Colin Campbell Tells Stephane Auger's Side Of The Story
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 14, 2010 12:21 PM PST
in Canucks News
73 comments
Campbell told the Fan590 today that Auger did not "share the recollection of the pregame chat caught on camera." Basically, Auger told Campbell that he told Burrows pregame that he only called the major penalty on Jerred Smithson after he hit Burrows because Alex embellished his injury. Auger said he told Burrows that he "didn't need him to help him in that context" and that "he didn't appreciate Burrows embellishing plays like that in the future."
Campbell also said:
"We didn't think our official said what Alex Burrows said he did," Campbell said. "Regarding the "I'm going to get you" — we didn't see any physical reaction from Alexandre Burrows on the tape. We thought there might be. Secondly, we didn't hear anything about it during the game, our officials."
"I mentioned this to Alexandre: 'Did you mention this to your coaches that this is what this guy said to me?'" Campbell said. "Then, once he had the dive called on him, you'd think he'd probably go and say 'Hey, he told me he was going to do this.'"
Of course, there was no 3rd party to confirm what Auger said to Burrows in that conversation so that's the end of that.
More on Campbell's view at The Province.
0 recs |
73 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Auger sure sounds like he spoke very clearly during the lap before the game. It’s more likely where Burrows states that he said “something like”, Auger tweaked what he said to be more politically correct when asked for his statement. In Campbell’s mind, we have two individuals who were wrong (he admits the pregame skate was out of line, and I’m sure he would agree that their friction should’ve been left on the ice last game), so we fine one and forget the other. The suspect calls are not addressed either.
As expected.
Dealt with for what? If that wasn’t a game that was scheduled to be reviewed I doubt Auger will have heard anything about the bad calls. I really think that our love of Burrows, because of the way he plays, is tainting how we’re reacting to this situation. The NHL was investigating the allegations that Auger was out to get Burrows. They found no proof of those allegations. Case closed.
by Section 312 on Jan 14, 2010 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
At least we got some explanation from Campbell, as if we really heard much new, but still…communication…
Isn’t this more than what most people expected?
by thelastjohnny on Jan 14, 2010 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
That guy can still go suck a bag of dicks.
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 14, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
“When we have two individuals involved in a situation, unless we can verify it by a third party, by a third neutral party, it’s very difficult to take one side of it,” Campbell said.
But the disciplinarian suggested that even the circumstantial evidence leaned Auger’s way.
“We didn’t think our official said what Alex Burrows said he did,” Campbell said on Fan 590. "Regarding the “I’m going to get you” — we didn’t see any physical reaction from Alexandre Burrows on the tape. We thought there might be. Secondly, we didn’t hear anything about it during the game, our officials."
This whole section of the article is the important part for me. He said she said type situation and you can’t take sides without real evidence. Circumstantial evidence can go both ways. We all thought that the circumstantial evidence, the chat before the game, the calls, the way Burrows reacted to the interference call, were all good examples of circumstantial evidence that supported Burrows. But Campbell points out several good examples of circumstantial evidence that contradicts what Burrows said after the game. Why didn’t he tell someone? Why didn’t he say hold on let’s sort this out before the game starts? Let’s make my coach and my captain aware of what Auger said in case something happens and then I will have some backup for after the game. To me there is strong circumstantial evidence on both sides of the argument and that is why I am OK with the outcome of this whole situation. I love Burrows and think he has one of the great stories in the league. Hard work personified. If you work harder than everyone else you can make yourself successful. You can do whatever you want to do. But without anyway to corroborate what Burrows said the league took the only appropriate course of action.
Well, the fact that Burrows did not visibly react on the pre-game chat video, is easy to explain.
First, the referee was right that Burrow embellished the Jared Smithson infraction. So Burrows must have felt a certain degree of admission of guilt, when Auger pointed that out.
It is hard to openly express indignation, when someone catches you cheating. The first thing you are going to feel, is embarrassment.
Second, there was no way for Burrows to assume that Auger is going to make a phantom call at a crucial point of the game, regardless of what Auger said. So Burrows may have regarded Auger’s comments as as a simple nuisance, and nothing more. Certainly not important enough to make a bid deal out of it…..especially because Burrows knows about himself that he does embellish rather frequently. Again, someone who is guilty, is not going to complain as much as someone who is completely innocent.
Of course, at the end there was a “perfect storm” scenario, where the Canucks lost, and the phantom interference call was made. This might have changed everything in Burrow’s view, and he decided to present his version.
This can explain why Burrows didn’t “react”, and didn’t complain to his coach beforehand.
Los Angeles, CA
by AttilaS on Jan 14, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
yoata your snide little comments really aren’t necessary. I am not even sure why you feel the need to make them since I haven’t been responding to you in any of my posts. To be honest, you are normally someone i feel takes a fair and balanced and emotion free look at things and tries to write posts that look at both sides of the argument. If you aren’t even doing that anymore you really aren’t bringing much to this site anymore.
by Section 312 on Jan 15, 2010 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
this doesn’t explain the phantom interference penalty with one minute left in a tie game, which basically gives the game away.
it cheats all the spectators.
they have the chat on tape they could hired a lip reading expert to pick up at least a portion of the conversation. I like that Colly at least presented their side. I do not think it was much of investigation. I dont think they want to fire Auger they said he has family etc etc it would screw up their relationship with the refs union blah blah.
It was what could be expected. We are screwed the Refs will be on the Canucks all year and we will miss the playoffs with an excellent team. Welcome to the all new and improved NHL!
I actually think the refs are going to call it by the book for the rest of the season. The game against Minnesota was very well reffed. They know the fans are annoyed at the situation and don’t want to feed the flame so to speak.
it might look that way but watch every team dive like bastard and the refs call us everytime. It will be a feeding frenzy and they ensure that we lose in regulation no loser points for us.
by Kelownakid on Jan 14, 2010 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Anyway we will see and Section will support the league because it will be “circumstantial” and life goes on. Man the post above is corker Section build up Burrows while you sell him down the river. I will admit Section your are a great writer.
However you are an embarrassment as a Canuck’s fan, sure you got it, Burrows made the whole thing up – whew life is great now eh? Give me an effing break!! Nice chime in Sean your goof ball as well. I can not believe that you guys are drinking this white wash.
I think Section’s point was fair and balanced, and I think you are missing the point or, not seeing the whole scenario. Name-calling isn’t going to get you far here btw.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 14, 2010 8:20 PM PST up reply actions
To be honest Kelownakid I would rather be a smart and fair Nucks fan than a zealot who believes everything the players say. Funny how no one on NM took Boogard seriously after the Minny game yet you are all accepting Burrows word as Gospel. I love Burrows and will always cheer for him when he is a Nuck but I am not going to blindly support him just cause of who he is. I mean I didn’t support Bertuzzi for what he did even though he was my favourite player. And looking back on it I am glad I took emotion out of it and looked at the situation in an unbiased frame of mind. I will continue to do that. Think of me as less of a fan than you, I really don’t care. I sleep very well at night.
by Section 312 on Jan 15, 2010 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
rec'd.
I know the Minny game was better…but was I the only one that noticed the HUGE flop by Miettinen off the defensive zone F/O that wasn’t called before the slightly more skilled one that was?
4-3 PP…and a big goal.
AV better practice the PK every game!
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"
But yeah…lets keep it civil!!
From someone that knows!
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"
My name is Consuelo Gonzalez, and I am a professional lip reader. I help people who are “non-vocal” be heard and understood by others. I also help people “hear” what is being said in films or videos that have no sound. Based in Seattle, Washington, I have provided lip reading services to clients internationally for over 20 years.
…
In the case of video transcription, I view a previously recorded video of a person (or persons) speaking and create a written transcript of what was said.
I have no idea if this person is any good at her job or not or what she charges; she just came up high on a google search for "lip reading services". But the point is that there appear to be professionals out there who do this as a service, for those interested….
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
That was just one example in order to show that services are out there. Why wouldn’t Campbell, for ex, use the same ones that were successful before, then? Or why wouldn’t one of the local TV sports shows give it a whirl?
The world cup final turned out to be quite a show when Zizou, a non-practicing Muslim, head-butted the Italian player who was bullying him. Right after the incident the English newspapers employed few lip readers to find out what was the conversation all about that provoked Zizou to do such a thing. Here are some of the findings by the lip readers:
“Son of a terrorist whore,”
“I did it (the nipple-twisting) because I know that’s how your mother likes it,”
“I wish an ugly death to you and your family,”
“your sister’s a prostitute”
“you make love to your sister,” etc.
Surprisingly the lip reading service wasn’t that bad at all ! Yesterday Zidane, on french TV, did claim that the Italian insulted his mother and sister and he doesn’t have any regret for what he did. So here we go – bravo to lip readers !
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I am making the counter point here (perhaps a little to strongly for some). Rignt now I truly believe that it this is how it will play itself out. If I am wrong i will be happy to man up admit it and frankly I hope that I am.
The problem with Collies arguments are that they are errors of omission that is weak from logical perspective you can always argue that someone could have done more. They do not compare to the very strong circumstantial evidence based on the actual facts of the matter. I do not see them strong or balanced arguments at all.
They are merely a smoke screen to allow the league something to hang their hat on.
Really Section should consider writing copy for the NHL he does an excellent job of defending their extremely weak position.
This copied for the province but in my opinion this guy knows what he is taking about.
Any lawyer will tell us that the test of deciding if Burrows is telling then truth is called the balance of probabilities. What we know is that the ref did speak to Burrows, and only Burrows, before the game in a very unusual fashion . We know that the penalty given to Nashville in the last game was contenscious and Burrows-referee centred. There is nothing in the past that would suggest that Burrows would invent the allegation. We do know that the calling of the phantom interference penalty was unusual . We also know that how Burrows acted at the time of the penalty was consistent with what you would expect of someone who had been treated as Burrows’ claims. Similarly, Burrows’ upset and actions after the incidents were consistent with one might have expected. From this, the only reasonable and possible conclusion is that on a balance of possibilities Auger did what Burrows said.
Campbell: “Regarding the "I’m going to get you" — we didn’t see any physical reaction from Alexandre Burrows on the tape. We thought there might be. Secondly, we didn’t hear anything about it during the game, our officials.”
OK, after thinking about it for a while I can see how those excuses aren’t/may not be all that valid. But what are you trying to prove? That Auger did it. He very well could have but the bottom line is that it’s not black and white. It’s still a he said-he said problem in the end. It comes down to “probably” or “possibly” Auger did it. But that is not grounds to can him. That’s not good enough.
The Province piece is well done, but there is a part in there that I don’t like: We also know that how Burrows acted at the time of the penalty was consistent with what you would expect of someone who had been treated as Burrows’ claims.
Oh really? See this is what happens when you’re a well-known diver and an over-actor. Credibility gone. Yeah that’s a mock on Burrows. Not saying Auget isn’t a shitbag or that I dislike Burrows. Just saying that diving shouldn’t be tolerated and when you do it sometimes you’re gonna reap what you sow. No, Auget should not have did what he did at that time of the game, but when it went public like that there were too many holes in the saga to convict Auget. In the end, he comes across as the smooth criminal and Burrows, who runs his mouth in front of the media, breaks a rule right out of the rulebook and gets fined.
Like I said before, hopefully this is just another ding of many dings on Auget before he gets terminated. Obviously, it takes a lot of dings on refs to get them canned in the NHL.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 15, 2010 12:05 AM PST up reply actions
I can totally agree with this Sean. I do not think you are knocking Burrows he is a diver the one thing I really do not like about him to be honest. Having said that I still believe Burrows and if you do as well then Collie is conducing a white wash. Also if you believe Burrows you have to think that Augie may not be the only ref that for some reason is refereeing a little against the Canucks. Maybe he is just the most obvious. There is a growing case for this belief. In theory the ref’s are supposed to remain objective no matter what they think and League should react in some way if there is even an appearance that is not happening. There is certainly at least a strong hint of that in this case yet Auger gets nothing but public support.
I think the season started a little biased against the Canucks and has gotten worse as the year went on. Maybe their reputation for diving and whining is growing among the Refs or maybe, somehow, perhaps the league actually has a hand in this.. It seemed to take a hard turn for the worse after Gallahger’s column hinting ever so mildly that may be the league was involved after the Phoenix game. Did he hit a nerve? I really do not know.
I love the game and have always liked the league but this is really making me wonder about what the heck is going on? My guess is our season is toast. We will see how it goes from here and again I hope I am wrong.
Think of it this way if you need to deep six a team or two to make room for Phoenix in the playoffs which team would get hurt the least. Who as the most loyal fan base? I know this sounds crazy but there is a lot of money at stake if Phoenix does make the post season and goes down. Vancouver’s ownership did not make any friends when they dumped Burke’s buddy Nonnis and to make matters worse Gillis has not failed as predicted he has actually done a great job of making the team better.
You are right Sean this is far from black and white. I am really not sure what I am trying prove. Ok am off to bed to figure out who killed JFK in my dreams :)
I respect your opinion. I also believe Burrows. I hate the crooked arm of the law in hockey and in real life and your anger is completely justified. In the end I wasn’t surprised over the verdict is all. Shitty justice but not entirely unpredictable IMO.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 15, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Nobody’s touched on the ‘meta-game’ aspect to this. To me, all of this is very crafty. Burrows without a doubt knew what kind of shit storm would come from this. He without a doubt knew there’d be a fine and that nothing visible would happen to Auger. I think these are facts that have to be assumed; nobody’s that stupid that he wouldn’t. But, what he has done is send a very very loud message to all the officials, and more than that forced a microscope onto calls for/against him. Regardless of what the direct results of this little soap opera were, the indirect result is that for this season at least Burrows will not get away with any dives, but he also won’t get blatantly missed or phantom calls against him…anytime that happens the shitstorm starts again. Whether he says anything or not. Of course he won’t have to, cuz the media will be allllll over it if a phantom call comes.
Also, I’d like to throw out there that there are probably 75-100 NHL players who regularly over-embellish stuff on the ice…Burrows is hardly the exception to the rule. Virtually every game I see at least once where someone fall over from the wind of a skate by. If you’re gonna vilify burrows for being a diver, you best start vilifying about half the league…many of whom are bona fide superstars.
Can’t wait to get Grapes’ take on all this HNIC…
Damned straight. Diving from any player angers the hell out of me. I never like it when anybody does it. I don’t want this sport to turn into soccer.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 15, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
that's why I made this a couple years back:
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 15, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Lemieux? A diving legend? If he healthy enough to play anywhere near the amount of games gretzky did, he wouldn’t broke all his records. Imo, Lemieux is better than Gretzky.
Damned straight Lemieux was a diving legend! A puss for his size. A primadonna. Sorry, marcness I hated Lemieux every time he donned a Penguins jersey. Excellent player but I f**king hate him.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 15, 2010 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
You know, I hate the diving … but the league has created this mess by encouraging it in the “new” NHL. If a player can draw a penalty, he should do it, cuz he should do everything the rules allow to help his team, right Mr. Bettman?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I brought the same idea up on a thread on this story too.
That yes, Burr’ may embellish a little, but he is hardly the only one, and by no means the worst offender.
What can you do? Unless you are a member of the NHLOA…you don’t get to decide.
I did also allude to the money, and how this seems to happen more often with teams at the lower end if the $$$ scale. That they get the benefit of this “justice”.
But, I didn’t want to keep pursuing it because that would label me a Canucks “whiner”!
Nice to see a few others are picking up that torch.
We hate the idea that our beloved sport would do that, but it is at least inside the realm of possibility of some of our more cynical fans!
And yes, for his size, Super Mario did embellish too…when he and Gretz’ did it,except the commentators would always talk about their “will to win”, and “doing anything to get an edge!”
Burrows seems to be thought of as their equal in this category by others. He is a minor leaguer in the diving world to me.
But then, I am a Canucks fan!
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 don’t even really think Burrows is a diver. Not in the way I would define it. He doesn’t fall over theatrically whenever a stick touches him. What annoys me is a guy staying down pretending to be hurt to draw a call. And Burrows has done that before.
Now I said this a couple days ago and I will repeat it. The outcome of a hit, legal or not, shouldn’t factor into the call being made. If a guy gets hurt from a clean hit it isn’t a penalty. If it’s dirty but the guy is OK you should still throw the book at the guy. And if the outcome didn’t factor into the call than Auger wouldn’t have had anything to be embarrassed about when Burrows embellished that Smithson hit. If you are basing your call on the fact the guy didn’t get up right away then you should be embarrassed but only because of your own ineptitude. Burrows does embellish but I don’t think he is a diver in the same class as a Matt Cooke or Ruutu.
To a point, I agree…I will repeat what I have been saying about that Smithson hit from the start…
Smithson came from across the ice, with his stick high in cross check position, to “get” Burrows, a player disliked in Nashville, to say the least.
Burr’ felt him coming, and slid off a bit to avoid the full brunt of the hit.
He was STILL hit in the head, a glancing blow. Auger made the right call, but felt embarrassed because Burr’ was not hurt as bad as he could be.
But it was still a hit to the head from behind. The fact that Burr’ took a few seconds is totally understandable. Dude just got a stick in the back of the head.
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 come on now. He looked up, took a look around and then flopped back down on the ice. It was embellished. But your point is the same as mine. The penalty is for the hit and in part the intent. The outcome shouldn’t matter. Embellished or not.
Dude…he looked up, and went back down…thats why you are hanging him?
Geez…looking up and seeing 4 teammates and not the 2 that are there might make me put my head between my hands too!
Whether there was embellishment or not is besides the point though…on that we can agree. I am taking the position that he WAS hurt, just not too bad…he had a narrow escape from a possible career ending, or at least season ending concussion.
That would make me take pause too.
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"
You Canucks fans need to settle down. I have stated repeatedly how much I like Burrows. What a great story he is and how much I love the way he plays. I am not “hanging him” I am just stating a well known fact from a neutral perspective. And that is that Burrows embellishes at times. It’s obvious to everyone except the most blinkered Burrows zealots. You even know he does it which makes you defense of him in that case all the stranger.
Dude.
You Canucks Fans? really. Shut up.
Your talking down to people is getting old. Its not “being the Devil’s Advocate” any more.
Read what I said…before you dismiss it. When you play this game. and get a stick blade to the head, you usually take a minute to make sure everything is OK.
Calling people zealots because we don’t bow down and believe every word out of your mouth is childish. We agreed on the bigger point.
We can disagree on Burrows.
I am not irrational, or a “zealot” because I take a less jaded view of the guy than you do.
And you are not being neutral at all. You are trying to argue a point to prove a point. Please…I have enjoyed the banter…but just remember, you ain’t the only one with a brain and an opinion.
Every one else is not a “zealot” or irrational because they disagree with your assertions dude.
Lighten 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"
by vancitydan on Jan 15, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Last time I took a stick to the head I too lay still for a while so as not to get hurt any more, and I didn’t get up till my wife had left the room.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Jan 15, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
LOL...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"
He did take a second to make sure he was OK. Then he looked up and though ah screw it let’s pretend to be hurt. And then he goes back to laying on the ice motionless. He has a well earned reputation for being a guy who embellishes and we all know it. So what makes you think he wasn’t doing it in this instance? Other than the fact that you love Burrows? Stop making excuses for the guy and look at it in an unbiased way. If you are doing that and you still don’t think he was embellishing then I guess we should try to avoid commenting on each others posts since we clearly see hockey from very different perspectives.
He’s definitely not Kesler. Even when Kesler has a legitimate reason to be reeling on the ice, you’ll see him on his knees or on his feet hunched over. Kesler is pretty much invincible though so I guess you can’t really compare the two.
OK...thats it.
I said a long time ago that he was a guy that plays 100% to the whistle.
I stand by that. I like Burrows. I can agree that he is not lily white. I think most of the driven, most passionate players always find that “edge”. He does too.
But I totally diagree that his reputation as a habitual diver as you do. When? Tell me of a few times that this “diving” was apparent. Remember, something overt. Playing 100% as he does, he is usually in the centre of things…that other hit in Nashville? Another reflexive play that happens when you are going all out.
The Montreal thing that we have brought up here was another example of Auger being a bad ref. The Montreal player missed nary more than a shift against the Canucks. (which seemed to be Auger’s yeardstick )
I don’t blame any player for that. Getting your hands up to protect yourself is a reflex that goes waaaaay farther back than hockey!
Other than the Smithson thing…I can agree with you there that when he hung his head back down that he took a little pain and “worked” it. I can agree that he is not an angel.
But this bullshit that has been taken by the T.O centric media and ran with that Alex Burrows is one of the worst divers in the league, on a par with Avery…I just can’t go there. Because, I don’t think he is.
The bike riding presser Burrows had recently showed more honest emation and speaking from the heart than Avery has done in his entire career…
PS…please don’t take the following personally. I enjoy the intelligent banter. I think its great that one man remained resolute against the emotional tidal wave of the last 48. Kudos to you sir…but its more in the way you disagree. Thats fine, thats what these threads are for, discussion. In regards to that, I do have to respectfully bring this up.
You can’t say to yoata that he is someone that belittles others and then do the same yourself. You continually form your response in a slightly insulting way.
Like I am somehow less rational or of bearing a sense of hockey knowledge if I disagree.
Thats all I say about that. I like the differing opinions. But I have learnt on these things over the last month or so that we can disagree without being “testosterone” about it.
OK? looks him in the eye with a smile, hand out…
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"
Well I mean you continually defend Burrows by telling me he is clean and asking me to provide evidence that he is a diver. That tells me right there you aren’t thinking overly clearly or maybe you just missed my earlier post where I clearly stated I don’t think Burrows is a diver? I said he embellishes when he gets hit. He pretends to be hurt to draw penalties. He did it on the Smithson hit and he has done it before.
But there are also some compelling pieces of evidence to suggest Burrows is a diver….I respectfully present the case for the defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6QnFAdY53A
This second one is a clear example of embellishing posted by a Canucks fan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCfiZtKVTBM&feature=related
But just so you don’t think I hate Burrows or anything. How about this clip of one of the coolest and classiest tributes ever. This is why we love him not the other shit.
Ho! We have no further questions your honor!
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 15, 2010 5:31 PM PST up reply actions
And you know what I should apologize if I say anything offensive or seemingly talk down to you or anyone else. I realize that I do phrase things poorly when I am frustrated. But I am frustrated.
I said many times that I agreed that Burrows was probably speaking the truth regarding Auger but…and then presented my argument. Trying to be fair and unbiased. I just don’t really see anyone on the other side of the argument doing the same and that is annoying. This isn’t directed at you Dan. Just an observation on the last few days. I haven’t really read anyone say something along the lines of, "I think Burrows is right but Campbell pointed out some interesting circumstantial evidence that I hadn’t considered, I still believe Burrows though for the following reason etc etc etc. That’s why I resorted to the zealot comments. When people seemingly refuse to acknowledge the other side of the debate or even acknowledge that they can even see it from the other viewpoint it frustrates me, much like religious zealots frustrate me. Hopefully there are no hard feelings.
Absolutely no hard feelings...thats why I extended my hand above...Its all good my friend.
As to the evidence your honor, I humbly submit that in Exhibit 1 my client clearly tripped over the out stretched stick…that is a dive any NHL worth his millions makes!
As to Exhibit 2, my client has no further comment and would like to plead the 5th on that one your honor sir! Except to say that the Blues were being douches in that game too…! But then your honor already knows that.
Might I add the my opposing counsel may be as passionate about his point as myself, your honor, and that is the same passion we brought up earlier in relation to our client’s style of play as a mitigating factor in his defense.
We humbly assert that while sometimes theatrical, my client is only guilty of caring too much.
And throw ourselves on the mercy of the court!
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"
Intentions
The biggest problem I have with all of this (actually, really the only problem left to discuss) is that Campbell bought Auger’s “intentions”.
That to me is a complete cop-out. Auger needs to be judged on his actions – the brutal calls and the pre-game chat if nothing else. His “intentions” are known to him alone.
Why Auger’s “intentions” get more credence than Burrows recollection and description of the events is beyond me.
It is turning into the usual he said she said thing...
and we all know Auger is the she and also the one who’s side is going to appear as right just because of who he is. I’m on Burrows’ side until the end, he did was was right and I’m glad he did.
by dolphinsinbuffalo on Jan 15, 2010 7:56 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
- 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
- NHL's ultimatum: Amend CBA or reject Kovalchuk, Luongo deals?
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.
