Post-Game Talk: Game misconduct for winning 5-4 (SO)

[thepuckmonster]

I watched the game at the bar so couldn't always here. But I don't remember noticing Santorelli until the shoot out.

I noticed him maybe 2 other times. He didn't do much at all.

 

[PG Canuck]

I watched the game at the bar so couldn't always here. But I don't remember noticing Santorelli until the shoot out.

He's had a terrible time in Nashville.

3 points in 20 games.

 

[m9]

I've had a couple conkys too. They suck, feels like a hangover headache that won't go away.

I will agree that those are the typical symptoms, and also typically players should be able to skate off.

I can also say from first-hand experience that you can't always skate off. I have blacked out from a bad concussion and couldn't get up, yet was feeling great within a couple of days. I've also been hit very similarly to what happened last night and was able to skate off.. but had horrible symptoms after and was unable to play for months.

All I'm saying is keep an open mind as when it comes to these things.

 

[MrShift4]

No suspension for Burrows per Renaud Lavoie on Twitter.

Is this real life?

Clearly I woke up in an alternate Universe

 

[Barney Gumble]

All I'm saying is keep an open mind as when it comes to these things.

Doctor Recchi disagree with you. And he's a practicing physician.

No suspension for Burrows per Renaud Lavoie on Twitter.

Is this real life?

Bettman got you really bad (notice the date today).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Spector's article on Burrows and Buff is full-on ******.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from him regarding his Canucks hate.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/byfuglien-burrows-test-process-varied-results/

 

[arsmaster*]

Spector's article on Burrows and Buff is full-on ******.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from him regarding his Canucks hate.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/byfuglien-burrows-test-process-varied-results/

It's clickbait, Spector knows Canuck fans will read that ****.

I just read it, I don't know why, I knew exactly what it would say.

My favourite quote was "oft suspended", am I wrong in that he's only been suspended once in his almost 700 game NHL career?

Spector is a tool, I wouldn't go to sportsnet.ca at all, If tsn hadn't completely screwed up their website.

 

[Wisp]

I know most of you hate Jason Botchford, but this is why he's awesome:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/04/01/no-suspension-for-burrows-but-you-can-still-feel-the-hate/

Lots of people are going to say Vancouver would be outraged if something like the Gaustad hit happened to Burrows.

If only we had an identical hit to compare it to which happened to Burrows, without any of the over-the-top outrage.

Oh ya, we do. From just last week, too.

...following with him posting a video of the Toffoli hit. Great stuff.

 

[Robert604strom]

When it comes to Canucks news i never bother with Tsn or sportsnet they make me want to laugh,puke and swear at the same time.
I thought Gaustad dove at first but that isnt true, he did lay on the ground like that hit turned him into Vyacheslav Koslov (Red wing from the 90s who if you guys are old enough to remember always layed down for the 10 count)
I hope Burr wont be suspended but i dont count on it. and i saw that other report that he wont be but im waiting til april fools day is over first.

 

[polarbearcub]

It's clickbait, Spector knows Canuck fans will read that ****.

I just read it, I don't know why, I knew exactly what it would say.

My favourite quote was "oft suspended", am I wrong in that he's only been suspended once in his almost 700 game NHL career?

Spector is a tool, I wouldn't go to sportsnet.ca at all, If tsn hadn't completely screwed up their website.

He's a joke of a " journalist" such a character assassination on burr in the past few years.

 

[tantalum]

Was he on the bench right away (or not leave for the dressing room) though? (which is the same as playing IMHO - since if they (Preds trainers) felt a concussion was a possibility - wouldn't he be sent to the "quiet room" for a period of time?

Though him not going to get any icetime anyhow given what you said - would seem to give a reason for the Preds to "play up the incident" by making him sit.

If you go down like he did holding the head and lay down as long as he did. Embellishment or not he should be assessed. To not assess him screams embellishment or a complete lack of competence on the Preds part not to follow protocol.

So I to am interested in knowing if he was on the bench right away.


All ANYONE needs to know about this "viscous" hit by Burrows, is that as a repeat offender the NHL didn't even fine him.

 

[VanJack]

He's had a terrible time in Nashville.

3 points in 20 games.

Could never really understand the love on these boards for Santo...guy had a decent half-season in VanCity when Torts played him to death.....would never have been a second-centre option for the 'Nucks going forward imo....far better off with Bonino-Richardson.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I know most of you hate Jason Botchford, but this is why he's awesome:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/04/01/no-suspension-for-burrows-but-you-can-still-feel-the-hate/



...following with him posting a video of the Toffoli hit. Great stuff.

Hating him and thinking he isn't a credible insider are two seperate things. On this occasion, he nailed it on the nose. The fact that those three instances (Kesler on Dorsett, Robidas on Matthias, Toffoli on Burrows) weren't suspensions is mind boggling in and of itself, but it would have become infuriating if Burrows had received further discipline for his hit while those went unpunished.

 

[VanillaCoke]

He's had a terrible time in Nashville.

3 points in 20 games.

Buy low in FA !

 

[tantalum]

I know most of you hate Jason Botchford, but this is why he's awesome:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/04/01/no-suspension-for-burrows-but-you-can-still-feel-the-hate/



...following with him posting a video of the Toffoli hit. Great stuff.

The big thing is what I mentioned earlier today. Where is the angle that shows head contact (let alone primary contact with the head)? Botchford seems to answer my question by stating there was no head contact on the hit. As such it would be a huge stretch to have any supplemental discipline just as it was a huge stretch for the penalty itself.

That isn't to say Gaustad couldn't have been hurt. He might even hurt his head or might have a concussion. You see you don't need to be hit in the head to have your brain slam against your skull. The NHL isn't looking to get rid of all concussions. They are looking at concussions as a result of primary contact to the head and (supposedly) hits from behind close to the boards.

This never did fit the league definition for dirty hit.

I'm really confused as to why so many people are so confused on the no suspension thing.

 

[NuxFan09]

I know most of you hate Jason Botchford, but this is why he's awesome:

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/04/01/no-suspension-for-burrows-but-you-can-still-feel-the-hate/



...following with him posting a video of the Toffoli hit. Great stuff.

He gets too much hate considering how spot on he is most of the time. He's definitely not perfect, though, but what member of the sports media is?

 

[MS]

The big thing is what I mentioned earlier today. Where is the angle that shows head contact (let alone primary contact with the head)? Botchford seems to answer my question by stating there was no head contact on the hit. As such it would be a huge stretch to have any supplemental discipline just as it was a huge stretch for the penalty itself.

That isn't to say Gaustad couldn't have been hurt. He might even hurt his head or might have a concussion. You see you don't need to be hit in the head to have your brain slam against your skull. The NHL isn't looking to get rid of all concussions. They are looking at concussions as a result of primary contact to the head and (supposedly) hits from behind close to the boards.

This never did fit the league definition for dirty hit.

I'm really confused as to why so many people are so confused on the no suspension thing.

It was a weird play.

Burrows initiated some shoulder-shoulder contact to pick Gaustad a bit and take him out of the play as they were skating side-by-side while the Canucks were moving up ice on the rush. It was probably a two minute penalty, but a very run-of-the-mill thing. Not malicious at all.

No idea how Gaustad went down so easily or got hurt on the play. Guy is 6'5" 225 and there's no way Burrows should be able to wipe him out that easily. Doubly so when there isn't really any head contact and it's shoulder-shoulder. Bizarre.

Oh well. Good practice for the playoffs when this will happen to us on a nightly basis when we're facing a US team.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

I will agree that those are the typical symptoms, and also typically players should be able to skate off.

I can also say from first-hand experience that you can't always skate off. I have blacked out from a bad concussion and couldn't get up, yet was feeling great within a couple of days. I've also been hit very similarly to what happened last night and was able to skate off.. but had horrible symptoms after and was unable to play for months.

All I'm saying is keep an open mind as when it comes to these things.

I took an elbow to the head in January, skated off with limited wobble then couldn't leave my house for two weeks due to severe headaches. Third concussion I've had. It's definitely impossible to predict how head injuries will go.

 

[hlrsr]

The big thing is what I mentioned earlier today. Where is the angle that shows head contact (let alone primary contact with the head)? Botchford seems to answer my question by stating there was no head contact on the hit. As such it would be a huge stretch to have any supplemental discipline just as it was a huge stretch for the penalty itself.

That isn't to say Gaustad couldn't have been hurt. He might even hurt his head or might have a concussion. You see you don't need to be hit in the head to have your brain slam against your skull. The NHL isn't looking to get rid of all concussions. They are looking at concussions as a result of primary contact to the head and (supposedly) hits from behind close to the boards.

This never did fit the league definition for dirty hit.

I'm really confused as to why so many people are so confused on the no suspension thing.

If you have the perception of Burrows that most fans outside of Vancouver do and then you watch the clip in isolation, it can look like he made a B-line to deliver a dirty blindside hit to Gaustad.

Contextually, it doesn't really make sense though. Why would he do that right at that moment? And us Vancouver fans who know him better know that he might play on the edge and make some cheap plays, but a straight dirty blindside hit like that is not Burrows game. It doesn't fit.

I think Burrows knew some contact was coming and you can see him straighten out to brace for the hit, but Gaustad was just so clueless that the contact turned out a lot worse than he anticipated.

 

[arsmaster*]

The big thing is what I mentioned earlier today. Where is the angle that shows head contact (let alone primary contact with the head)? Botchford seems to answer my question by stating there was no head contact on the hit. As such it would be a huge stretch to have any supplemental discipline just as it was a huge stretch for the penalty itself.

That isn't to say Gaustad couldn't have been hurt. He might even hurt his head or might have a concussion. You see you don't need to be hit in the head to have your brain slam against your skull. The NHL isn't looking to get rid of all concussions. They are looking at concussions as a result of primary contact to the head and (supposedly) hits from behind close to the boards.

This never did fit the league definition for dirty hit.

I'm really confused as to why so many people are so confused on the no suspension thing.

Just read the Spector article for what the rest of the hockey world thinks. That sums it up.

 

[IntangiBo]

Nothing like a Burrows moment to unite Canucks fans.

 

[TheWanderer]

Clearly I woke up in an alternate Universe

Are you familiar with Steven Hawkings's theory of imaginary time?

 

[Dorsetzky]

Could never really understand the love on these boards for Santo...guy had a decent half-season in VanCity when Torts played him to death.....would never have been a second-centre option for the 'Nucks going forward imo....far better off with Bonino-Richardson.

I liked santorelli in his time here but he is basically a plug with the exception on a few decent seasons. Played hard here but doesn't exactly have the size you'd like in a western conference center and isn't oozing skill. I read a lot of posts here about how not resigning him was some huge error on bennings part, when realistically he would of just made it more difficult for Bo to become what he has now.

 

[IntangiBo]

I liked santorelli in his time here but he is basically a plug with the exception on a few decent seasons. Played hard here but doesn't exactly have the size you'd like in a western conference center and isn't oozing skill. I read a lot of posts here about how not resigning him was some huge error on bennings part, when realistically he would of just made it more difficult for Bo to become what he has now.

Santo's "local boy" status wins him some fans as well. I wouldn't have cared if we had signed him but didn't really care that we let him go.

The Benning Bashing Club needed whatever they could find early. Hell, they hated the Vrbata signing as well.

 

[Intangibos]

Santo's "local boy" status wins him some fans as well. I wouldn't have cared if we had signed him but didn't really care that we let him go.

The Benning Bashing Club needed whatever they could find early. Hell, they hated the Vrbata signing as well.

Uhm, the Vrbata signing was almost universally loved. He was the guy almost everyone here was hoping for (aside from some wanting Iggy) and we got him for cheaper than we expected. Your statement is flat out wrong.

Most people here don't like the dealing of Garrison for a bag of pucks, overpaying for Vey, Dorsett and the really dumb Miller contract. In fact, if you go back, many of us advocated for signing Hiller for 2 years cheap since that would be a great length to develop Lack. Look how Hiller is turning out for Calgary now, absolute bargain. Others, including myself, advocated running with Lack. I liked Hiller, but felt Lack deserved the starting role after last year. He played well until he and the entire team burnt out, plus he was playing through an injury to boot.

I don't think Santo is a great second line player of anything, but he would have been more effective than Vey without having to give up Garrison. We could have had:

Sedin Sedin Vrbata
Burrows Bonino Kassian
Higgins Santorelli Matthias
Richardson Horvat Hansen

Edler Tanev
Hamhuis Bieksa
Sbisa Garrison

Hiller/Lack
Lack/Markstrom

You could also substitute Bieksa for Weber/Stanton if you like on a game to game basis, and have Corrado for depth. With that we also keep the 3rd that I believe was paid for Dorsett who is an effective 4th liner but probably worth a 4th or a 5th. You could also keep Dorsett and use him as a 13th forward for depth. I'm pretty sure Garrison's contract fits in the difference between Hiller and Miller.

It's not so much that we wanted Santo, it's that we gave up too much for Vey when we could have just kept Santo instead. Benning came in and didn't want to trust Gillis' guys. That's why we signed Miller instead of running with Lack, that's why we moved Garrison for virtually no return, and that's why Tanev only got a 1 year contract and now we're paying for it (though his contract is still great value).

The Benning Apologist Club needs to literally make **** up to 'prove their point'