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

[vanuck]

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.

Well-said.

 

[me2]

When Burrows exposed Auger he exposed all the refs, they all got tarnished by association and inference. That's why they are pissed at Burrows and probably also Auger. They got rid of Auger.

It still goes back to Auger, if he had a problem with Burrows diving all he had to do was not call the penalties committed against Burrows if there was doubt as to Burrows embellishing. Inventing calls against Burrows was not acceptable. It makes it look like the refs are fixing the outcome.

 

[alternate]

Well I gotta say, the GDT theme was incredibly apt, both teams played 1980's style defence. All we needed was Alberts to get 1 more shift that included a scrap and we would have gone all the way back.

I thought that was the best game our defense played, one through six. Kelsers starting to role, and higgins, Richrdson, and Santo are providing *gasp* secondary scoring. Liking Kassians play of late as well (most of the time). Looks like his conditioning is now where it needs to be and his skill is shining through.

Wrong thread for this I know, but with Bieksa playing as well as he is, I'd be tempted to "sell high". He's playing great and seems to be fitting well in Torts system, but I expect we'll see some bad Kev before the seasons out. Could gey a good return, and open up a spot for Corrado. Prob won't happen, but it could get us a sniper for the top 6.

So I count 7 points already from this road trip, which makes it a success in my eyes. Teams rounding into shape and while I stop short of saying we are back to contender status, we are trending in the right direction.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

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.

That is not a point of view that is an agenda. Everyone has a point of view, you can not help it. Auger had an agenda the night he told Burrows he was going to get him and he did. What he did was corrupt and he was punished for it. Really when he did this he no longer had integrity and had to be dismissed. He cost Vancouver a game, fans of fair entertainment, perhaps cost bettors thousands of dollars, for what? Auger did not just punish Burrows he rigged a game with his calls. If his co-workers should have learnt anything from this event it would be to not be corrupt. If they are in fact actively discriminating against the Canucks they to are corrupt and should not have been hired in the first place. Are you actually arguing in favour of corruption or that corruption is unavoidable so the Canucks should factor this into their actions going forward.

If my friend went to jail for defrauding a bank, i would not hold a grudge with the bank for charging him.

Mclean also showed his opinion was for sale to the NHL on this occasion. The number of media that came to Auger aid, was not to protect the ref, it was to protect the league's image. Mclean basically said Burrows was a liar, cheater and faker whose word could not be trusted.

 

[ddawg1950]

That is not a point of view that is an agenda. Everyone has a point of view, you can not help it. Auger had an agenda the night he told Burrows he was going to get him and he did. What he did was corrupt and he was punished for it. Really when he did this he no longer had integrity and had to be dismissed. He cost Vancouver a game, fans of fair entertainment, perhaps cost bettors thousands of dollars, for what? Auger did not just punish Burrows he rigged a game with his calls. If his co-workers should have learnt anything from this event it would be to not be corrupt. If they are in fact actively discriminating against the Canucks they to are corrupt and should not have been hired in the first place. Are you actually arguing in favour of corruption or that corruption is unavoidable so the Canucks should factor this into their actions going forward.

If my friend went to jail for defrauding a bank, i would not hold a grudge with the bank for charging him.

Mclean also showed his opinion was for sale to the NHL on this occasion. The number of media that came to Auger aid, was not to protect the ref, it was to protect the league's image. Mclean basically said Burrows was a liar, cheater and faker whose word could not be trusted.

McLean revealed himself for what he is. It will always be a stain on his legacy as a reporter/broadcaster.

And I have always thought that it was pretty clear the league were well aware that Burrows was telling the truth.

Of course, having no nut sack they could not come out and admit it publicly. They just waited what they thought was an appropriate amount of time to get rid of Auger.

Common as muck.

 

[604]

When Burrows exposed Auger he exposed all the refs, they all got tarnished by association and inference. That's why they are pissed at Burrows and probably also Auger. They got rid of Auger.

It still goes back to Auger, if he had a problem with Burrows diving all he had to do was not call the penalties committed against Burrows if there was doubt as to Burrows embellishing. Inventing calls against Burrows was not acceptable. It makes it look like the refs are fixing the outcome.

Let me be clear that I am just expressing a different point of view, one that I think is pretty valid but not one that I support.

Auger was burned by Burrows, he was sucked in on a dive and made a bad call that resulted in an automatic suspension that was later rescinded by the league because they deemed that he made a bad call (as a result of him believing Burrow's dive). You suggest he get even by not giving Burrows the benefit of the doubt any more.

That's like me catching you keying my car and responding by not talking to you anymore...I'm a lot more likely to go punch you in the face which is how Auger reacted by making phantom calls against Burrows the next game. Things like that happen all the time, both in hockey and in real life.

If at that point, Burrows realizes that he was caught and takes his punishment, nothing more comes of it and it probably dies. Instead, Burrows goes and cries to the media about it. It makes a big stink and the NHL has to react. As a result, someone has lost their career, Auger.

The part where people lose me is this. They always seem to brush of the Burrows dive with "That happens all the time." then they think that Auger was completely in the wrong for making questionable calls against Burrows to make up for it. Look at the Henrik penalty the other night, refs also make make-up calls all the time. The only irregular thing that happened was that a player went to the media with details about things that were happening on the ice between themselves and an official. The end result was an official lost their job and the Canucks don't seem to get many breaks with the refs...a bad trade-off for everybody.

That is not a point of view that is an agenda. Everyone has a point of view, you can not help it. Auger had an agenda the night he told Burrows he was going to get him and he did. What he did was corrupt and he was punished for it. Really when he did this he no longer had integrity and had to be dismissed. He cost Vancouver a game, fans of fair entertainment, perhaps cost bettors thousands of dollars, for what? Auger did not just punish Burrows he rigged a game with his calls. If his co-workers should have learnt anything from this event it would be to not be corrupt. If they are in fact actively discriminating against the Canucks they to are corrupt and should not have been hired in the first place. Are you actually arguing in favour of corruption or that corruption is unavoidable so the Canucks should factor this into their actions going forward.

If my friend went to jail for defrauding a bank, i would not hold a grudge with the bank for charging him.

Mclean also showed his opinion was for sale to the NHL on this occasion. The number of media that came to Auger aid, was not to protect the ref, it was to protect the league's image. Mclean basically said Burrows was a liar, cheater and faker whose word could not be trusted.

It's a point of view that caused him to go into a game with an agenda.

If anything, for your example, Burrows defrauded Auger by diving then Auger charged him for it the next game by giving him two penalties...as a result, Burrows then walked into the bank and lit it on fire so it could no longer operate as a bank.

I wasn't a fan of Auger or what he did, and I hate Ron McLean who is a host who pretends he's an analyst however the guys who can't see that Burrows is at least partially at fault for the whole incident (potentially more at fault than anybody else) is kidding themselves.

Also, McLean isn't necessarily for sale to the NHL, the guy is a high level referee who is in tune with the referee network. You can bet the chatter on that network and what they were saying played a huge role in what he was saying on air and what he says to other referees and media personalities off air.

 

[luongo321]

Let me be clear that I am just expressing a different point of view, one that I think is pretty valid but not one that I support.

Auger was burned by Burrows, he was sucked in on a dive and made a bad call that resulted in an automatic suspension that was later rescinded by the league because they deemed that he made a bad call (as a result of him believing Burrow's dive). You suggest he get even by not giving Burrows the benefit of the doubt any more.

That's like me catching you keying my car and responding by not talking to you anymore...I'm a lot more likely to go punch you in the face which is how Auger reacted by making phantom calls against Burrows the next game. Things like that happen all the time, both in hockey and in real life.

If at that point, Burrows realizes that he was caught and takes his punishment, nothing more comes of it and it probably dies. Instead, Burrows goes and cries to the media about it. It makes a big stink and the NHL has to react. As a result, someone has lost their career, Auger.

The part where people lose me is this. They always seem to brush of the Burrows dive with "That happens all the time." then they think that Auger was completely in the wrong for making questionable calls against Burrows to make up for it. Look at the Henrik penalty the other night, refs also make make-up calls all the time. The only irregular thing that happened was that a player went to the media with details about things that were happening on the ice between themselves and an official. The end result was an official lost their job and the Canucks don't seem to get many breaks with the refs...a bad trade-off for everybody.



It's a point of view that caused him to go into a game with an agenda.

If anything, for your example, Burrows defrauded Auger by diving then Auger charged him for it the next game by giving him two penalties...as a result, Burrows then walked into the bank and lit it on fire so it could no longer operate as a bank.

I wasn't a fan of Auger or what he did, and I hate Ron McLean who is a host who pretends he's an analyst however the guys who can't see that Burrows is at least partially at fault for the whole incident (potentially more at fault than anybody else) is kidding themselves.

Also, McLean isn't necessarily for sale to the NHL, the guy is a high level referee who is in tune with the referee network. You can bet the chatter on that network and what they were saying played a huge role in what he was saying on air and what he says to other referees and media personalities off air.

Burrows is at fault for nothing. Every single team dives, but Auger wanted to try and make an example of Burrows because his feelings were hurt. He even had the nerve to tell Burrows his plan beforehand. It shows how well protected these refs are in this league. The people in charge of the officiating should all be fired if they have any part of it. People pay good money to go these hockey games and that clown wants to try and interfere with it. It's disgusting. Kelly Sutherland is the next one that should be fired.

 

[NuxFan09]

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.

Exactly! The ref's point of view means jack all! I can see that he was probably miffed for being embarrassed and hey, that's okay. That's normal human emotion. But take it up with Burrows, maybe even make a few calls against him to teach him a lesson, and leave it. at. that. There's absolutely no need for the reffing brotherhood to continue to hold a grudge for years and basically not do their job in order to "get back" at Burrows and the Canucks. It's infuriating as a Canucks fan but it's frankly also embarrassing and childish.

You make a lot of reasonable points, DJOpus, but I refuse to believe that the onus is in any way on the Canucks to endear themselves to the reffign community in order to fix this issue. The refs should just be held accountable for their lack of professionalism and childish behaviour.

 

[Wolfhard]

Almost every player will try to manipulate or stretch the rules to help his team succeed. I'd theydidn't, they wouldn't need officials at all. And if Auger was upset about Burrows making him look bad on a diving call, he should file it away as lesson learned and pay closer attention to dives. If he sees one, reward that player with a penalty.

You do NOT change the rules, or make phantom calls to even a score from a previous game. Your job as an official is to ensure that the game is played fairly. NOT to manipulate the game around your own personal agenda. The fact that he altered the outcome of that game because he wanted revenge on one individual is absolutely ridiculous. A team could have made, or missed the playoffs due to that result, and because of that, a team could have earned or lost millions of dollars because of his selfish little vendetta.

No matter how insulted or upset he was, his actions were unprofessional beyond belief, and it was a disgusting display or corruption that could never be justified.

 

[Pip]

Exactly! The ref's point of view means jack all! I can see that he was probably miffed for being embarrassed and hey, that's okay. That's normal human emotion. But take it up with Burrows, maybe even make a few calls against him to teach him a lesson, and leave it. at. that. There's absolutely no need for the reffing brotherhood to continue to hold a grudge for years and basically not do their job in order to "get back" at Burrows and the Canucks. It's infuriating as a Canucks fan but it's frankly also embarrassing and childish.

You make a lot of reasonable points, DJOpus, but I refuse to believe that the onus is in any way on the Canucks to endear themselves to the reffign community in order to fix this issue. The refs should just be held accountable for their lack of professionalism and childish behaviour.

You simply cannot do that as a ref. The two big things a ref is supposed to be are unbiased and consistent.

 

[Hammer79]

Someone on my twitter feed giffed the hit on Kesler. Credit to @choderama

 

[Barney Gumble]

You simply cannot do that as a ref. The two big things a ref is supposed to be are unbiased and consistent.

 

[NuxFan09]

You simply cannot do that as a ref. The two big things a ref is supposed to be are unbiased and consistent.

Oh I know. I guess I was throwing a bone, so to speak.

 

[Pip]

I chuckled when I typed it as well

Oh I know. I guess I was throwing a bone, so to speak.

fair enough

 

[604]

Burrows is at fault for nothing. Every single team dives, but Auger wanted to try and make an example of Burrows because his feelings were hurt. He even had the nerve to tell Burrows his plan beforehand. It shows how well protected these refs are in this league. The people in charge of the officiating should all be fired if they have any part of it. People pay good money to go these hockey games and that clown wants to try and interfere with it. It's disgusting. Kelly Sutherland is the next one that should be fired.

Honestly, the idea that "Burrows is at fault for nothing." is a joke.

That's like me saying: "Auger did nothing wrong, refs make make-up calls all the time."

Both statements are wrong.

It really doesn't matter who is right, at the end of the day:
1 - Burrows was an a-hole for diving.
2 - The ref was an a-hole for making make-up calls against Burrows.
3 - Burrows got the ref fired by going to the media.
4 - The Canucks get ****ed because we played a role in getting a ref fired.

I'm not fine with the situation at all and we can ***** all day about who was right and who was wrong, at the end of the day, both sides were wrong but the refs have way more leverage and the Canucks pay the consequences.