Post-Game Talk: Game #11: Canucks 5, Islanders 4 in OT - Who Needs Defense?

[Just A Bit Outside]

No, I WILL continue to complain because it's the refs' job to call the game properly, regardless. If they were just doing their job and calling the game fairly then it wouldn't have even come to this point. You see other players and coaches around the league giving it to the refs so why can't any members of the Canucks organization?

Cause they have been blacklisted and I don't see it changing.

Ask Ted Nolan about coming back from being blacklisted.

 

[NuxFan09]

Cause they have been blacklisted and I don't see it changing.

Ask Ted Nolan about coming back from being blacklisted.

My take is that in life, you gain respect by standing up for yourself, not sucking up. If the Canucks take a stand against being unfairly treated by the refs, yes, their may be some short term pain but in the long run they'll gain the respect of the refs back. It's human nature.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

My take is that in life, you gain respect by standing up for yourself, not sucking up. If the Canucks take a stand against being unfairly treated by the refs, yes, their may be some short term pain but in the long run they'll gain the respect of the refs back. It's human nature.

The only time the Canucks will gain the respect back will be when the Sedins, Kesler and Burrows are all gone.

Their past transgressions have left a "boy who cried wolf" taste in the refs and media's minds.

 

[Cogburn]

So I'm just throwing this out there. No suspension for Nielsen? Edler got three games for far, far less. I thought the new rule was contact to the head = automatic 2 game suspension.

 

[NuxFan09]

The only time the Canucks will gain the respect back will be when the Sedins, Kesler and Burrows are all gone.

Their past transgressions have left a "boy who cried wolf" taste in the refs and media's minds.

It's really sad how much the refs look like little schoolyard children in this case.

"You dive and show me up? Henceforth, you shall never get any calls ever again!" Absolutely pathetic.

 

[J Canuck]

The only time the Canucks will gain the respect back will be when the Sedins, Kesler and Burrows are all gone.

Their past transgressions have left a "boy who cried wolf" taste in the refs and media's minds.

If Matt Cooke can put his past behind him and be given the benefit of the doubt, then Kesler and the Sedins should too. Maybe even Burr.

 

[MrShift4]

So I'm just throwing this out there. No suspension for Nielsen? Edler got three games for far, far less. I thought the new rule was contact to the head = automatic 2 game suspension.

I thought it was quite similar to the hit Grabner got suspended for.
But this is the NHL................who knows?

 

[Cogburn]

I thought it was quite similar to the hit Grabner got suspended for.
But this is the NHL................who knows?

"Your lack of objectivity disturbs me..."

Grabner already being suspended for that, to me anyway, is more a of a reason so suspend Nielsen. I like Nielsen as a player, but if our guys are getting tossed for infractions like this, there is no reason for Shanahan to spare the rod.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

My take is that in life, you gain respect by standing up for yourself, not sucking up. If the Canucks take a stand against being unfairly treated by the refs, yes, their may be some short term pain but in the long run they'll gain the respect of the refs back. It's human nature.

for a while now my position is this is life. there are always petty people getting in your way, and maybe you can strategically do something to make them help you but if they were that petty in the first place there's just as good a chance they're going to see a chance to give it to you twice as hard. point is, don't suck up, and definitely don't cry, don't complain. life isn't fair. we all have jobs, we all have had to deal with bosses, bureaucracies, co-workers that have acted like this. you put your head down and try to power through, do what you need to do even with the bs in your way. maybe respect comes, maybe it doesn't. but at least you have your self-respect.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Lots of people pumping Bieksa's tires in here.

Bieksa's a plug who would be in the AHL if it wasn't for Dan Hamhuis.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Lots of people pumping Bieksa's tires in here.

Bieksa's a plug who would be in the AHL if it wasn't for Dan Hamhuis.

Tell us how you really feel, CM.

 

[Stanley as in Cup]

Lots of people pumping Bieksa's tires in here.

Bieksa's a plug who would be in the AHL if it wasn't for Dan Hamhuis.

Sounds a little extreme

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Tell us how you really feel, CM.

I was merely taking the oppurtunity to stick the knife in by repeating the oft used mantra around here. Bieksa has been my favourite Canuck for a long time. He brings a lot to the game and I like him nearly as much as Don Cherry does.

It was sarcasm people. Oozing, dripping sarcasm.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Sounds a little extreme

Agreed. I'm thinking more along the lies of a Alberts/Y. Weber cross where he would shift up and down from the AHL to the NHL with two-way minimum salary contracts each year.

 

[Taelin]

I was merely taking the oppurtunity to stick the knife in by repeating the oft used mantra around here. Bieksa has been my favourite Canuck for a long time. He brings a lot to the game and I like him nearly as much as Don Cherry does.

It was sarcasm people. Oozing, dripping sarcasm.

Comic Sans has been chosen as the sarcasm font.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Comic Sans has been chosen as the sarcasm font.

That would give me away and people would know I wasn't serious. I want to leave them guessing.

Anyways, I appear to have hijacked this thread. Please resume your normal activities.

 

[604]

Canucks paying for ref training, if that isn't an ironic slap in the face for the refs.

I was actually thinking that when I wrote it...but really you do whatever you need to, probably a poor example.

My take is that in life, you gain respect by standing up for yourself, not sucking up. If the Canucks take a stand against being unfairly treated by the refs, yes, their may be some short term pain but in the long run they'll gain the respect of the refs back. It's human nature.

This isn't something where one approach works every time. A lot of time, personalities and even more importantly leverage are what's important.

You show respect when you don't have leverage and stand up for yourself when you do.

In this scenario, the Canucks have no leverage at all. Burrows stood up for himself by complaining to the media after instigating a situation (he dove, and got busted for it). His complaining ruined a veteran referees career and I'm sure a lot of other referees aren't happy seeing someone get fired because of Burrows complained to the media.

Now you are suggesting that we be too proud to basically say we're sorry (without actually saying we're sorry because it's too late for that).

I'm pretty sure that if I was a ref, I wouldn't feel inclined to give the Canucks any of the 50/50 calls given what's happened, I'd have too much loyalty to my buddy who they got fired. That's human nature (and quite frankly I'd expect that in any walk of life). Re-building the team's relationship with the referees is a process and it's certainly in the Canucks interest to pursue that process aggressively.

 

[NuxFan09]

I was actually thinking that when I wrote it...but really you do whatever you need to, probably a poor example.



This isn't something where one approach works every time. A lot of time, personalities and even more importantly leverage are what's important.

You show respect when you don't have leverage and stand up for yourself when you do.

In this scenario, the Canucks have no leverage at all. Burrows stood up for himself by complaining to the media after instigating a situation (he dove, and got busted for it). His complaining ruined a veteran referees career and I'm sure a lot of other referees aren't happy seeing someone get fired because of Burrows complained to the media.

Now you are suggesting that we be too proud to basically say we're sorry (without actually saying we're sorry because it's too late for that).

I'm pretty sure that if I was a ref, I wouldn't feel inclined to give the Canucks any of the 50/50 calls given what's happened, I'd have too much loyalty to my buddy who they got fired. That's human nature (and quite frankly I'd expect that in any walk of life). Re-building the team's relationship with the referees is a process and it's certainly in the Canucks interest to pursue that process aggressively.

I don't get this? Why should Burrows be remotely sorry for revealing an extreme injustice? Auger's career was ruined because of HIS actions. If refs stop being big fat babies then nobody is going to call them out because games will be reffed properly.

I just can't bring myself to agree that Burrows and the Canucks should hold any accountability here. They used to dive, that's legit, so if you're a ref, call them for diving. Don't stop doing your job properly because you hold a grudge.

 

[bure 96]

You could call 50 penalties every game because there are a tonne of infractions taking place on every shift. Refs should just even up the PP chances each game because it's obvious that they do a terrible job when they "judge" which penalties to call and which to let go. At least with a relatively even # of PPs for each team, you get a more fair system.

 

[J Canuck]

If Auger was a good ref who made a mistake or 2, I believe he'd still have an NHL gig. There are lots of refs that aren't good enough for the big leagues and Burr exposed one of them.

 

[Tiranis]

Auger was considered horrible well before Burrows exposed him as can be gleaned from the number of playoff games he was assigned over his career. He was on his way out with or without Burrows' help.

 

[604]

I don't get this? Why should Burrows be remotely sorry for revealing an extreme injustice? Auger's career was ruined because of HIS actions. If refs stop being big fat babies then nobody is going to call them out because games will be reffed properly.

I just can't bring myself to agree that Burrows and the Canucks should hold any accountability here. They used to dive, that's legit, so if you're a ref, call them for diving. Don't stop doing your job properly because you hold a grudge.

Can you really not see it from both people's point of view?

Burrows' point of view: Ref was mad at me and made phantom calls against me. I am not happy about it and will complain to the media about it and hopefully he pays for it.

Auger's point of view. Burrows dove last game, I'm going to penalize him for it this game. I was mad about the last dive, told him as much and taught him a lesson on the ice...he complained to the media and now I've lost my career which I worked the last 30 years of my life for.

Refs point of view. Auger was perfectly justified to get back at Burrows for diving in a previous game. Burrows decided to complain to the media. The Canucks had his back and supported his claim both publicly and with the league. As a result, one of our colleagues who we worked with for over 20 years lost his job - and by extension lost his career which he had been working to get for his entire life. How they interpret that will vary member to member but I can bet what the consensus is unless Auger was the biggest ****** bag ever. The way McLean went to bat for Auger immediately would indicate that he wasn't hated by the referee community.

 

[King Crimson]

Refs point of view. Auger was perfectly justified to get back at Burrows for diving in a previous game. Burrows decided to complain to the media. The Canucks had his back and supported his claim both publicly and with the league. As a result, one of our colleagues who we worked with for over 20 years lost his job - and by extension lost his career which he had been working to get for his entire life. How they interpret that will vary member to member but I can bet what the consensus is unless Auger was the biggest ****** bag ever. The way McLean went to bat for Auger immediately would indicate that he wasn't hated by the referee community.

And this is exactly why people are up in arms about refereeing--on the ice, refs aren't allowed to have a point of view. On the ice, they are supposed to be mere tools of the rulebook, and nothing more. Any
showing of emotion in a call should be grounds for discipline. A referee must be a machine in the midst of a game. I know the reality is far from ideal, but from what I see, there hasn't been much by way of trying to achieve it.

 

[604]

And this is exactly why people are up in arms about refereeing--on the ice, refs aren't allowed to have a point of view. On the ice, they are supposed to be mere tools of the rulebook, and nothing more. Any
showing of emotion in a call should be grounds for discipline. A referee must be a machine in the midst of a game. I know the reality is far from ideal, but from what I see, there hasn't been much by way of trying to achieve it.

I'm not happy about the way the Canucks are being treated by the referees. I've posted what I consider a wise course of action to try and alleviate this issue, but it takes time.

We all acknowledge that referees are people, as you noted at the end of your post, and ending a guys career despite him doing exactly what he considered correct as a referee, and I'm betting a lot of referees would support his point of view, is going to take quite a bit of fixing.

A lot of people are suggesting that the Canucks should go public and make a big stink about things...I'm going to guess that you know how that would end. We might see things improve now, but when things really matter, we'll get ****ed. You don't start a war that you can't win.

 

[vanuck]

Comic Sans has been chosen as the sarcasm font.

Is this a thing now? Oh man...