Post-Game Talk: Leafs at Canucks - That was embarrassing to watch

[The Bob Cole]

hughson loves the canucks. healy and simpson it's hard to tell. they always sound depressed and negative - in any game i've watched them commentate - and their focus was doom and gloom about toronto's play. it was never "higgins placed a beautiful shot!" it was "moan, reimer would love to have that back."

so yes, it was terrible commentary, but it was far from canucks fan service

Hughson is a Canucks guy. Healey absolutely does not like them, but probably has received some warnings to ease up on the bias against. Simpson skews against generally, but was more partial yesterday I would say.

 

[bsjezz]

All 3 of those boardings were handed out well after the 3-0 lead by Vancouver. They didn't have nearly as big of an impact as maybe some people would like to believe. Powerplays in the first were 2 for Toronto, 3 for Vancouver.

exactly. it's easy to say they were soft calls out of context, but when the game had been pretty much settled and toronto had still been consistently gooning it up, making runs like lupul's, the refs pulled up the slack and called everything. bear in mind that there was acually only 6 minutes of penalty time difference between the two teams. the refs called just about everything.

to be fair i understand toronto's frustration and i don't think many teams would have acted any differently in the same circumstances. bolland's injury stings that whole team. it was a frustrating night. it hardly warrants the intense feelings of persecution, however.

 

[pcruz]

1) Play wasn't going to be called until Leafs gained possession of the puck. Same for any game with any team, you can't complain about that one.

2) The "slash", or tap, came because JVR threw a late hit from behind on Higgins into the boards as he was going for a line change.



3) Those kinds of plays were happening all night for both sides. That was one that CBC showed, but there were several others that they never showed on TV (I was at the game and watched the tape) of both teams obstructing or challenging players behind the play.



4) Don't care how ridiculous you want to get, but no one dives head first into the board on purpose. Leafs players were frustrated at how the game was going and at several points got over-aggressive and made border-line and dangerous hits. Most were called appropriately, no major's or misconducts were handed out, just 2 minute minors.

All 3 of those boardings (actually, one was just called a cross-check) were handed out well after the 3-0 lead by Vancouver. They didn't have nearly as big of an impact as maybe some people would like to believe. Powerplays in the first were 2 for Toronto, 3 for Vancouver.

The referee's main job is to ensure the safety and well-being of the players. The way they do this is by enforcing the rules set out by the league, but also by doing things during the course of a game to prevent injury and/or dangerous play.

A player either lying on the ice or unable to stand unaided is a condition where a referee must make a decision as to whether to stop the play or allow it to continue. Regardless of what is going on and who has the puck.

Consider the possibility that the Canucks shoot the puck, miss the net and hit Bolland in the face when he's lying on the ice. He was completely unaware of the play and was in no position to defend himself from anything. Be it a puck going in his direction, or a player.

But he tried to stand and had his leg buckle underneath him. That's a sign a major injury. Did none of the 4 officials see any of this happening? If they did, it's the job of the on-ice officials to blow the play dead when they realize that any person on the ice has sustained a serious injury.

I mean, the refs are taught to "recognize" the signs of a concussion, a brain injury that has eluded accurate medical classification and study, but they can't recognize a structural injury to the leg of a player?

There's absolutely no excuse for that play.

 

[Evidence]

1) Play wasn't going to be called until Leafs gained possession of the puck. Same for any game with any team, you can't complain about that one.

2) The "slash", or tap, came because JVR threw a late hit from behind on Higgins into the boards as he was going for a line change.



3) Those kinds of plays were happening all night for both sides. That was one that CBC showed, but there were several others that they never showed on TV (I was at the game and watched the tape) of both teams obstructing or challenging players behind the play.



4) Don't care how ridiculous you want to get, but no one dives head first into the board on purpose. Leafs players were frustrated at how the game was going and at several points got over-aggressive and made border-line and dangerous hits. Most were called appropriately, no major's or misconducts were handed out, just 2 minute minors.

All 3 of those boardings (actually, one was just called a cross-check) were handed out well after the 3-0 lead by Vancouver. They didn't have nearly as big of an impact as maybe some people would like to believe. Powerplays in the first were 2 for Toronto, 3 for Vancouver.

I think you misunderstood my post I was saying the Canucks were not diving and the refs were not biased

 

[The Bob Cole]

The referee's main job is to ensure the safety and well-being of the players. The way they do this is by enforcing the rules set out by the league, but also by doing things during the course of a game to prevent injury and/or dangerous play.

A player either lying on the ice or unable to stand unaided is a condition where a referee must make a decision as to whether to stop the play or allow it to continue. Regardless of what is going on and who has the puck.

Consider the possibility that the Canucks shoot the puck, miss the net and hit Bolland in the face when he's lying on the ice. He was completely unaware of the play and was in no position to defend himself from anything. Be it a puck going in his direction, or a player.

But he tried to stand and had his leg buckle underneath him. That's a sign a major injury. Did none of the 4 officials see any of this happening? If they did, it's the job of the on-ice officials to blow the play dead when they realize that any person on the ice has sustained a serious injury.

I mean, the refs are taught to "recognize" the signs of a concussion, a brain injury that has eluded accurate medical classification and study, but they can't recognize a structural injury to the leg of a player?

There's absolutely no excuse for that play.

C'mon, I think you know you're making leading statements on this.

How many times do you see a player block a shot, limp around on ice and struggle to get off, yet the team can retain possession as he remains stationary and unable to move, or is kneeling on the ice.

The refs had no clue as to the severity of the injury, in fact, Bolland was trying to jump his way away from the corner and within a few seconds of the hit, the Canucks scored. He wasnt laying down in the corner, like you state. The refs have no practical way of knowing that his leg was lacerated. Like in most cases, for any team involved, the refs wait for possession to change, or if the player remains stationary on the ice for several seconds (typically after an obvious hit). Neither happened on that play. It was an innocuous hit with an extremely unfortunate result (goal + long-term injury).

 

[Penalty Kill Icing*]

hughson loves the canucks. healy and simpson it's hard to tell. they always sound depressed and negative - in any game i've watched them commentate - and their focus was doom and gloom about toronto's play. it was never "higgins placed a beautiful shot!" it was "moan, reimer would love to have that back."

so yes, it was terrible commentary, but it was far from canucks fan service

Hughson is a Canucks homer, you know it.

Simpson didn't want to be a Leaf when they had a chance to draft him.

Healy is not anti-Leaf by any means, but he just says negative stuff (of any and all team).

 

[Penalty Kill Icing*]

I'll give Canucks the credit for one thing. Unlike our sad sacs, that team showed up to play when their player's jersey was being retired/honored.

 

[pcruz]

C'mon, I think you know you're making leading statements on this.

How many times do you see a player block a shot, limp around on ice and struggle to get off, yet the team can retain possession as he remains stationary and unable to move, or is kneeling on the ice.

The refs had no clue as to the severity of the injury, in fact, Bolland was trying to jump his way away from the corner and within a few seconds of the hit, the Canucks scored. He wasnt laying down in the corner, like you state. The refs have no practical way of knowing that his leg was lacerated. Like in most cases, for any team involved, the refs wait for possession to change, or if the player remains stationary on the ice for several seconds (typically after an obvious hit). Neither happened on that play. It was an innocuous hit with an extremely unfortunate result (goal + long-term injury).

Bolland didn't block a shot. He went into the corner and was hit from behind by a player. Not hit hard, or in a dirty manner, just hit. For him to fall down, stay down for a little while, stand up and immediately have his leg buckle means he has sustained a structural injury to his leg.

It's not a bruise, or shock from blocking a shot. It's either a fracture, or it's something similar.

A fracture is immediately painful and unmistakable. The guy doesn't attempt to stand up. A strained ligament is not immediately painful, but it cannot bear any weight and gives. It also becomes more painful with time and the cooling down of the muscles.

In fact, you could tear a ligament and not feel any pain until the next day. You won't be able to stand, but it may not hurt a whole lot until the swelling puts pressure on the nerves.

But, a buckling leg is a sign of injury. He didn't put his leg down and on impact with the ice lift it back up. He tried to put weight on it, stumbled down and transferred the weight back to the other leg and lifted the injured one.

I watched the game later, watched the replay and thought it was a strained ligament. Turns out it was a cut ligament. Either way it's a serious injury. It should have been immediately noticed and the trainers should have been immediately called to take 100% of Bolland's weight off his legs.

 

[Bankerguy]

Are you guys blaming the game on the refs?

Just watch the game....Canucks were clearly the better team last night.

I'm excited for the next time these two teams meet.

 

[frankthetank91]

Are you guys blaming the game on the refs?

Just watch the game....Canucks were clearly the better team last night.

I'm excited for the next time these two teams meet.

No, I think regardless of the refs whether they were good or bad we still would of lost. But that's not to say they were incredibly one sided last night.

 

[The Bob Cole]

Bolland didn't block a shot. He went into the corner and was hit from behind by a player. Not hit hard, or in a dirty manner, just hit. For him to fall down, stay down for a little while, stand up and immediately have his leg buckle means he has sustained a structural injury to his leg.

It's not a bruise, or shock from blocking a shot. It's either a fracture, or it's something similar.

A fracture is immediately painful and unmistakable. The guy doesn't attempt to stand up. A strained ligament is not immediately painful, but it cannot bear any weight and gives. It also becomes more painful with time and the cooling down of the muscles.

In fact, you could tear a ligament and not feel any pain until the next day. You won't be able to stand, but it may not hurt a whole lot until the swelling puts pressure on the nerves.

But, a buckling leg is a sign of injury. He didn't put his leg down and on impact with the ice lift it back up. He tried to put weight on it, stumbled down and transferred the weight back to the other leg and lifted the injured one.

I watched the game later, watched the replay and thought it was a strained ligament. Turns out it was a cut ligament. Either way it's a serious injury. It should have been immediately noticed and the trainers should have been immediately called to take 100% of Bolland's weight off his legs.

I don't completely agree, very grey area you are talking about here.

He gets hit into the boards and falls down. When watching the play live, you expect he was fallen by the check, not by the fact he could not put pressure on his leg. A ref will not call the play down at this point.

He spends 3-4 seconds on the ice before he stands up with all weight on the other leg and begins to attempt to hop out of the zone, but within a couple seconds the puck is in the back of the net.

There is no obvious moment during live play that the ref has an opportunity to call the play dead with 100% certainty. Only if the puck had changed possession or Bolland remained on the ice immobile would that have happened.

In hindsight, when you look at the replay and know the severity of the injury, sure you can make any argument you want. But at the time of the play, there was no certainty for the ref to stop the play.

 

[pcruz]

I don't completely agree, very grey area you are talking about here.

He gets hit into the boards and falls down. When watching the play live, you expect he was fallen by the check, not by the fact he could not put pressure on his leg. A ref will not call the play down at this point.

He spends 3-4 seconds on the ice before he stands up with all weight on the other leg and begins to attempt to hop out of the zone, but within a couple seconds the puck is in the back of the net.

There is no obvious moment during live play that the ref has an opportunity to call the play dead with 100% certainty. Only if the puck had changed possession or Bolland remained on the ice immobile would that have happened.

In hindsight, when you look at the replay and know the severity of the injury, sure you can make any argument you want. But at the time of the play, there was no certainty for the ref to stop the play.

I speak from experience in having sustained both an Achilles tear and a MCL tear. Actually, since I don't want surgery on my knee, I'm still suffering from the effects of the torn ligament (partially torn).

I recognized the sign of a structural problem with the leg when I watched the replay of him putting weight on the left leg, stumbling down and immediately taking the weight off. I remember how I reacted when I tore my Achilles. I drove home using the damaged foot because I could put some pressure on it, but couldn't stand up on both legs. It didn't hurt as much as it was numb, and when I first stood up, my leg gave out.

I understand that it's not a call the ref wants to make. If he blows the play dead and the player isn't actually injured (hurt and injured are distinct), then he looks like an idiot. But the responsibility is to ensure the safety of the players and in doubt, the conservative should take precedence right? Just like the tie on the new icing.

When in doubt, do the thing that is safest.

It was probably not going to change the outcome. The team, although I didn't watch the game itself, didn't seem like they had anything. They weren't looking particularly threatening offensively and ended up scoring 0 goals.

You are not winning with 0 goals, and honestly, there isn't much to convince anyone that they would have scored had the refs stopped the play and prevented that 2-0 goal.

Does not excuse that lapse in judgement.

 

[nidnus13]

Bieksa was also holding JVR and instigating him behind Vancouvers net on a PK when the puck was 200 feet away in the Leafs zone. The refs were awful, they weren't the reason we lost but there's no doubt it was one-sided officiating.

Im telling you, any leaf game that has Wes McCauley as a ref, will be one sided against the Buds!!! I called a loss as soon as I saw he was a ref!

 

[Divine]

The way I see it - if the Leafs win their next game. They'll STILL have a better record than the Canucks. Canucks fan are celebrating for beating the Leafs on an off night, I think this is the epitome of success for them.

 

[Raym11]

this wasnt a loss we should be fine with because we won the 2 games in alberta.


we got **** on by an actual contender team and beat 2 non play-off teams. I consider this game a wake-up call


Sure you can blame the refs a little but they didnt make Vancouver a team two-tiers above us the way it looked. The Sedins made a fool of us even without the refs help, and thats not counting the rest of the canucks.

 

[Tonka]

I think you misunderstood my post I was saying the Canucks were not diving and the refs were not biased

I think you misunderstood the game.

 

[Hodgy]

As a Canucks fan I thought the reffing was poor and that the Leafs got the short end of the stick. With that being said, the Canucks were far and away the superior team. It wasn't even close, total domination. If not for Reimer's heroics early on this game would have been a bigger blow out than it was.

 

[Al14]

I'll give Canucks the credit for one thing. Unlike our sad sacs, that team showed up to play when their player's jersey was being retired/honored.

Sure thing, they played great for the Russian Rocket. Our guys seem to blow the important games. For instance, how about the first and last games played at Maple Leaf Gardens.

 

[Al14]

As a Canucks fan I thought the reffing was poor and that the Leafs got the short end of the stick. With that being said, the Canucks were far and away the superior team. It wasn't even close, total domination. If not for Reimer's heroics early on this game would have been a bigger blow out than it was.

Reimer kept that game from being a total blowout for sure. We were very lucky not to be down 4 or 5-0 after the 1st period. He was the only Leaf interested in playing any decent hockey what so ever.

 

[Morbo]

shocked to hear that for the most part canuckfan thought the refereeing was just dandy.

shocked.

 

[Amused To Death]

Wasn't Jim Hughson the guy "hosting" the jersey retirement celebration? And then, as was mentioned on air, "ran up to the booth next to the jersey"?

Well, that seems completely normal. It can only lead to objectionable commentary and non-biased feelings during the game. I mean, the guy obviously has no attachment to the Canucks organization.

We'll gladly take him back. You can have Mark Lee...

 

[Cor]

We'll gladly take him back. You can have Mark Lee...

Done, have them. We will take back Bob Cole

 

[Asif16*]

Leafs got punked last night. The nucks called our "tough guy" bluff. Kessel rolling around on the ice dodging
punches. JVR getting punked. Bolland in a hospital bed.

An what exactly did our supposed tough guys do? Orr fights a plug and loses and MacLaren does nothing.

Time for some new goons that understand how this is supposed to work.

Lol right. Punked by the soft ass diving team right? And Orr won by the way. Sestito was hanging on for dear life.

 

[Duffman955]

Since the Nucks were diving anyway, should have really boarded them well.

Mclaren/Orr should have plastered those ****ers so hard they didn't get back up.

 

[ULF_55]

Canucks fan here. I'm not looking to start an argument, but it's silly to complain about diving when this happened in the game:

Regardless, Tortorella is working hard to change the embellishing atmosphere that the Canucks established in previous season's under Vigneault. Understandably, it may not be something you'd notice after a tough game, but the team seems a lot less likely to embellish this season. Just my two cents...

I think hockey's a lot more interesting when the Leafs are competitive, so good luck the rest of the season.

Looks like Torts might be making a difference, just a few weeks ago that would be aimed at the face ... Kassian.