Tuesday Morning Coffee: Burrows/Auger- Grab a helmet, it's gonna get messy
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 3:04 PM PST
in Canucks News
243 comments
There are sometimes as a blogger where one struggles to get the words together to make their post. Then there are times like this, where the situation nearly overwhelms you, and you have to try and reign yourself in, for fear that you might not actually be making sense. Bloggers are different from paid journalists in that for the most part we don't have to hide our love for our team of choice. So when an event like last night's fiasco at GM Place occurs, the natural reaction is: We Got Screwed!! It's something you hear anywhere sports fans discuss the games they love. The notion that the officials' interpretation of the game has somehow affected the outcome.
But when a game official not only delivers retribution over his ego being fractured in a previous match, but tells the player to his face he intends to do just that, there is a problem with the game. Rather than repost Burr's comments, I am going to make a list of all the related articles I can find as a reference at the bottom of this post.
A couple things stand out for me: First off, the support from opposing fans is good to see. It's nice to know that there are hockey fans who can see the big picture here. It doesn't matter who the player is. It doesn't matter what reputation he has. I know officials are only human. They have an incredibly tough job, they have to manage the ebb and flow of a game played at high speed and have to be able to determine if the actions in front of them are penalties. It's the human nature of it all that adds to the excitement of the game. But some things are clear:
1- Alex Burrows is probably the last guy who would want to risk his career with a baseless accusation. Anyone who knows the story of how hard this kid has battled just to make it to the NHL can tell you, he feels like the luckiest guy in the world, but it's his heart and under-rated skill that got him here. Why on earth would he throw that away? The guy has 9 goals in 5 games and was the NHL player of the week. Makes perfect sense he would want to just screw his team over and get suspended, right?
2- There are many people who are lashing out at Burrows, calling him a whiner, and insinuating as a player known for embellishing calls, he should expect nothing less. Shut up and take what you have coming to you. I call BS on that. I don't care who the player is. I don't care who the official is. As a hockey fan, I want... no NEED to know that the game I love is actually decided by the action on the ice and not outside factors. All hockey fans should demand nothing less than integrity from their officials. The league is already dealing with an accusation that a broadcaster neglected to send a feed to the war room in Toronto that showed clear evidence a goal had been scored against the team they were the home broadcaster for.
3- The official at the center of this controversy has a long and damning list of evidence that suggests he is certainly incompetent. From the Shane Doan incident, to Brad May's non-goal, to an incident last season where Burrows was given a game misconduct for cross checking Patrice Brisebois of the Canadiens, Auger's hit parade is well known and ugly. The video shows that Brisebois clearly embellishes the hit. Yet it's Burrows embellishment of the hit by Jerred Smithson of the Preds on Dec 9th that is the basis of the allegation. Of all these incidents though, it's the Doan controversy that really speaks volumes. Of all the guys in the NHL to accuse of a "culturally insensitive" comment, he chooses Shane Doan? This guy's reputation is so lily-white, he's lived in Phoenix since the Jets moved there in '96 and still doesn't have a tan. I grew up in Kamloops watching Shane Doan play, and it was well known that Shane is the kind of guy, through upbringing, that doesn't even mutter the word Damn on the ice. He just doesn't. So instead we had one of the good guys of the game get his name dragged through the mud for almost three years, with politicians weighing in on the situation in one of the most disgusting and disheartening displays of political opportunism I can recall. And in this country, that's saying something.
The NHL has to investigate this, quickly and with a hell of a lot more effort than they applied to the tampering allegations the Canucks leveled at the Leafs. This isn't a case of sour grapes. This isn't about the Canucks losing ground to the Nashville Predators on a night they could have taken 1st place in the division. The integrity of the game is being challenged, and the NHL better pay close attention to recent events in the NBA and soccer world. There are interesting lessons there about what happens when a league tries to sweep the images of corrupt game officials under the carpet. Will Burrows get suspended? Bob McKenzie of TSN this morning on The Team 1040 felt it wasn't likely, but you can probably expect a fine. If this allegation is true, as hockey fans we must demand that the NHL remove him from his position as an NHL official. This is the least they can do for us, as they are now on the hot seat to prove the game is not corrupt, and if so, fix it.
I want to credit the reporters and bloggers who worked their asses off through the night to deal with this story as it was developing:
- Jason Botchford of the Vancouver Province
- Greg Wyshynski of Yahoo Sports Puck Daddy blog
- Richard Loat and JJ Guerrero of Canucks Hockey Blog
- Trevor Presiloski at The Internet Trashcan
Also check out:
- TSN
- Hockeydraft.ca
- Gross Misconduct Hockey
- CBS Sports
- SLAM Sports
- Preds On The Glass
- Dan Cloutier For Vezina
- CBC
- ESPN
- Sportsnet
- Bob McKenzie@TSN
- Canucks Army
- Updated: Eric Duhatschek at Globe Sports
I will add more in the comments section as they come up. Let's hope that Colin Campbell and Gary Bettman can finally do what is right for the game, as this time it might actually be the same thing as what's best for the bottom line. Finally, I want to say that with all that Burrows has to lose in this situation, it's extremely courageous of him to stand up at something that's been hinted at for years. More to come on this one, as the ball is in the league's court.
1 recs |
243 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I debated heavily about my vote. On the one hand, I suspect Burrows will be fined for speaking out as he did, and should have let management handle it. But on the other, the officiating this year has been atrocious, and us fans need to hear about these things to have some understanding of why games are being interfered with by referees so consistently. This case seems over the top, hopefully the tipping point that will force the NHL to look at what exactly is going on. I’m sick of it, and good for Burrows for saying something other than the usual.
Auger is also the ref who made that horrible non-goal call on Brad May earlier this year. He’s cost enough teams the game already – just this season. He needs to go.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
and thanks for your comments Karina, the hope is that regardless of how people feel about it, we can get some level-headed commentary on this.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 9:51 AM PST reply actions
I can definitely relate.
When I wrote my fanhuddle breakdown of this game, I struggled most of the night, and woke up to see that at least my viewpoint was valid.
It took waaaayyyy more hours than usual tho’…and included tons of links that usually I don’t bother with putting in.
Burr’ would indeed know that he put himself in the crosshairs, and said it anyhow.
This was the singular most egregious officiating act I have seen in recent memory. Burrow’s comments were and are surely going to earn him a fine, but if it spurs an investigation that makes sure that this ref and his massive ego never see GM Place or even a Canucks road game for a good long while…that may not be enough, but it wil be good enough for me.
Auger and his antics through the past few years have done more to fuck his rep than Burr’s comments ever could have.
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"
this was the second version of the article… I did a complete re-write. It’s emotional, not just because it happened to my team, but this is my game. I went to my first game in Saskatoon as a toddler. I still recall watching the 72 series with my dad (yes I am that old) and have always believed hockey to be the sport of all sports. My one choice over all others. It didn’t have the garbage that other sports seem to be littered with. Today, it feels like the sport is letting me down, and my heart is breaking at the thought the NHL may not care enough about everyday fans to do anything about it.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
I was 9 myself in 72...
So yeah…I am that old too.
It is emotional. But you come at it as what you are , a Canucks Fan, and try to be as fair as your emotional response allows.
I did get that feeling of “being fucked” more than any game I can recall though.
That was tough. Auger got away with something that we should be getting L&O : SVU working on. Maybe that babe detective can get him “on tape…”
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"
If Auger did make the comments he did, Burrows definitely needs to make sure it is dealt with. But to do it in the media that way was bad, bad form. The only thing that accomplishes is to earn the enmity of the entire officiating fraternity. And that is something that has the potential to really bite the Canucks in the ass.
Take it to management, let them take it to the league. Fight as hard as you can on it, but do it in the boardroom, not in the media. The best Burrows can reasonably hope for now is a pyhrric victory.
As a Flames fan I realllllly don’t like Alex Burrows but yikes… This ref clearly needs to go. No idea how he crucifies Doan for being anti-French, yet clearly has some sort of issue with Burrows, who is one of the better stories to come out of Quebec recently. Let’s face it, the state of Quebec hockey (other than goalies) is not as strong as it was in the past, so the rise of Burrows from the abyss of the ECHL to a pretty solid NHL first liner should bring a smile to any hockey fan’s face who hails from La Belle Province. This Auger guy seems to have a very strange agenda. There’s no room for that, especially right now with all of the inconsistencies in officiating as of late.
by Rod Blogojevich on Jan 12, 2010 10:01 AM PST reply actions
It’s a tough call, but I voted for the first option.
Yes, it may be bad form to openly rip into the official, but there is a good side to it: the whole hockey world is talking about it. Maximum exposure.
Change often happens in the wake of tremendous controversy. The masses tend to do that, force the leadership to deal with issues they’d rather not deal with.
The “proper way” would have been to be nice and dandy to the media, and deal with it in the boardroom. But in this case the prover way would also have been the cowardly way.
Does anybody here believes that a quitet boardroom discussion would lead to any result, other than a “promise to take the appropriate measures”?
I agree with those who say that Burrows crossed the line, but I also admire Burrows for his courage. Sometimes you have to do whatever means you have, to get your point across – and take the consequences that come with it.
Los Angeles, CA
I also voted for the first option.
It reminds me of whistle-blowers – sometimes it is effective to deal with a dispute through “the regular channels” but if you don’t believe that there will be any result at all from it, there are times where you feel you have to take a chance on speaking out. The quickest way to bury anything controversial is to form a committee to study it. Putting this out in the daylight right away short-circuits that quiet, polite way of making ugly situations die.
It’s one thing to be incompetent, another to make calls based on reputation (Avery for diving, Burrows apparently from what you have said, players like Holmstrom and Smyth for goaltender interference because they are in the area) and yet another to unintentionally bias results in a misguided attempt to be fair by trying to “even out” the penalties. To willfully do a poor job to punish someone or sabotage the efforts of their team … misconduct is probably the kindest word for behaviour like that.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
Does anyone actually think that Burrows weighed the pros and the cons of his actions before speaking out? He didn’t do it because he thought it was the best way to deal with the situation. He did it cause he was pissed. And I was always told not to do anything you might regret while you are pissed off. Calm down, be objective and then decide what to do. I honestly think Burrows should have kept his trap shut and let management, particularly MG, reveal what was said and what the Canucks were doing about it. Burrows reputation with the refs in this league is now shot completely and I hope he realizes that the Canucks (himself especially) are going to get the short end of the stick on reffing decisions more often than not from now until the end of the season. If the allegations are true then the referee in question should be fired but that doesn’t mean that Burrows handled this the right way.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 10:46 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
The problem I see with waiting or going to management is it kind of takes away the impact of it (if you ask me). NHL players, as far as I’m concerned, are not really the most vocal athletes when it comes to media. So many of them give the cookie cutter responses and cliches etc. So often, their comments sound measured and not very genuine. But this is an incident that drove a player who, as far as I’ve seen, is pretty humble and quiet off the ice, to call out the reffing in a big way. And I think that adds to the impact of the statements.
And if Burrows is telling the truth, and I’m inclined to believe him given the circumstances and available data at this point, and the refs still rally around Auger against the Nucks, well that’s just shameful. I understand sticking up for your peers when they are slighted wrongfully, but in the case where the peer deserved it, and is still defended, that’s ridiculous bias that hurts their integrity even more.
It’s similar to a fan defending the actions of a player on their favorite team, despite those actions being blatantly wrong. It takes away a certain amount that fans credibility when it comes to comment on matters regarding that fan’s favorite team. You have to use reason to understand when defense is, or isn’t necessary. And at this point in the game it’s to early to judge how refs will react to this.
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 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
You ever been in a union or seen how one operates? It was shameful that the MLB players union rallied around cheaters and liars. But they did. That’s the way unions work. They more often than not work harder to protect the incompetent than they do to benefit the more than competent. I know of unions where you have to be caught stealing MORE THAN ONCE before the company can fire you. And there will be Refs who like Auger, who consider him a friend and even if the allegations are proven true they will be pissed at Burrows for getting their friend in trouble. You would think they would be above taking it out on Burrows but it seems that Auger is an example that they aren’t above that.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Never been part of a union. I’m not naive enough to think they won’t, but I can still rail on them for it being shameful.
I’m sure there will be ramifications, justly or unjustly. And I will still comment on the things and rail on them for it.
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 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
I was a union rep in a previous job, and we always worked with the company in investigations of theft, to the point of allowing cameras to try and catch the potential culprit. I don’t think you can paint all unions with a single brush.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
I am not painting anyone with anything. I was pointing out that unions have a specific job to do. And that is to protect their members. That is the job of any union. And sports unions are no different. The point is that the Refs union has rallied around and protected below standard refs before and there is no reason to think they won’t do everything in their power to protect their guy.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
I get ya, it’s just that some people have an issue with unions defending someone even when it’s obvious they’re guilty. I understand the frustration with that, but it’s no different that the justice system itself; it works on the notion that you’re innocent until proven guilty. I am sure they will, it’s just that there’s never been any transparency on what happens to referees that screw up.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah but unions often protect their members even after they have been proven guilty. Like you have to be written up for being incompetent 5 times before any discipline can be issued. That sort of thing. Plus unions really are part of the reason for their own members mediocrity. They often oppose any kind of system to evaluate their members efficiency so that the better workers are treated the same as the slackers. They oppose just the sort of transparency that we crave. I have always found that while unions provide a great service to the average worker they often provide a disservice to their own strongest members, ie the really good worker.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Please don’t get me started on the BC Ferries union and the “Queen Of The North.”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Good example. The diligent and extremely competent worker screwed by the union forcing an incompetent to work alongside him.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Well, two of the workers certainly “got screwed.” Too bad it was by each other when they were supposed to be steering the boat.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I thought I remembered hearing that the Captain was on a scheduled break and the guy on the bridge didn’t inform him over whatever was happening like he was supposed to…not sure I remembered anything about sex on the bridge. But we all would, wouldn’t we?
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
I heard shortly after the incident, second, from a friend ofa different captain), that the QofN captain left three crew members in charge.
Two of them were ex-lovers. They shooed away the 3rd, then did what they did while the ship ran onto the rocks.
Take it for what it’s worth, but it’s the only explanation given that makes sense.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Section
I get your contrary position and respect it, but you are wrong on this one.
The thing is, last night’s action by Auger is soooo far beyond the pale that any referee that backs up his “brother” is risking his own rep.
Real refs know that he did wrong. They may or may not view Burr’ with a different agenda afterwards…
But you cannot tell me LaRue was at all happy with his “partner’s” actions last night. He even tried to mitigate it with that knocking the net off call, before obviously giving up when Auger made his "interference call that wasn’t " 4 seconds later.
I doubt that the fallout from other refs will be the fallout that hurts the Canucks.
Regardless of what they think of Burr’, they are and will be more professional than Auger was.
And most union rules do protect the worker. But most company and union rules also have mechanisms that call for dismissal and/or harsh punishment for especially egregious actions.
This is one of those…
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"
Yeah my problem with unions isn’t especially egregious actions. I mean if the best you can do to defend a union is that they have “mechanisms that call for dismissal and/or harsh punishment for especially egregious actions” then you are helping make my point. Workers should lose their job for being bad workers. Not for punching someone in the face. I am not sure I am making my point clearly but that’s how I feel. They protect incompetence for FAR too long and it makes the good workers look bad. Unions should force the incompetent workers to clean up their act while glorifying the hard working. That just doesn’t happen.
And I am not wrong. I said if Burrows accusations are true the Ref should be severely punished, fired, I believe was my exact word. If they are unfounded Burrows faces a suspension. That is pretty easy to agree on.
But the Canucks still have to win the game. Somehow, someway they have to win. You can’t get a game replayed even if the accusations are true and you can’t get extra points in the standings if they are true. So you have to win the game.
So what am I “wrong” about here?
Maybe I didn’t say it right…
But where you are wrong, my puck addicted friend, is in saying that the Canucks just screwed themselves with other refs.
I will continue to assert the majority of refs that saw the calls and the aftermath would not want to make marginal calls to back up their brother because the respect the integrity of the game.
The actions of Auger bring the game itself into disrepute, regardless of what someone may think of Burrow’s rep.
I get the union reference. I agree…its the main reason I dislike unions, is that incompetent people keep their jobs for far too long.
The thing is, they were not given a chance to WIN the game. Do not forget that Auger did not just make two marginal calls on Burrows. He made a third on Henrik that should have at least been called a dive the other way as well. No way Joel Ward goes down that easy. He is 6’2" and 215 lbs. He saw a chance to take advantage and took it. I don’t blame him. Its human nature to find that edge.
The same as the Mitchell and Bolduc calls earlier. Both were examples of Nashville players feeling the stick and going down a little easy.
Hell, Bolduc’s call was pretty bad…his stick barely touched his check…ON THE HIP. and the guy went down.
Credit Nashville’s players with being savvy enough to see what was going on and taking advantage of it.
REAL refs are not going to side with Auger when they view this game in it’s totality.
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"
Yeah maybe that was too strong. But I think there will be some Refs who are pissed at Auger for what he did. There will be some who will only be pissed cause he shoulnd’t have told Burrows what he was going to do rather than keeping his mouth shut and doing it. There will be some who will be pissed at Burrows for going public. Will it affect the Nucks? Maybe. That’s why I think the GM should have done it. That way it doesn’t come out onto the ice.
I get the union reference. I agree…its the main reason I dislike unions, is that incompetent people keep their jobs for far too long.
that depends on how good of a manager you are.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
My dad is a manager in a union environment. He works his ass off. Gets taken advantage of all the time. Guys out sick when they aren’t sick. etc etc etc. He takes the appropriate steps. Does all the paper work. Writes guys up when he can. Not much else you can do.
here's my 2nd to last union experience.
Working in a warehouse at a Jimmy Pattison Co., and being promoted through EVERY department in that environment based on merit.
Yet still unable to bud on and attain a driver’s job, the best one in that environment ( read, paid best ).
Yet watched people take advantage of the manager like Section’s dad and still have those jobs while thumbing their noses at management.
The final act was then where the management offered a junior management job that in retrospect should have taken, but youth and the thoughts of dealing with all those sick and tired workers now having me as their personal avenue of contempt at the management did not fill me with positive thoughts!
So true that there is not much else you can do.
PS…the last was being a manager of a theatre but still watch the big theatre companies absolutely and with indifference and contempt absolutely crush those projectionists, once the highest paid job in that enviro’…
I kept my job, but watched a whole number of people with families and good jobs be crushed by the “man”..
The one thing that unions are supposed to prevent.
But that’s just me.
;-)
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"
@section312: so am I. It’s a trying position to be in. But there are ways to get around things. Due diligence is one of them. Long story. I shouldn’t talk about my work.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
I personally believe Burrows. He’s worked hard to get where he is, and despite the fact that he’s an agitator who’s mastered the hair-pull takedown, I can’t see him slandering an official unless it’s for good reason.
As for how he handled things, I actually like that he came right out and said it. Sure, the tactical, professional approach is to go through your management and let them talk to the league, but then there’s no pressure whatsoever on the NHL to resolve this. If this flies under the radar, it’s likely that they just sweep it under the carpet and give on of their boys in stripes the free pass.
Now that it’s in the media, the exposure is there, and so is the pressure on the league to answer these allegations. As soon as Burrows opened his mouth, he must have known it was going to be a battle and he just struck the first blow.
Penalties in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buVvgCwwOeU
Burrows’ post-game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkG0fyvAeA0
There is no way it flies under the radar or gets swept under the carpet. Not with this official. Every player in the league already knows about this Auget guy, after his run-in with Doan, and Burrows could easily let the NHLPA know what happened. Plus there is no reason Gillis couldn’t have gone to the media instead of Burrows so that the player isn’t the one taking the heat. You could keep it quiet and then go the league and maybe leak the story to someone at TSN. There are a lot of ways that this could have been handled.
The real group of people who can make a difference in this case are the fans. And in particular the fans who were at the game. As a group they should sue the NHL. If they can prove what Auget said to Burrows then they could probable build a pretty strong case.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
As a group they should sue the NHL. If they can prove what Auget said to Burrows then they could probable build a pretty strong case.
That would be a sight to behold :) .
Of course, in a perfect world, you are right, there may be better and smarter ways to make this issue public, without all the emotions involved.
But in the heat of all that happened at the end of the game, it is no surprise that Burrows acted the way he did. I think that 90% of us would have acted the same way, if feeling wronged.
Los Angeles, CA
I don’t disagree. The Canucks management and PR staff are as much to blame as Burrows himself.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed, absolutely
MG or AV should be the one making the public comments, if any. And I still would have preferred this be dealt with after the fact, in the boardroom. Only make it a public brouhaha if the league says “we’re not investigating”.
What do you want them to do, run out and tackle Burrows in mid-sentence? Put hockey tape over his mouth and declare the interview over? “Nothing to see here, folks, move along now!”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I read somewhere that they stepped in and ended the Burrows on the bike interview. They should have stepped in much much sooner. If they hadn’t stepped in he might still be talking about it now.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Can’t know to step in till till after he speaks. And I’m glad he spoke his mind; let’s get this out in the open.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Well once again there are better people, ie MG, to talk to the media about this than a player. Management should be bringing this out not the player. That’s my opinion anyway.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Auger
was also the ref who blew down the obvious Brad May goal. That was swept under the carpet. If Burrows didn’t go public, this would have been too, I’m quite sure.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
But when the NHL explained the Brad May call
LaRue’s name was mentioned as the official who decided it was no goal. I do think referee pairs stay together for the whole season.
I agree that the fans play a huge part to play in this. But given the thoroughness (sorry for setting your sarcasm detectors off, everyone) that the NHL investigated the tampering situation, why would anyone in the Canucks organization trust the NHL, and not want to force their hand to look at this. Alex Burrows has too much to lose if this isn’t true. All players are well aware of the consequences of speaking out.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 11:06 AM PST reply actions
Right. But as I have said before Burrows doesn’t have to bring this to the media. Gillis can.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Burrows: “WTF WTF WTF!!! That guy screwed me. I can’t believe it! Think I should say anything?”
Equipment Manager: “Uhhh…that was BS for sure. Better ask the coach first tho.”
Random media person (walking by hearing this): “No man, don’t ask the coach, he’ll say no for sure. Just say it in the media scrum.”
Gillis (watching interview): “WTF WTF WTF!! Burr just screwed me. I can’t believe it! Get me the publicists, NOW!”
by GAHHHHH! on Jan 12, 2010 11:16 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
LOL..thx for the laugh!
“Lets put it on the board!”
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 still trying to process the whole thing. I voted for the 2nd option but it was tough. Just talking to a guy at work here and he suggested that maybe refs should be mic’d or wired for the whole game so that everything is recorded. That would bring accountability. Otherwise this turns into a he said/she said scenario and all that happens is Auger gets scolded and monitored and Burrows gets fined. Big whoop. That solves nothing.
That is probably a great idea. Microphones would bring transparency to the process, and it would certainly eliminate most of the personal agenda.
Los Angeles, CA
mic'd refs
that is an awesome idea, though I doubt their union would ever go for it. this would actually work well though, as this ensures a measure of accountability, not completely, but some.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
I mentioned Rugby referees in a previous post. Same idea. They are not only mic’d up but those mics are live on the TV. So you can hear what refs are saying to players at all times. It’s brilliant. Rugby refs are also great at explaining themselves and why they called what they called. They also talk to players during the play to let them know that they are close to being offside or whatever. They give them final warnings and then carry out a punishment if those warnings are not heeded. They are the best refs in any sport IMHO and I think the mic has a lot to do with it.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
No way you could broadcast NHL mics on TV…the feed would have to be 10 seconds behind the action to catch all the beeps. Even with no mic’s on the ice you still catch cussing frequently on TV…can you imagine the frequency if the mics were live at ice level at all times? Personally I’d dig it, but 30 million parents would shit out a condor over it. Remember that Rugby is, as they say, a ’hooligan’s sport played by gentlemen’. Hockey players… not so gentlemanly.
30 million parents would shit out a condor over it.
Sounds painful.
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 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Well they would have to be gentlemanly. But if you watch a Rugby match you VERY rarely hear what the players are saying even when the Ref is talking directly to them and they are just feet away. As a bit of an expert on the subject of microphones I can tell you that the ability to pick up a very narrow band of sound is readily available. If the mic is pointed up at the Refs mouth it won’t pick up much of what the players are saying.
Oh and let’s be honest. Every hockey player older than 7 has heard a swear word. We have also all heard people swearing in the background during hockey games or read lips. I really don’t think it’s that big of a deal if occasionally a swear word was overheard during a game.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
great idea
Aren’t they actually mic’d up now, but its just their choice when to turn it on?
I still say hire the guy that does the sign language translations at the UN for a little freelance $$$…it is there in all it’s HD glory to be done.
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 must be older than you guys; I remember when the CBC did try to mic the games, live. Very first first game lasted about a minute, Bobby Clarke called the ref a “fucking queer,” loud and clear, and the live mics have been turned off ever since. My mom & dad were laughing cuz they’d seen it coming all along.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Impose heavy fines for any offensive language. I mean let’s make these hockey players actually have to be creative to insult one another. Not just calling everyone “gay”
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
revenue opportunity?
Charge extra for the uncensored mic feed of the officials and the players?
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
rec'd
And it would go to charity, because hockey players are pretty cool that way.
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 voted for #1.
Burrows didn’t strategize before he spoke, he just told the truth, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Moreover, if he had gone thru “channels,” it would have taken forever, possibly been buried, and in the end he still wouldda had to testify publicly as to what Auger said to him.
It’s an old argument, but I’ll side with Burrows on this one. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum; – Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Not sure if anyone else from my neck of the woods has chirped in here yet, but I had to get my two cents in on this. I am from Minnesota. The well hated Minnesota Wild fan. I know… treading on unfriendly soil here, but I come in peace.
Here in MN, we hate Alex Burrows. For the same reasons you all hate guys on the Wild. Today, however, we come together. If a ref is making calls based on a personal vendetta, he needs to be removed from his position. The NHL should (very quietly for now) remove the ref from officiating games until after the investigation is over. I say quietly because otherwise you open up every ref to being suspended pending investigation every time a player says they did something wrong.
I don’t see much happening here, despite the fact that it should. As Wysh said, we are in he said / he said territory. Unless the ref owns up to it, which won’t happen, the NHL cannot prove it. Even if they can prove it, the likelihood they want to take the PR hit by calling out one of their holy referees is small.
I am here in support. Burrows has the right to call out the ref, and I hope the NHL really investigates it rather than asking the ref “Did you do it?” and allowing him to simply deny it and move on.
(You can now go back to hating and despising me. Hee hee.)
http://www.hockeywilderness.com
Thanks for your input..and you are always welcomed here. Just can’t guarantee we’ll treat you right during game time! ;)
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
Even if it’s he said / she said sort of thing – and let’s for argument’s sake say Burrows is lying – shouldn’t the NHL do something about a ref who has a string of questionable calls and missed goals that has affected games? Or is that sort of thing a witch hunt because then everything refs will do may be called into question? It’s tricky…and it is the NHL we’re talking about. They’re not exactly the model of rational discussion and sane punishment.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
If they were gonna clamp down on Auger for previous poor performance, they wouldda had to have done it already.
Can’t do it now, tho, right after Burrows’ comments, not unless we wanna go full circle and punish him, as he did Burr, for prior acts that were previously deemed, rightly or wrongly, as no big deal.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I think they go through reviews quite regularly and are worked with to improve their performance. That is fine. It doesn’t even need to be that transparent, ie. telling us who is in trouble, they should just do a better job letting fans know that Refs do go through those reviews.
Agreed. The fans don’t know what goes on with disciplining refs so as far as we know they do not get punished which can lead to the fans questioning the integrity of the sport. I’m not saying it is in question for sure but it can appear that way if the fans think there is nothing in place to discipline a ref or to show the fans that they are trying in some way to improve the refs ability to call a game fairly.
waiting for a link, but...
apparently the players aren’t gonna tow the union line on this one if it’s true… there are rumblings of Calgary’s Craig Conroy calling Burr a “tattletale”… if this is true, it has some interesting aspects: 1) does Conroy get reprimanded by the Union… and 2) an already bitter rivalry just got a whole can of gas dumped on it.. will post a link if it pops up
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 12:04 PM PST reply actions
so far what we have is this
from @alex_ruiz on twitter:
Conroy on Burrows: “No one likes a tattle-tale” (Said talking face to face is one thing, going to the media another) #Flames #Canucks 12 minutes ago from UberTwitter
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Conroy just confirmed that Burrows is right and prob speaking the truth, all the while using just enough humor to keep himself, Conroy, outta trouble for saying so, and pretending to take the officials’ side. Clever bunt.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
thanks for the update… was a little shocked when I first saw that… seemed to be something that the Flames PR dept would wanna avoid…
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
I meant that by calling Burr a “tattletale,” by using that word, Conroy implicitly confirmed that Burrows’ accusations were probably correct. I have heard no add’l commentary or anything that could be called an"update," tho.
Conroy was clever to use a kindergarten word like that. What’s the NHL gonna do, suspend him for making a funnie? See my tag line? Conroy understands.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I wonder if Conroy wants to meet Burrows out by the swing set after class?
Sorry but “tattletale” made me laugh. If Conroy actually used that word then I think it is hilarious.
by Section 312 on Jan 12, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
This picture of Hank humping the goalie reminds me....
is is just me, or did anybody notice Auger touching Burrows’ back a little too long, on the video clip showing their pre-game chat?
Nah, I am probably assuming too much..
Los Angeles, CA
Haha, I did notice that!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Are you guys suggesting a lovers quarrel? No wonder Auger was so hurt by Burrows embarrassing him in Nashville. casual, what would your wife do if you embarrassed her in public?
That’s the fastest Ellis has ever closed the five-hole!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Jan 12, 2010 12:55 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I kind of miss what it was like before the third period last night. Lots of laughing. Lots of people posting funny comments in the game thread. It’s Always Sunny references. What a wonderful time.
It’s amazing how quickly the good times were forgotten. Sad..
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
Hey so how about that Burrorws guy getting 8 goals in the last 4 games, eh? Pretty good, eh? Booyah
by Beantown Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
Couldda tied an NHL record with just one more goal last nite, and if not for Auger’s penalty calls on him and his linemate, who knows, eh?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
Just read this on Hockey BC site
Officials Night at GM Place
Thursday, January 07, 2010
BC Hockey and the Canucks Centre for BC Hockey announced today a contest designed specifically for officials. BC Hockey officials must submit a 300 word essay on ‘How would you recruit your friends to become involved in officiating’. The deadline to submit an entry is January 15, 2010 and must be between the ages of 13-17.
Entries will be judged on creativity and style.
Eight (8) lucky officials will win two (2) VIP tickets to attend the Vancouver Canucks game on January 25, 2010 when they take on the Buffalo Sabres. In addition to the VIP tickets, member(s) of the NHL officiating staff for the game on January 25 will take time to meet the eight (8) officials prior to the game. BC Hockey has received great support from the NHL officials.
Just ofund it kind of funny that Officials night is coming up. Wish it was scheduled for the very next game!!
How much money are these guys making, anyway? I am asking because I have no idea what exactly the reward is for all their work? Could it be that they are underpaid, so they don’t really care about doing their best?
Los Angeles, CA
“They are on salary. 3 year contracts. Kerry Fraser makes in the vicinity or 1.8-2.5 million per year.” That is from a friend of mine who is a referee capable of reffing at the major junior level. Not sure what level of Ref that makes him or even what the levels are called but he is high up there.
/spits out her drink at her screen
Kerry Fraser makes how much???
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
Is it that surprising? It’s a pretty exclusive group. Takes a long time to get to that level. Lot’s of travel and time away from home. Plus it’s a pressure packed job and your in the public eye so they have to pay well or most people wouldn’t do it.
Saw this over at Kukla’s and thought it was worth repeating here. From the Columbus Dispatch:
Lots of talk around the rink today about the situation that played out last night in Vancouver between NHL official Stephane Auger and Canucks winger Alex Burrows. Great coverage here from the Vancouver Province.
I must say, Auger is not one of the more respected NHL officials, so more than a few people are willing to believe Burrows’ side of this story. But Burrows also has more than a tinge of agitation to his game, so he doesn’t get many breaks, either.
Here are the takes from two different sources at the rink today, none of them current Blue Jackets players.
One: “Good for Auger. That little rat bast*** Burrows got exactly what he deserved. That’s stuff used to happen all the time in the league, but player wouldn’t go whining about it in public. It just shows how little respect some of the new players have for that part of the game.”
Two: “That kind of stuff has been going on for years. I can’t believe he’d be so stupid to tell the player about it before the game, but I could see it. Because it’s Auger, I could see it.”
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
Man. The old guard sometimes crack me up — they defend the inexcusable just because that’s they way it’s always been done.. “Everyone knows our game lacks integrity. Stupid younger players never used to whine. They just have no respect for that time honored lack of integrity.” You could extrapolate that to their view of headshots, fighting, etc. I’ll bet they said the same thing about Plante when he first donned a mask “Taking pucks of the skull has been going on for years, but goalies never used to whine about it. It just shows you how little respect some of the new players have.for that part of the game.”
I am watching the highlights of the game again. I have to say that the hooking call on Henrik in the first and the roughing call on Ellis in the second lead me to believe the Refs were just having a bad game. Those two calls, to me, make Burrows accusations less likely to be true. I still think he is telling the truth, or at least his side of the truth, but those are compelling pieces of evidence that the Refs had a stinker long before the last 5 minutes.
The other ref made the Hank calls and Auger made the interference and diving calls. That’s something important to note.
by thelastjohnny on Jan 12, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
I just can’t see any other ref’s in the league standing up for Auger, mud sticks, and even if Burr’s claims were untrue it still reflects worse on the Ref’s than it will ever look on Burrows. Clearly something was said, and believing in the most part Hockey is a game for warriors, people who lie to get their own way or throw tatntrums at bad calls i would think get weeded out pretty quickly in the most part and not make 1st line NHLers. I think the only option the NHL has here is to get rid of this douchebag Auger, i can definitely see a fine or even worse incoming for Burr here even if he is vindicated, but also I think the NHL needs to apologise to Burr, Doan and whoever else had had issues with this guy and they’ve covered up, because after all officiating is completely their responsibility and letting someone with such an allegedly questionable character negatively affect the game so badly reflects more on them than anything else.
by AdelaideNuck on Jan 12, 2010 3:15 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
rec'd again...great comments from so many different sources...
Internet is kewl!
The warriors analogy was so apt. He has went from the Greensville Growl on up through the leagues to the 1st line on one of the, at that moment in time, the hotter teams in the league.
I think he has seen a lot of things where he bit his tongue throughout the years, but if he didn’t “clear his throat” last night…his head probably would have burst.
That speech was pretty good, he got a lot of things in. He obviously gave it a little thought, but mainly just “spoke sincerely from the heart”. That is something that cannot be denied or belittled. Agree or disagree, I sensed nothing contrived in what the man said…
The fact that it is one of the NHL’s most often investigated officials CANNOT be wholly discounted by even Craig Conroy and his “tattletale” comment.
Hell, he agreed with him at the end too!
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 think the only option the NHL has here is to get rid of this douchebag Auger…
Well, the only good option, but it’s the NHL we’re talking about here.
Hockey must be a strong game to survive the men who run it – Conn Smythe.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
btw, the Province did a bit more research, looks like Burrows should only get a $1000 fine if the NHL follows its own rules….
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
That’s asking a lot of the NHL.
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 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Dreger from TSN talked to Colin Campbell
It doesn’t sound entirely rosy for Burrows.
It’s possible that Burrows could be suspended for the outburst.
While his reputation of late is one of a gifted goal scorer, some inside the NHL’s head offices, at times, have seen a dark side, and a player whose on-ice motives haven’t always been pure.
read the link i put above, the Province found the rules where it only says that Burrows should get a $1000 fine, with no implications of 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 trust Campbell to ever make the proper decision regarding punishment for violations outlined in the CBA.
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 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
2 minutes to the NHL Head Office for a cheap shot.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Jan 12, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The NHL head office is where good ideas and accountability go to die a prolonged, painful death.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but Dreger has been a douche to the Canucks ever since his cousin Nonis was canned for Gillis…
He is not the most unbiased of sources at the best of times, and seems to enjoy giving the ’Nucks the bidness when he can…
Ferraro coming up on 1040 next.
His opinion I can respect more!
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"
Gillis was just asked what he’d thought of the interference call on Burrows and declined to comment, saying “I’d rather donate my money to charity.”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Is there anyone who doesn’t think it was a blown call? I mean that isn’t really news worthy is it? There is no way that was interference.
The q is : was it a deliberately blown call? Blown calls per se are a part of the game and overall the officials do a fine job. But they don’t deliberately call a non-penalty and swing the result of the game, which is why this is such a story.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yeah okay. But you were talking about how Gillis responded to a question about the call. Was the question to Gillis what did you think of the call? Or was the question was that a deliberately bad call? Cause we all know it was a bad call.
When Burrows knocked Ward over it seemed accidental because Burr was trying to cut to the net after the faceoff. Ward was in the way.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
If that was an interference call, we might as well use NBA officials from hockey and call any touching at all that occurs. And traffic in front of the net? Fuggedabouddit!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
casual I am a basketball fan and I played the sport. You want to be a post player in basketball you would get your ass kicked. You get beat up down low. They don’t call every time some is touched a foul. Only on the perimeter.
The problem in the NBA tho'
..is the Kobe’s and LBJ’s ALWAYS get the call. Rep in the NBA is equal to 3-4 points per game for those guys.
I love playing it for fitness even now, but its why I turn the channel often when watching the NBA these days…
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"
Yeah but it’s the same in the NHL. Clearly reputation plays a role. That’s at least the biggest lesson we have learned so far. Mario and Wayne used to get preferential treatment. Messier too. Should he have played in game 7?
Section: Was that a penalty? Perhaps. I’ve seen them call shit like that before. Who initiated the contact there? Burrows it seems as he cut into Ward. Just my observation. Might be wrong.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 12, 2010 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
There are people getting in each others way on every faceoff. It’s like holding in Football. You could call interference on every face-off. It never gets called. And Burrows is looking directly at the puck. So it has to be incidental contact. That’s a horrible call. The diving one was a penalty they should have called holding the stick though. But that interference one was horrible.
I am definitely in the camp of "right idea, wrong method".
Refs in general didn’t seem to like Burrows already, and this won’t help. I’m not sure that it’s ever correct to take matters like this into the media.
Falling, fallen, we all fall down, it only really matters how we stand our ground
If and when we rise to our feet again, we'll be on our own
-Tomas Kalnoky/Streetlight Manifesto, If and When We Rise Again
TSN
has totally begun the process of sweeping this under the carpet IMO, sportsdesk’s feature mentions repeatedly Burrow’s rep, yet makes no mention of any of Auger’s incidents which are TOTALLY relevant here. And they actually referred to Auger as a “respected NHL referee”. Seething with anger right now
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 3:55 PM PST reply actions
don't go on espn
barry melrose talks about how burrows should rethink his reactions and apologize, while the replay of that bullshit interference call is being played. barry, you’re an idiot if you didn’t see that!
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
Also “don’t go on ESPN” is more of a general rule of thumb.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
well, sometimes they have good stuff……then again, that’s almost never.
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
They do have good stuff. Just not for hockey.
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 4:35 PM PST up reply actions
sometimes they have good stuff online to read, but their programming leaves a lot to be desired. IMO.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Sportscenter used to be the gold standard. No one did it better. No one was even close. Funny, insightful and interesting. Kilborn, Kenny Maine, Dan Patrick etc etc. They have gone way downhill the bigger they have gotten.
Dreger is Nonis' cousin
and Nonis is very unhappy with the current Canuck ownership and management. It’s no surprise that TSN is not on the Canucks’ side.
Team 1040 brought up an interesting idea. I you followed the history between Auger and Burrows, and you found out that he will be officiating yesterday’s game, it would have made sense to put some money on Nashville. Especially because the Canucks were favorites, so those who put money on Nashville made a lot of money.
NHL is terrified right now, that this may come across as game fixing in the US media.
Los Angeles, CA
Game fixing? Come on.
Canucks fans love a conspiracy theory. First you would have to prove that Burrows allegations were in fact true. Then you would have to be able to prove that Auger knew what the line was in Vegas. Then you would have to find evidence that Auger gambled on the game or was paid money to make a certain call by someone who gambled on the game. Let’s get a grip here.
No, no conspiracy here.
They were saying that it can be easily imagined a scenario where some people around Auger could have overheard him saying that he will get back at Burrows on Monday. Those people who had this (insider) information could have made a fortune by putting money on Nashville, in anticipation that Auger will make some questionable calls against the Canucks.
Los Angeles, CA
I just think Canucks fans and the idiots at Team 1040 get too carried away some times. Most things I have read are anti-Burrows in the American media. Bit of a leap to go to game fixing from there isn’t it?
The American Media are a pot of writers’ deadlines rehashing league press releases; it’s amazing sometimes how much you can get into the press by making an overworked reporter’s life a little easier.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
How is it not
fixing?
He intentionally fabricated a penalty late in a tie game.
Whether his motives were profit/blackmail or personal vendetta is irrelevant to the action and result.
I said it wasn’t game fixing. In the gambling sense. Which is what we were talking about. Define fixing however you want but in terms of game or match fixing in the gambling sense there would have to be a lot of evidence to get there. And no one is thinking that is the case.
by Section 312 on Jan 13, 2010 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
Not true. But this is such a non-issue I won’t comment anymore. This is some shit that an idiot Vancouver media guy spouted in the heat of the moment that at no point has anyone else in the media anywhere picked up on or run with. So who cares? It’s a non-issue.
by Section 312 on Jan 14, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
It has
zero to do with some media guy and what he said.
It has to do with action and result, his actions and their result was about as purposeful a game-fix as if he was betting on it, whether he actually was or not is still irrelevant to the action and result.
It’s not game-fixing unless it’s confirmed AND the league knew AND condoned it.
That said, US law reflect a “deep pockets” legal culture, and the league could still get sued for negligence. Even a bogus suit would cost millions to defend, so the league could have justifiable concerns there.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
But the only mention of any game fixing from anywhere comes for the home of Canucks hockey. Take that for what it is worth. If Pratt said it, it ain’t worth anything.
If Pratt said it, it ain’t worth anything.
So I’m not the only one who thinks this…
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
isn’t it his job to provide coverage and insightful commentary?
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
Only incidentally. Ratings come first and sometimes shitting your pants in public gets you more attention than if you didn’t.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Really? Why would he be pissed?
This isn’t directed at anyone and certainly I am not attacking Adelaide or what he wrote.
But that said. Shouldn’t Shorty be fair and balanced? I mean if we are angry at Melrose for not being balanced in his opinion shouldn’t Shorty be held to the same standard?
Shorty sure seemed fair and balanced while calling the game, I’d have to hear what he said today to judge.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jan 12, 2010 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
It takes a lot for Shorty to make those kind of emotional outburst…he prides himself on not doing that in his comments…I want to hear them too…
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"
Agree. He is one of the best. He has no reason to be pissed unless Burrows is telling the truth. In which case we all have a reason to be pissed. I don’t think Shorty will get pissed until he has reason too.
He’d have to be one of the best to continually work with larscheid without A: laughing at him or B: punching him
No…Shorty learned a long time ago that we Canucks fans love him, and has treated him like his cool Uncle tommy ever since.
Sometimes Unca Tom says some shit…but he is from a different era.
But he is still cool.
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"
Interviews with former players and managers and present players on TSN suggest that as much of the “book” as possible will be thrown at Burr as most of those interviewed by TSN by far condemn him. Quite likely the league office has passed the edict to the media to mostly highlight the ones critical of Burr. Also suggests the league will do nothing about Auger, at least not this year other than disallowing him to do playoffs. Maybe he’s gone by next year. I expect suspension since TSN only shows condemnation. The die is cast.
So what has Burrows done wrong aside from complain about some officiating, once, in the heat of the moment? Apparently that’s just a thousand dollar fine if the book’s thrown at him.
by thelastjohnny on Jan 12, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Really? All he did was complain about some officiating? Come on. He accused the guy of intentionally going out to screw Burrows over. He accused the Ref intentionally trying to decide a game in one teams favour with premeditation. That’s not just complaining. If he is making it up it’s pretty serious accusation that brings the integrity of the whole sport into question.
Okay, when Auger accused Doan of racial slurs, who came under fire? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around double standards sometimes.
by thelastjohnny on Jan 12, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
Well you can’t let Burrows off the hook for something that happened before. And I thought Doan took heat initially but Auger took heat after it was proven unfounded? That’s what I remember happening.
Maybe I remember that incident incorrectly.
by thelastjohnny on Jan 12, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
More likely I do. But I just think you can’t let Burrows flame a guy just cause the guy is a douche. If Burrows is telling the truth, and again I think he probably is, then prove it and flame the guy big time. Fire his ass. But baseless accusations, as they are at this moment, aren’t good for anyone. Even if the guy is a grade A douchebag.
They’re not entirely baseless, but what do you want him to do, wear a wire? It’s not like the evidence pile is going to get any stronger.
Of course, you can say he should’ve gone through the proper channels and whatnot, but maybe Auger shouldn’t have told him what was going to happen before the game.
by thelastjohnny on Jan 12, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
According to the dudes interviewed, he violated an unspoken code re making such sensitive subjects public. In effect, a tattle tale, according to them.
by Bobby Canuck on Jan 12, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
yeah...
But one of their main talking heads and their supposed “insider” Dreger is as biased a source as their stories. Ever since his cousin Nonis was canned, he lost all impartiality.
I have looked at several so far, and even Spector’s column..
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2010/01/12/spector_auger_burrows/
in this one he takes repeated shots at Burrow’s rep while still supporting his base argument.
That it showed malice and forethought, and affects the integrity of the game.
Ferraro just told his experience of absolutely hating Stewart, but never felt that the fairness of the game was threatened like Burrows obviously felt last night.
Great stuff on 1040 right now.
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"
pissed?
Why wouldn’t anyone who loves this game be pissed? Hockey fans should be pissed at this…
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 4:07 PM PST reply actions
A thank you
to everyone who has shared this article on Facebook…
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 12, 2010 4:59 PM PST reply actions
the verdict has been tweeted by botchford:
Burrows gets a $2500 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 already put up a fanshot. if sean or someone knows how to add a link to it and wants to put it on the front page, that would be great.
Official Ambassador for Nucks Misconduct.
"If Chuck Norris was up against 7 Rangers, he'd call Ryan Kesler."
GO CANUCKS GO!
More Goals?
2-3 goals per game isn’t enough? I guess I wouldn’t complain if he was scoring 4 goals a night.
Hate to tell you but in Canada we already are that. What we think about Leafs fans, everyone else thinks about Nucks fans.
by Section 312 on Jan 13, 2010 12:16 AM PST up reply actions
What are you basing that on?
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 live in a place where people from all over the country come to live. Fans of all different teams. And they all agree. Everyone I ask thinks Canucks fans are a joke. Idolizing an at best good player who was never as good as the fans make him out to be. Going on and on about ‘94 when we didn’t even win the cup.
Plus I used to go to 15-20 Nucks games a year and while it may only be anecdotal evidence I used to think on and almost nightly basis that Canucks fans who go to games are more often than not, poor hockey fans. Someone threw a pumpkin on the ice once. That he had won, and that the players had carved with their families. Trevor Linden had to jump over it to avoid injury. They used to chant “wifebeater” to Patrick Roy. Someone once asked my sister how long Trevor Linden had been back in town. It was his first game back and it was midway through the second period. How can you call yourself a fan and not have heard the news that Linden was back? I mean come on you couldn’t look out your window without hearing about that. And the list goes on. The fans on this site are great, that’s why I love it, but around the league Canucks fans are not held in very high esteem.
Fair enough Section.
Though, the " live in a place where people from all over the country come to live. Fans of all different teams. And they all agree. Everyone I ask thinks Canucks fans are a joke." …is a little much for your point.
In Vancouver, WE are not “all Canucks”…I know plenty of fans from different teams…the fact the you, on “the Island” is it? So what, really? That’s kind of specious…
To the rest, maybe you are just trying to prove your point…maybe you believe this… http://www.spike.com/blog/top-ten-teams-with/87671?page=2&numPerPage=1
Whatever. There are fans from all over the league that have done some of the stupid shit you are “anecdotally” using as evidence.
People have called players FAR worse than “wifebeater” in markets all over the league. Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton fans have had that same REP in Canada, and the Flames record FAR exceeds the Canucks. For some outside of it, they just remember girls lifting their shirts on the Red Mile (not that there is anything wrong with that!) as an image of Flames fans.
I know of people that have went to Canucks games in Calgary, because they live half way ( from places like Revelstoke and the Okanagan ), and having to defend themselves from physical violence from Flamers fans. A friend of mine came back from Calgary with a broken jaw for having the temerity to stand up and cheer a particularly nice goal from the Sedins just a few years ago. Guys that specifically followed him out afterwards and TOLD him that was why he was getting ganged.
Great fans…
The point is Section, you are taking an opinion that some like Damien Cox,
( and really Sean, get his interview with Blake Price up ASAP…some of the arrogant and spiteful shit he says about Vancouver, our hockey team and especially Burrows are something to behold…like he was thinking “Fuck You” to us the entire time he was on the radio. )
..or that stupid Spike List…written by a FLAMES fan, I might add!
Canucks fans are some of the most passionate about their team in the NHL. They are the equal to people all over the league, and especially Canada, in having good and bad examples of fans.
And really, a pumpkin? At least it once was not a living thing once, like the Octopupi of Detroit, or coins on the ice, an oldy but a goody from the fans of the Leaf and Le St. Flannelle.
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"
Um the pumpkin almost injured a player who had to jump out of the way of a flying fucking pumpkin during the game. Do you not get that? I have seen Wild, Flame, Hab and Leaf fans getting the shit kicked out of them outside of GM Place on more than one occasion. All teams have horrible fans but in my vast experience of going to games and talking to hockey fans, keep in mind I broadcast hockey games and talk hockey for a living, Canucks fans have the worst reputation in the league. Lasers in the eyes of goalies only served to reinforce what most people around the league think. In fact a Flames fan just three days ago told me he hates Vancouver and it’s fans more than Edmonton. I admitted my “evidence” was anecdotal and therefore obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. But when you continually read articles about how horrible Vancouver fans are don’t you start to think there might be some fire under all of that smoke?
I should reiterate that the fans on this site are not the ones I am talking about.
I could not give two fucks what anybody else thinks of Canuck fans. Douchey things go on in every arena around the league. As for Trevor Linden, he won’t be going into the Hall of Fame. Wow. Shocker. The man poured his heart and soul into this team during his time here. The fans took him into their hearts, and called him one of their own. What a crime.
The 1994 Stanley Cup final was one of the best final series in the last 20 years. No, we didn’t win, but I dare say we came a goal post away from taking it. The emotional roller coaster fans went through that playoff year is a memory I’ll keep with me forever.
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.
Me too. But you have to be able to see how the high point of our franchise, losing in the final, would be laughable to those on the outside looking in. And loving an average player the way most of us do from the outside looking in would be a bit strange and laughable as well. And no one said you should care what other fans think of us. I was just pointing out to a Canuck fan that thinks the Leafs are the laughing stock of the league that while they are just that and more around the rest of Canada we are laughed at as well.
The 1994 Stanley Cup final was one of the best final series in the last 20 years.
I think it was the damned best, and I’ve seen every final since the late 70’s.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 13, 2010 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
Lets just leave it at..
“Canucks fans have the worst rep around the league..”..as YOUR opinion.
I respectfully disagree…
I disagree with the multiple beatdowns outside GM Place you used to counter that thought.
I have been to some games too.
I have NEVER seen a fan get his jaw broken outside G.M Place as my friend had just outside the doors of the Saddledome.
Anecdotal evidence is like that.
BTW..don’t say shit like “multiple articles” top back up your shit without a link or two.
Because if you are talking about a LOT of the articles in relation to this story from guys like Cox, TSN and others…most of the author’s can have their paycheque traced back to TV contracts and no one wants to rock the boat.
Is all good Section…I disagree with what you said.
But I still like you…you’re a peach!
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 mentioned two articles in YOUR post. There are your multiple article right there. Do the digging yourself they are out there.
As for the fights don’t kid yourself. There has been several times when there has been a fight in the stands when I have been to game between us and teams like the Flames or Leafs. I have seen that happen on more than one occasion. And I once broke up a fight in the streets between about 16 Nucks fans and 3 guys from Minnesota. Well I wasn’t the only one who broke it up but I was part of a group. A group of good Nuck fans. And there are lots. But that kind of stuff happens all the time. Walk away from the stadium in any direction and you will witness Canuck fans baiting opposition fans. It often turns into a fight.
Maybe there are more good fans than idiots but or reputation around the league is based mainly on the idiots. Stuff gets thrown on the ice all the time at GM Place. Garbage and shit. One time the other teams goalie was trapped in his net as “classy” Nuck fans showered the ice with beer after a bad call. It’s hard to see maybe if you live in Vancouver and maybe hard to see cause we love our team and the fans on this site are so good. But trust me in the rest of the country, rightly or wrongly, Nuck fans are the least liked and the least respected.
Good lord this was infuriating. An “investigation” for appearances, no knowledge of what Auger’s side is, a misplaced fine, 2 points gone, and a league full of witless people thinking Burrows is a crybaby and undeserving of any sort of fair officiating.
Maybe a win will help my blood pressure.
(Oh, and Nucks Misconduct pwns. :) )
2 points gone? It was tied at the time. How do you know we would have gotten one point let alone two?
One probably, and with the PP, maybe two. Most statistically likely result was OT.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Right but cosmically we don’t know that Nashville winning wasn’t the predetermined outcome.
Was that spiritual enough for you? :)
Two points are gone in the sense that they are two possible points we were denied by the calls. They weren’t two we were assured. Simple deductive reasoning is important on the internet, friend. We don’t need to attempt to argue everything.
Simple deductive reasoning? OK guy. Listen. I am not trying to argue everything. but simple common fucking sense tells us we weren’t denied anything buy the calls. We were denied the two points or one point or potentially one or two points by the fact we couldn’t kill off a 4 on 3 late in a game despite having a guy who is supposed to be one of the best goalies in the league. There was still time to tie the game after they scored and plenty of time before the calls to put the game to bed. The Canucks did none of those things. Winners win, losers make excuses.
by Section 312 on Jan 14, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Don’t be an idiot. Deductive reasoning, in this case, should be used to understand what I mean, not try to justify what you think I said. In the few posts I’ve read in this thread that’s all you’ve done. Lets try to get it right again so that you can stop arguing something that doesn’t make any sense.
My first post about “two points gone” was simply me whining about the fact that in a tight race we have zero out of two. That’s simple enough, no blame placed at all. But you felt the need to argue it because you thought I may have been any easy mark who just “didn’t get it”. You’ve probably argued with Burrows fans since the allegations and you obviously take these things very seriously so I understand. But you need to treat all posts as individuals, they all have different personalities (and some disabilities!).
When I tried to clarify, and be cordial, I said we were denied two points, which I understand is a very black and white word for you and you assumed I meant the referees came over and told us to get off the ice. We were denied two points by poor officiating COMBINED WITH not coming up huge on the penalty kill and of course by not scoring earlier. You seem to assume that I’ve never watched hockey and that I don’t know that there is more to a game than a bad call and a bad goal. I’m not those other fans, but I can’t spend all night trying to understand who needs their hand held through a comment and who is alright on their own. So when reading an intelligently written post you have to assume that the writer is not an idiot, and has already thought about what you’re about to lecture him on. And guess what, I have!
So we’re basically here now, you thinking I mean something I don’t and you thinking I don’t know something that I do. So in the 20 minutes or so total we’ve spent writing this exchange we could’ve fixed our gutters or got our tax info together. With deductive reasoning, we could’ve avoided all of this. You just need to pick your spots better, I guess.
(Perhaps now you understand why I didn’t write this in my first post. Because if I took the time to explain every single nuance of each comment I would need to quit my job. Hopefully from here on out you can give me the benefit of the doubt and not randomly argue with me.)
OK well first of all my argument regardless of what you think you said or what you tried to say is still valid. The calls denied the Canucks nothing other than some more 5 on 5 time in that game. We weren’t denied anything. And if you want to come onto a thread late and whine about something you are going to have to assume that your comment will be added to the long list of Burrows fans and apologists who aren’t being objective about this whole situation. I know it sucks to be lumped in like that but oh well that’s how it works.
Oh and if you think
Simple deductive reasoning is important on the internet, friend.is cordial you need to get your head out of wherever you have jammed it. That reads as passive aggressive snarkiness. You threw friend at the end so that makes it cordial? No, if anything it makes it read like you are talking down to me. If it wasn’t meant that way you should do a better job writing your posts or explaining the context. Remember that it isn’t important how you meant the message to sound it is only important how the receiver of the message interpreted it.
Finally I am not going to do any kind of reasoning, simple or otherwise, to try to understand what someone really meant in their posts. I am going to read them and assume that everything is to be taken at face value. If you think people on a message board are going to agonize over your posts in order to understand some hidden context your out of luck.
I do believe that you should be able to look at posts as different entities, I guess you’re right and that is how it works.
I don’t take the word “friend” as rude but that’s the internet these days.
And as I said, I can’t spend all day writing out explanations to avoid your triggers so I won’t. What I said in the last post was clear as day and took far too long to write for the amount that I care. If I took everything you said at face value I would call you out on a dozen things, but I assume that, for the sake of brevity, you glossed over them. That’s how text works. Try, please, to read between the lines.
Have a good one.*
*Not passive aggressive.
You know what irks me? Is when Burrows and fans say that the 1 or 2 points lost in this game could mean making the playoffs or not. Cop out! How about that stupid losing streak at the beginning of the season? How about shitting the bed against weaker opponents in October-November? BAH!
No no Sean. Auger cost us a win that is obviously gauranteed to us in a tied game late in the third. And those two points are obviously going to be the difference to making the playoffs or not. Auger cost us everything. I think we should pack it in lose every game the rest of the way and go for Taylor Hall.
Or stop making excuses, win hockey games and not let the ocassional bad call become an excuse.
by Section 312 on Jan 14, 2010 10:54 AM PST up 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
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- 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
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.
