accept your assertion that they (it) was a bad call though. I’m just not automatically accepting that a bad call was made with malice, just because Alex the angel says so.
Take the time to watch a replay. I’d like to hear your comment after that. I’m not being sarcastic, I’d genuinely like to know.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Sure, what need to review the evidence when you’ve already made up your mind about the class and integrity of an opposing “douchebag”?
Peremptory strike this one from the juror pool, please.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Jan 12, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd....HA!
You don’t need a reason for a preemptory challenge.
Next your honor!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
In partial defense of Resolute, he’s pretty up-front about his bias, tho. He thinks he has set it aside in forming his opinion, and that part’s incorrect (he’s a flawed a human as the rest of us), but at least he wears it on his sleeve for us to consider.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
So you have to admit then that your biased towards believing Burrows. Are your opinions based on taking him at face value or are you considering both sides that he might be right and he might be making this stuff up?
Even the best refs aren’t going to give a douchebag the benefit of the doubt very often. A bad ref might well kill you. Suck it up Alex, you are simply reaping what you sow.
I can accept the odd reputation call for guys like Burrows and O’Brien. They have earned those reputations and sometimes it can go the other way as well as in the case of Wellwood last season. But this is a case of a ref going after a player straight up. And I think a player who has 9 goals in his last 5 games is worth the ‘baggage’, not to mention all the other intangibles Burrows’ brings to the Canucks.
Auger facing investigation
Zandberg – something to add to the fanshot: Sportsnet
I am floored the league is already doing something about this. Impressed, but floored.
Absolutely. The league has to take the accusation seriously. But it also has to investigate both parties. As Bob McKenzie says – this is going to get ugly.
Yes, and there are two issues here. The issue with what Burrows did is rather simple: he can be fined, according to the league rules about talking to the media.
The other issue is more important: it has to do with the integrity of the referees, and the whole league.
Los Angeles, CA
Burr should be fined. As refreshing as it may be for a player to finally remove the muzzle and speak their mind (without becoming Brett Hull), you can’t just blast the league like that. For better or for worse.
Now, if something comes of it to better the officiating for all the teams, even better.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
The most alarming aspect of this incident
is the fact that the referee completely ignored the ultimate function of his job: impartiality.
A referee not only has to be impartial and totally neutral, but he also must keep the APPEARANCE of neutrality as his highest goal. If you care about the sport, and hold it to the highest standard, then neutrality is almost a “sacred” duty, and without it, his job is a mockery.
When a referee talks to a player before the game, threatening him (implicitly or explicitly, it makes no difference how and with what tone), his neutrality is completely blown. After doing that, he has no business refereeing the game, sinc he clearly expressed his bias agains Burrows (and consequently, against the Canucks) in front of the whole world.
If the NHL pretends to hold itself to high standars, Mr. Auger should be publicly disciplined, since he discredited the whole refereeing process. This borders game-fixing.
Again, I don’t care what Burrows said or did, and his reputation is irrelevant here. I am just looking at what the referee did. A referee cannot adjust the standards of his job according to what each and every player does. His standars have to be the same for everyone.
I am talking from my experience as a member of a team of arbitrators in the financial services industry – the concept of impartiality is the same in every profession. If I would show the least amout of bias to any of the parties, I would be fired on the spot.
In case of a referee, where the whole world is watching him on television, his neutrality is even more important.
Los Angeles, CA
If the NHL pretends to hold itself to high standars, Mr. Auger should be publicly disciplined, since he discredited the whole refereeing process. This borders game-fixing.
Assuming, of course, that Burrows is telling the truth, and not just slandering an official.
Guilty until proven innocent in Vancouver it seems.
There are tapes (I heard this morning) that show the referee talking to Burrows before the game.
Los Angeles, CA
Not disputing that, but the question remains about what was said.
If it was something like “I am going to get you” then yes, Auger needs to be fired.
If it was something like “I remember what you did last time, and I won’t abide by you doing it again tonight”, then that, I think, is a fair warning of the boundaries being set.
Of course, nobody can trust Auger to make a proper call. So at the very least, we have a case of a player who already had a persecution complex. At that point whether it was a threat or a warning is irrelevant. Burrows is only going to view the comments one way. As such, his recollection of the conversation cannot be automatically trusted either.
Not saying he is automatically wrong, mind you. I can’t stand Burrows, but I also don’t think much of the neutrality of many officials. Just saying that both sides need investigation, and that the league needs to be up front with the result of that investigation.
If it was something like "I remember what you did last time, and I won’t abide by you doing it again tonight", then that, I think, is a fair warning of the boundaries being set.
The problem with the above is that even if the referee carefully chooses his words, because he is smart and wants to avoid disciplinary action, it is still bullying in disguise, since he has all the power on ice. There is absolutely no reason for a rep to walk up to a player to remind him that “he is going to be fair tonight.” For God’s sake, his job is to be fair. That’s the whole point of being a referee. Does he need to tell Burrows PERSONALLY that he, the ref, is goint to do his job??
Obviously, the only reason that I can imagine, that a ref would personally single out a player to tell anything, is that he wants to make sure that the player knows that he will be paid “special attention”. This is typical bullying….of the nastiest kind, when using apparently innocent words to get to a player. And this is the antithesis of being unbiased and fair.
Los Angeles, CA
I disagree. A dialgoue between players and the ref is healthy and important. They should be telling players what they can and can’t get away with. And if Auget said to Burrows “I will be watching you tonight so don’t dive or I’ll call it” then that is fine. Now the player knows what he can and can’t get away with and can play the game accordingly. I watch a lot of sports and in my opinion Rugby has the best referees of any sport. And they are mic’d up so you can hear what they are saying to the players. They are constantly communicating with the players telling them what they did wrong, what the referee saw and why he made a certain call. That is the way it should be and that is the main reason why there is so much respect between the players and the officials in that sport. The NHL and all other sports should emulate that style of officiating and should put as much time into making sure the Refs understand the laws of the game as Rugby does.
As for bullying I am not sure where you got that from. If a teacher tells a student she will be watching him all class so don’t try to cheat during the big spelling test, that it isn’t bullying. The Refs do have a position of authority, and rightly so otherwise the game would devolve into Bertuzzi-esque goonery, and they should use that authority to make sure the game is played in the right way. To me that has nothing to do with bullying.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Well, I will have to agree that we completely disagree.
Given the history between Auger and Burrows, the ref took every opportunity he could, to prove that he will “win” this battle. And predictably, he won. The referees always win if the league allows them.
I don’t know how you can see him as being fair here.
If a teacher tells a student she will be watching him all class so don’t try to cheat during the big spelling test, that it isn’t bullying.
I can’t believe you said the above. Have you heard of psychlogical abuse? The above is just that.
So, what the teacher is implying here, is that the rest of the children can relax, because he will be watching only the one kid. Or may be, he implies that he expects that one kid to cheat, therefore, accusing him of cheating even before it actually happened.
You can this being impartial and unbiased.
Sorry to disagree, but to me this is a classic form of bullying.
Los Angeles, CA
Well first of all I was takling about a hypothetical situation where the Ref said to Burrows something along the lines of what Resolute wrote…
If it was something like "I remember what you did last time, and I won’t abide by you doing it again tonight", then that, I think, is a fair warning of the boundaries being set.
I don’t know what the Ref said to Burrows so I have no idea if what he said was fair or not. My point is that there is no problem with a Referee clearly explaining to a player that he won’t tolerate certain behaviour. That to me isn’t bullying or psychological abuse or any of that other BS it’s just laying down the boundaries. Maybe I am too old school but to me if a kid acts out you deal with it by telling them you will be watching them. And when they act out again you punish them.
If what Burrows is alleging the Ref said is true than the Ref needs to be fired. But that has nothing to do with what i was talking about in response to what Resolute wrote.
And as for your psycholigcal abuse BS in response to my teach analogy. What can I say? If a kid has misbehaved before, cheated before, whatever, you tell the kid you will be watching him. That doesn’t mean you won’t also be watching the rest of the class. That isn’t bullying.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
I can see your point when the referee is setting boundaries. In this case though, it happened in a certain context (see the whole history between Burrows and the ref). So, the context needs to be considered.
With the kid that cheated before, what you are talking about, is putting him on a form of probation. That is basically a punishment for what he previously did. And he may have deserved the punishment, I am not disputing that.
But is is not an unbiased behaviour, form the part of the teacher.
In a professional NHL game, hower, this form of “follow-up punishment for a deed committed in the past” is not acceptable, in my opinion.
Los Angeles, CA
And this isn’t true. Just because he’s an ass and a pest on the ice, that doesn’t make him a liar. He knows his role on the ice, and he plays it well. I’d put big money on the fact that he’s not the same off the ice as he is on.
I think his history and work ethic lend to the fact that his remarks can be taken at face value. He doesn’t have a history of being a douche about personal matters off the ice (Hello, Avery) or trying to drunkenly bribe cops with a billion dollars (Hello, Belfour), which are the things that would impact his off ice credibility.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Not necessarily calling him a liar, but at the same time, he very well may have interpreted any comments Auger made incorrectly. (And/or, Auger did not properly convey his message). Given how angry he was, it is highly plausable that his interpretation of that conversation is not accurate. As they say, there are three sides to every argument: my side, your side and the truth.
The point is, Burrows has complained about his treatment at the hands of the officials in the past. He has a reputation, which everyone agrees on. He is, therefore, naturally inclined to believe the officials are out to get him. And he may well be right, since that is exactly what happens when you start getting reputation calls against.
Honestly, what is the context here? Burrows pulls a major league acting job a few weeks ago that led Auger to make a terrible penalty call? Anything else? I’d hardly call that a history. Certainly not enough to justify a conspiracy, since the conversation might well have been a simple case of Auger saying “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…”
One has to be wary of inventing a history that does not exist.
Have you seen that play, or are you going on heresay. Again.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Yes, I saw that play, and Burrows was hamming it up like mad. so much so the league rescinded the penalty after the fact.
Rescinded the penalty? Would they have rescinded the goal, if one had been scored?
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Exactly.
All I was saying is that if Auger was setting boundaries like “hey you dove the last time don’t do it again I will be watching to make sure you are playing a clean game” then I have ZERO problem with that. I hate divers anyway.
If what Burrows is ALLEGING turns out to be true then the Ref should face serious consequences. But we don’t know what was really said. Remember it could have been a misunderstanding. We all communicate a lot in our lives with other people. How often do we think we are being clear but people misunderstand us? Plus Burrows was angry, probably slightly dehydrated after a long hard game and other factors that can influence recall and memories. Perhaps he misunderstood the ref? Misinterpreted? Misremembered? Until we know for sure you assume innocence.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
The bottom line is, he fucked us with two phantom calls at the end. And no, it was not an “honest mistake” (I know, I am changing the subject again).
By the way, I was watching the game from the Nashville tv feed, which means that the commentators were Nashville fans. They were actually laughing when the diving and the interference calls against Burrows were made. They showed numerous re-plays just trying to figure out why the calls were made, and at the end, they laughingly thanked the referee for the “gifts”. When that happens, and the opposing team’s fans are scratching their heads, that’s a sure sign that something is fishy.
Los Angeles, CA
OK well first of all most broadcasters aren’t fans of the team they cover. You get to know the players and you get to the point where you would like to see them do well but you aren’t a fan.
No one is disputing the horrible calls. But losers make excuses about reffing and winners just win. yoata made a fair point about that. Luongo makes 7million or whatever to be the best goalie in the league. He needs to make a big save late in a game to kill off a penalty. The Refs made horrible calls. It will happen from time to time. You still have to find a way to win the game.
If the Ref was talking to Burrows to set down guidelines? Fine. If it can be proved that he told Burrows he was out to get him and that he did in fact make those calls for some sort of “payback” then fire him. But again you still have to win the game.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enought, if you outplay the opponent badly enough, the ref can’t make a difference. I hear this a lot, and of course, it is true.
But it is also detached from reality. In today’s NHL, the games are very competitive The salary cap created a very high parity. Which means, that the difference between winning and losing is often one fluke bounce, one accident, or one call from the referee. So, we cannot expect our team to outplay the opponent by a wide margin, and thus “not give the chance for the referee to decide”. It just not going to happen. That’s the reality.
Because of this, it is so much more important to keep the game clean, because one bad decision can decide the outcome.
Los Angeles, CA
Obviously ensuring the Refs make the right call is paramount. But mistakes will happen and you have to overcome them. I heard it on this site after the Calgary game and I am hearing it again now. Not just from you by any means. But winners win and losers make excuses. The reffing sometimes is bad, yes and sometimes it’s inconsistent from game to game, definitely. But the good teams, Chicago this year for instance, Washington etc etc they find ways to win. The Canucks have been doing that too. Winning lately more than they lose by a wide margin. I don’t hear people complaining about the Refs when the Canucks win. Like I said you have to find a way to win anyway. The Refs should be held to a high standard and we should be able to expect a high level of competency from those Refs. More often than not I feel they do a pretty good job although I do hate how they put their whistles away in the third, usually. Should the NHL look at blown calls and talk to those Refs to improve things. Yes. Should fans complain about Reffing and how it cost their team points? No. End of the day you still have to get the 2 points.
The Canucks were what 7-0-2 in their last 9 going into last night. I would bet that the reffing was bad in probably 2 of those games that the Canucks won. No one complained cause they killed of penalties and scored more goals than the other team. No excuses. Just win.
We all understand making a mistake and cut the refs a lotta slack that way; the q at hand today, tho, is whether last nite’s calls were not mistakes, whether they were deliberate.
If Burrows after the game had said, “those calls were terrible mistakes by the ref and I I completely disagree with them,” then no one’d be talking about it still.
If a surgeon has a patient die on the operating table, well, that happens sometimes, even if the surgeon allegedly mighta done better; but if the accusation is that the surgeon had said beforehand to someone that they intended to kill the patient…
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Section, you need to watch more US broadcasts. PBP guys are ok, but colour guys are blatant homers.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Well he said broadcasters. So he needs to me more specific if he is distinguishing. But I am a colour guy and I am not a homer. I focus more on what the Fort St John teams are doing, good or bad, but I am not biased. If they screw up they screw up and I say it.
And the last thing I want to do is watch MORE US broadcasts of hockey.
Not accusing you of being one. I also realize penalties taken must be penalties killed. Last night was beyond the pale, however. Nobody’s mentioned the crosscheck Weber laid on Raymond after a great hit, not long after the Burrows calls. More BS.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Yeah. We all know the Reffing was bad. But it doesn’t matter. Reffing will be bad sometimes. For various reasons. You still have to win.
Winners win, losers make excuses.
What happened last night was far beyond an excuse.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
You are using bad reffing as an excuse for why the Canucks lost. You are. No matter how bad the reffing was or even if it was premeditated. You are saying we lost because of the referee. That’s an excuse. They lost cause the other teams scored more goals. Two of them that a 7 million dollar a year goalie should have stopped. It was horrible officiating and if it was on purpose and premeditate the ref in question should lose his job and the integrity of the NHL will take a hit. But the Canucks will still have an L in the column. They have to find a way to kill a late PP in a tie game. If they don’t it isn’t the Refs fault.
Ah, so the Canucks should only win games where they are perfect, but other teams don;t have to be?
And btw, the issue is not win/lose, it’s whether or not the ref called a fair game. The 2 points? They’re gone, and maybe we shouldda won and maybe we shouldda lost, but that’s not really waht we’re arguing here, it’s just a strawman arg.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
There has probably never been a game in NHL history that was called “fair”. Stuff gets missed, some stuff gets called that doesn’t get called the other way later on.
Win the game. That’s all that matters.
I repeat, it’s not whether mistakes were made, it’s whether the so-called mistakes were in fact deliberate.
Mens Rea.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yeah that is fine after the fact. Deal with it then. The Canucks have to deal with it on the ice. ie kill off penalties etc etc etc. Win the game.
I have already said enough times that if this was deliberate the guy should be fired. Accidental? Maybe suspended for a while or whatever. But the game is over and the Canucks have to find a way to win it.
The Seahawks all argued that they got jobbed in the Superbowl about 4 years ago. Who has the rings though? The Steelers. Winners win, losers make excuses.
If you think Lui should have stopped Weber’s bullet, I shall take my leave. I’d prefer there not be cross words between us. Dryden, Hasek, Brodeur and the ghost of Georges Vezina couldn’t have stopped that shot.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
by Smoboy41 on Jan 12, 2010 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Weber’s shot was a damned laser. Impressive.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
I think it was very stoppable. Bullet or not. It came from far enough out that an elite goalie should stop it more than half the time. And all the time with the game on the line. Top of the circle and the pass was slow enough that Luongo should have already been all the way across his crease. He was late getting over and wasn’t square to the shot. And that is why it went in.
rec'd again...
You guys are on fire today!!
All that room on the 4-3 and the fact that he just missed the other corner 10 seconds earlier, it was liking watching a train wreck in slow motion…
You have to give it up to the shooter on that one.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Did you see how slow the pass was though? Do you not think, regardless of the outcome, that Luongo could have been across the crease faster?
If he hadn’t been screened.
Snatch the pebble from my hand, S312. What’s that? You can’t see my hand? So?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Jan 12, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I am only asking about the speed with which he moved cross crease. Your telling me he couldn’t follow that pass? Then we have real problems cause we are committed to this guy for 12 years.
Dude...really?
I have enjoyed you playing Devil’s Advocate today…it has added a LOT to the convo and I thank you for that…
But really? He wasn’t slow getting over, he had trouble even seeing the pass until he moves his head to the right trying to look around the screen.
The speed of the pass was less of a thing because of that screen.
Peace
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
His positioning there is not great. He is slow moving over and getting square. And you shouldn’t be beat short side over your shoulder if you are an elite goaltender.
Peace, Bra!!
Sigh
And we were getting along so well. 29 other starting goalies wouldn’t have touched that shot, either.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
So
you’re saying that if he had stopped it you would have immediately called it the greatest save of all time?
If he makes himself big, he makes the save, that simple, nothing miraculous or impossible about it.
Why?
I’ve read your comments with interest. As a Flamers fan, I like that viewpoint as well.
But to dismiss it being right because it is Burrows is as wrong as the act itself.
Which you, and others are missing the big point on.
Its not that he was “putting him in line”, or “setting boundaries.” It was a person in a position of authority using that authority in the wrong way.
He did it maliciously and with malice and forethought. He willingly gave up a portion of his reputation to “get even”. The game has no place for such partial thinking, regardless of whether it is Burrows, Avery, Ott, or Charles fucking Manson!
The league and the other refs coming down on Burr’s side….even while not condoning his outburst, show how serious this is.
Refs don’t usually spend a whole lap on warmup reprimanding a player or “setting boundaries”.
They don’t deny a star line the right to skate on the ice as Auger did. They don’t make calls to primarly affect one team harshly to get even.
Auger has done this before to Doan, and he is now trying to bully a player that may have a reputation.
But Burr’ is also a smart player. He knew when he opened his mouth that he would start a shitstorm, and he said it anyway.
I do not think that the #1 Star in the NHL this week had any intention of keeping himself off the ice unless the cause was totally worth it in his mind.
The evidence in this case is pretty overwhelming, circumstantial or otherwise.
The league would not act so fast to investigate as the Sportsnet link above alleges unless there was something to investigate.
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I’m not dismissing it, nor have I stated Auger’s actions were right. I have stated that Burrows has brought a lot of his issues on himself with his acting and diving. Does that make Auger’s alleged vendetta right? No. But I do not automatically assume Burrows’ recollection of events is entirely accurate.
You have assumed Auger guilty without giving the man a chance to defend himself against his accuser. I don’t think he is a particularly good referee, but his being incompetent does not prove him to be guilty of initiating a vendetta either.
Whether or not Burrows had any intention to take himself off the ice is irrelevant. Acting and diving is second nature to him, and he may well have assumed that no referee would call it late in the game. He did get called. Like it or not, Burrows reputation and history put him into the position to get called. Two wrongs do not make a right, for certain, but Burrows is hardly an innocent victim. Unfortunately for the Canucks, that reputation, and possibly past interaction, may have hurt them last night. If Auger is in the wrong, the league will deal with it.
But Burrows is not helping his reputation at all with how he handled this. And if he does not definitively prove that his recollection of events is completely accurate, he is not going to gain any friends in the officiating fraternity. For Burrows personally, and for the Canucks by extension, that is a concern.
Whether or not Burrows had any intention to take himself
off the ice is irrelevant. Acting and diving is second nature to him, and he may well have assumed that no referee would call it late in the game.
Burr’s penalty that turned the game, the one that took the Canucks off the late power play, had nothing at all to do w/diving.
You don’t like the guy; we get it. But there was zero dive on that call, and even Auger had to call it as “interference.”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Not disagreeing at all. I have not seen the penalty, but I accept it was a bad call.
However, a reputation call does not prove a vendetta.
Resolute and I kind of agree on one point. At this point Burrows made allegations. There is no proof yet and the burden of proof is on Burrows. He should have handled this differently. I say that because I am skeptical he can provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Um, it’s not a trial, it was a post-game interview. Shadow of a doubt? We’d all never get outta bed in the morn cuz we can’t guarantee to that standard that we’ll even survive the day.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
So people should be allowed to go to the media, make baseless claims and get away with it? Permanently damaging the reputation of someone else? Or should you have to prove what you say? And be held accountable for your words?
So people should be allowed to go to the media, make baseless claims and get away with it? Permanently damaging the reputation of someone else?
Isn’t that what Auger did to Doan?
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jan 12, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
People are allowed to speak the truth. Please, no more speech codes and gag laws.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
It was only Burrow’s opinion, but the league is looking into it very seriously. The truth will float to the surface sooner or later.
Yeah well baseless accusations all dressed up as opinion are still accusations and a mans reputation is on the line. Possibly his professional career. “He came over and told me he was out to get me and did” isn’t an opinion. It is an accusation.
Like I have said many times I think Burrows is probably telling the truth but he does need to prove it. Just like Auger needed to prove that Doan said what Auger alleged he said. And when he couldn’t it was Auger’s reputation that was tarnished not Doan’s.
The league needs to reinforce that the character and integrity of their officials is beyond question. Suspending birrows would fall far short.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Resolute.
As a hockey fan…you are honestly calling him getting tripped and falling to the ice was dive?
That he does because it is second nature?
Come on…now that is a Flames fan I can understand.
See Attila, you don’t have to change your thinking.
If that was a dive…it was a pretty piss poor one. He was tripped…the stick actually sweeping the feet kind of gave that one away. Even the Preds announcers thought their player was going off, and were puzzled and surprised when it was Burr’. And if it was a “dive” that you assert, what happens in 95% of those cases in a game?
Both guys go. Because it WAS a trip!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
. Even the Preds announcers thought their player was going off, and were puzzled and surprised when it was Burr’.
Yes, I was actually celebrating because I saw Burrows being tripped TWICE in that play, and was expecting a Canucks power play. And the commentators confirmed my expectation.
Los Angeles, CA
Watch that clip again.
Burrows clamps down on the stick. I thought they got him for holding the stick. Would have been a good call IMO.
I could see maybe sending both of them off, but Burr’s “clamp” was as he fell from being tripped.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
No no no. He tripped the first time as he stepped on Hamhuis’ stick as Hamhuis tried to clear the puck. No call there. Then Burrows uses his arm to clamp down on top of the stick of Hamhuis. Then Burrows falls the second time as Hamhuis lifts his stick to try to free it.
Watch the clip again.
here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buVvgCwwOeU
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Pause at 6 seconds. There is no trip there Burrows just falls as Hamhuis clears it. Burrows then gets up and immediately clamps onto Hamhuis’ stick that Burrows skated into. Pause at 8 and you see Burrows hand on the stick already. At 9 you clearly see him skate into Hamhuis’ stick and clamp down. Then Burrows falls. Perhaps Hamhuis caused Burrows to fall as he turns. But only cause he was trying to free his stick.
No bias. What do you think should have been called there?
Wow…I was only kidding earlier about the Zapruder reference.
I think in this case, your interpretation is more Wallace Commission minority than the Oliver Stone majority today…
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
That was fun for me to write. To be honest it’s a no call or holding the stick. Diving? Nope. It’s either a no call or HTS on Burrows. Not that bad of a blown call by calling it diving than HTS just named the penalty wrong.
So a 2 minute penalty was the right call? Regardless of what they called it on the score sheet? Cause that’s how I feel.
That argument’s ridiculous.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
I see it all the time in junior hockey. I think it’s going to be interference. They call high sticking. I think, ‘gee that seems strange’ but the guy deserved 2 minutes so who cares what the Ref called it?
by Section 312 on Jan 13, 2010 12:20 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not challenging any interpretations of the correctness of the calls last night. I am merely stating that Burrows’ well earned reputation has put him into this mess. He’s generated quite a few iffy powerplays based on his acting, and in this case it went the other way on him. That is the result of reputation.
Even if Burrows was 100% accurate on his accusations, it’s still a case of one thief stealing from another.
What acting on the intereference call? There was none.
A rep for bad acting might lead an official NOT to call a penalty on the other team for what they do to you, on the assumption you just hammed it up again. That’s quite conceivable, sure.
But that same rep would NOT lead the official to call a non-existent penalty on you. No acting at all took place on the interference call, not by Burrows nor by any Pred player. There was no acting for the official to either count or discount.
You’re reasoning from a conclusion, and it shows.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
1. Burr is smart, but spoke in the heat of the moment or shortly thereafter, I think he did the right thing, but I doubt it was cuz he dispassionately considered all ramifications first. More likely, he was pissed and said so, simple as that.
2. Auger doesn’t like Burr. I wonder if, in addition to being ticked that Burr had made him look bad in a ref-review, Burr was the reigning Player of the Week, too. Grrr, says Auger, when seeing his nemesis lauded like that?
3. As for the investigation per se, the league’s nightmare at this pt is a video where a lip-reader can confirm Burr’s accusations. Said video could come from any fan in the bldg, so the league dare not sweep this under the rug till they’ve had a chance to troll for such evidence first.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Burrows already had 2 goals that night as well. He very well may have wanted to put a stop to him getting another hat trick. Just speculation but could explain why the penalties came in the third.
Absolutely
what I thought as well.
Don’t forget, he warned Burr, so Burr was being good giving him nothing to call, so with a chance to score the winner and his 3rd hat in 4 games Auget had no choice but to fabricate calls to keep the guy he obviously hates from rubbing it in his face and being the hero once again.
Saying “I’ve got my eye on you” is not necessarily bullying. I’m sure refs tell that to players, or give them similar warnings, a dozen times a game, and it goes under the radar because it’s basically “I saw those little slashes, I’ll let you get away with one, but next time you won’t be so lucky”. That’s fine.
But this wasn’t a warning to not do something. It was Auger flat out telling Burrows that he is going to be called for something during the game. And that is bullying. It’s not a warning not to do something, or to watch yourself. It’s a threat that says, it doesn’t matter how you play, you’re going to get a penalty regardless of your actions.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
But this wasn’t a warning to not do something. It was Auger flat out telling Burrows that he is going to be called for something during the game
Careful. We don’t know that yet. Innocent until proven guilty. We might tend to believe what Burrows is saying but the burden of proof is on Burrows not the Auger.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
I know, but as I’ve said, and am not trying to hide, my comments are running under the assumption that Burrows’ account is truthful, for simplicity’s sake. If they’re not it gets all complicated and there’s all sorts of possible legal ramifications, and I’d rather not address that unless I have to.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
I think Burrows has as much video and circumstantial evidence as he possible could have. Auger has to answer some serious questions.
And if this was Jarome, you’d be taking his word at face value. No reason to do otherwise in this case. It’s not guilty until proven innocent, it’s one person’s word against someone who hasn’t said anything in response yet.
I am looking forward to hearing Auger’s explanation of their conversation before the game.
From PD again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbZ0L7VtHuE
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions
I think us Vancouverites just question why Alex (who is a really great guy off the ice, despite his pest like on-ice antics) would risk his entire reputation, possible fines, and possible suspension making this all up. Not only that but video clearly shows they were having a chat, and given these two’s history I doubt they were discussing the weather.
by Twincest on Jan 12, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Being fairly new to hockey I wanted to ask if there has been any similar incidents to this in the past and how has the league dealt with it? I know that in the English Premier League the powers that be tend to back referees to the hilt even when players / managers have a legitimate beef with atrocious / biased refereeing calls. Is there any indication that the NHL will act any differently?
On the topic of Burrows speaking to the press, it’s pretty difficult when you’re emotional like that and a crowd of people stick microphones under your nose and ask you to comment not to speak your mind. I’m amazed that players aren’t shielded from the press a bit more to protect them from this kind of media questioning straight after a game when emotions are running high. I’m sure if Alex had been interviewed about this in the cold light of day he would have been more careful with his choice of words.
One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is discussion about how “Burrows made a fool of Auger” back on December 8th. Where’s the personal responsibility Auger? You didn’t have to make the call you asshat, that’s what you get for calling a penalty based on the result and not the actual action. If anything, Auger made a fool of himself by admitting that Burrows’ acting hurt influenced him to call a penalty on an otherwise clean hit.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 11:06 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Agreed.
At the same time, it is possible that Auger was not aware of how bad the acting job was until watching the video breakdown afterward.
Or, to play into Burrows’ conspiracy, if Auger was reprimanded by the league for making that call, it could have led the ref to enact the supposed vendetta. Doesn’t make Auger’s decisions right in either case, but there really is no way this entire situation is not rooted in Burrows’ lack of class and respect for the game, the referees or his opponents. Two (three?) wrongs don’t make a right.
A referee should never EVER make a call based on the outcome of the hit. A dirty hit is dirty and a clean hit is clean regardless of whether or not an injury is sustained because of the hit.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A perfect example is the hit Pyatt put on Rome a few nights ago. Perfectly clean hit that resulted in injury.
Now drink with me deeply of the bourbon, scotch, and rye until such time as we are fighting drunk.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Jan 12, 2010 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
but there really is no way this entire situation is not rooted in Burrows’ lack of class and respect for the game, the referees or his opponents.
Resolute, your comment implies that vendettas by officials are OK if the official says that a player has insufficient “class” or “respect for the game.” Are you sure that’s the position you intended to convey?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Nope, not saying they are right. And I won’t be roped into backhandedly admitting that such a vendetta exists in this case.
From what I can tell, it is generally accepted here that Burrows has a reputation for embellishment/diving. Would that be accurate?
The problem for Burrows is that referees are human, just like everyone else. You show a guy up, and he is likely to remember you for all the wrong reasons. Burrows is losing respect amongst the officials because he makes a habit of it. Dion Phaneuf is finding his way into the same boat as well. Bertuzzi, Simon, others have faced the same issues. Iginla, Sakic, Yzerman are positive examples of the same bias.
You treat officials with respect, they treat you with respect. Burrows has not via his antics. Even if Auger did not express an actual vendetta, it is very likely he remembers that previous game, and had his eye on Burrows. It is only natural. And it is very likely that, at least subconsiously, Auger chose not to give Burrows the benefit of the doubt. That does not necessarily make Auger right, but Auger being wrong does not change the fact that Burrows brought that reputation onto himself.
Burrows has established that he is no longer a fringe player. He doesn’t need to embellish in order to justify his position in this league any more. But his past will affect his future, just is it has for so many other players. That’s just how it works.
Honestly, I don’t think Burrows is a diver. He skates hard and gets into tough situations. I see a lot of players go down just as easy.
I think you have something personal against Burrows just as the ref did and your response is biased (just as mine is probably biased the other way). However, refs are supposed to be unbiased. Read Steckel Me Elmo’s comments on this page. His points get some bullzeyes.
Did you watch the entire game last night?
I was watching the Flames get beat over the head by Colorado’s horseshoes, alas.
And yes, Burrows has a reputation. You might disagree with it, but it still exists. I think Phaneuf gets penalized for big hits based on reputation rather than the rulebook as well, but I suspect many here will disagree with my viewpoint on that. What we consider correct, and what exists in reality isn’t necessarily the same.
From what I can tell, it is generally accepted here that Burrows has a reputation for embellishment/diving. Would that be accurate?
Small rewrite, my way this time:
From what I can tell, it is generally accepted here thatBurrows hasNHL players have a reputation for embellishment/diving. Would that be accurate?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Auger should take Burrows on a date first, before he tries to fuck him.
by Chuckles Canuckles on Jan 12, 2010 1:36 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
HA!!!
And rec’d…absofriggen-lutely rec’d!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
There must of been a ton of cameras on tonight, especially with the laser incident happening last game and the embarrassment GM place security went through.
GM place/Sportsnet should find the best video of this ‘chat’ they can find, and then get a bilingual french/english lip-reader to give us as many of the words that were said as possible.
Reading the ref’s lips must be possible, with all the technology we have. It would be very interesting to hear what exactly he said.
Los Angeles, CA
Hey if we can’t find lasers, we probably can’t read lips.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
And hey, where exactly was Auger Saturday night?
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
if the league fines burrows, i will be EXTREMELY ANGRY!
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
well it’s likely they will, speaking to the media that way is not taken kindly to
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
Yeah, I’d be floored if Burrows escapes without losing some coin here. Right or wrong, you can’t just blow up in the media like that. The PR ramifications are a nightmare (see today!).
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
He had to have been major p.o.‘d to have said what he said, which tends to make me think he’s prob telling the truth.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
truth or not, you still aren’t supposed to blow up in the media.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
Why not? Only convenient truths from now on? That just goes against everything my Y chromosome is telling me.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I like Burr’s fire. It’s what got him to this level. Ball hockey, the ECHL, and now the Show. Keep that fire, boy. Fuck the haters.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Well between stick-smashing Kesler and “I don’t give a fuck” Sammy, we have an entire line of pissed off professionals.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
Good. Hockey is a sport best played angry. The ‘Nucks didn’t have enough last night.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Yeah, all this Burrows stuff aside, Vancouver could have won that game but allowed some poor plays and not finishing their ES chances to doom them in. Again.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
The Anger Line...
“3 angry men & a hockey puck…”
“The Wild Ones”
;-)
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
Go to a game, and a shitstorm blows in. Mrs. Smo and I had a wonderful evening, if anyone’s interested.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
botchford just put this new article up. here’s a quote:
Alex Burrows does not face a suspension and only faces a miniscule fine, according to NHL by-laws.
According to league by-law 17.4, a player who criticizes an official faces a maximum fine of $1,000. There is no mention of suspension, suggesting that it is not on the table during a disciplinary conference call set for Tuesday afternoon. The Canucks confirmed they do not believe Burrows will be suspended.
so, basically, if the NHL follows its own rules, Burrows should only get a $1000 fine and no suspension.
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
I don’t expect Burrows will be suspended either, but the commissioner does have discretionary powers for conduct detrimental to the league. That’s how Avery ended up with that six game suspension last year.
Is this even making a splash outside of Vancouver, and the league office?
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
It was the first story...
On TSN…Score…and I assume Hockeycentral on SNet will have mucho ongoing coverage.
Even TSN biased report (except for MacKenzie ) realizes that…if provable, this is a serious incident that threatens the very core of pro sport and its relationship with the fans.
Integrity.
Why watch if the result is not attained fairly.
Auger stepped over the line. We can only hope someone can find a long enough clip to prove it…get anyone with lip reading skills on it!
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
One incident doesn’t threaten the core of pro sports. That a little hyperbolic for my liking. It threatens the integrity of this NHL official. And the other officials would have to watch there step as they would be watch closely for a long time. But I don’t think it is big enough to threaten all of sports.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Canucks blogger Cam Davie will be on CBC Vancouver’s news to talk about it all tonight…
Don’t forget to tune in! RT @CanucksArmy: @campants will be on the CBC news tonight at 6pm to talk about Auger/Burrows
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 4:57 PM PST reply actions
the verdict is in:
Burrows gets a $2500 fine and no suspension.
already put up a fanshot.
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
Here ya go
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=305888
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
“Understandably, the NHL has great respect for its on-ice officials and considers Auger one of its best”
Wow Dreger. Wow.
If it’s smart, the league will keep Auger out of Vancouver for the rest of the season.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Yeah, I doubt the fans would let the game be played with all the shit they’d throw at him. Not too mention after the game his personal safety might be in question.
Cause that would go a long way to repairing the league wide reputation Nuck fans have of being goons, thugs and classless idiots.
by Section 312 on Jan 13, 2010 12:22 AM PST up reply actions
I'm glad Burrows spoke his mind.
Despite the risk involved, it was real gutsy of him to say the truth. Go Alex!
by dolphinsinbuffalo on Jan 13, 2010 12:20 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Follow The Misconduct
 |
 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; NHLPA strife
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Atlanta Thrashers
- Chris Pronger's contract accepted; why NHLPA could have advantage
- Pass or Fail: When 'Jersey Shore'-level celebs invade hockey arenas
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
