OT: John Tortorella Suspension? (UPD: Suspended 15 days/6 games, Hartley fined $25,000)

[Finkle is Einhorn]

“I’m not happy with the [$25,000] fine that Coach Hartley received,†said Burke, per UToday. “Especially since we all know the Canucks started it.â€

M'thinks someone is still bitter about the breakup.

 

[dave babych returns]

Wow, that's... that's a real, not-fabricated quote.

 

[Scurr]

I prefer being a bunch of thugs to being a bunch of diving pansies.

 

[Proto]

Burke is an idiot anyway. I'm glad he's running the Flames. The Canucks finally have competent management and starseeded all the terrible former management pieces around the league to destroy everything. That's some Prometheus type $*#! right there.

 

[Outside99*]

Oh go **** yourself brian. All this clown does is get himself in the paper, and media. Seriously such a fraud.

“I’m not happy with the fine that coach Hartley received,†Burke said, as quoted on the University of Calgary’s website. “Especially since we all know the Canucks started it.â€

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-vancouver-we-all-know-the-canucks-started-it

What a crock but understandable - Burke is responsible for the actions of his subordinate.

Colie Campbell by the way begs to differ. In a frank interview on team 1040 yesterday, he said Hartley starting a winger at center, who doesn't even attempt to draw the puck, was what started everything.

 

[dave babych returns]

As an aside, caught this on the White Towel blog..

BEST PUZZLE

Which NHL executive warned a Toronto scout not to miss the start of the Canucks-Flames game because something was going to go down?

Link

Who even posts this stuff, do they have any credibility?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Oh go **** yourself brian. All this clown does is get himself in the paper, and media. Seriously such a fraud.

“I’m not happy with the fine that coach Hartley received,†Burke said, as quoted on the University of Calgary’s website. “Especially since we all know the Canucks started it.â€

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-vancouver-we-all-know-the-canucks-started-it

Got to be a troll job, Burke cannot be serious.

 

[Proto]

As an aside, caught this on the White Towel blog..



Link

Who even posts this stuff, do they have any credibility?

That's Botchford, I believe. The White Towel blog is just all the Canucks reporters blogging, but I think Botchford said that in his Provies. Sounds like something the scout said to him but he doesn't know who.

My guess? Burke.

 

[Proto]

This is Burke's style of tanking, by the way. He wants his team to lose as much as possible while fighting and mucking things up so that people talk about that rather than how awful the team is. I absolutely think Burke had a role in this.

 

[arsmaster*]

Steve Kouleas saying tonight that he thought Mike Sullivan should have been suspended as well. I don't get it, does Malarchuk have diplomatic immunity or something?

Edit: also, if it wasn't for the fact that his own network treats him like the annoying gnat he is, Kouleas would be far and away my least favourite hockey personality. I'd rather watch PJ Stock wax poetic on the Canucks ruining the game for hours than watch Kouleas introduce a highlight pack.

I think TSN hired Kouleas to help their "suspend everything" brigade.

I've never heard a man or network push for suspensions on every innocuous hit before Kool.

I don't mind him, but he really loves suspensions.

 

[Reign Nateo]

Six games is pretty ridulous all things considered. But the NHL seems to love to hammer the Canucks when it's their turn to recieve punishment. Why? I don't know, but they most certainly do. Makes it hard to be that interested in the NHL these days. Feels like no matter where we get, we'll get screwed out of it.

I personally would rather have a coach look the way Tortarella did rather than the way Hartley did. Hartley looked like and is a coward. He'll be back coaching in Europe soon enough.

Burke? We all know what we're getting. An old narcissist and sociopath, a hot air wind-bag. He stands up for his team, but you can't take him too seriously, he believes his own bull **** so there's no point getting too worked up about it. He lives in his own little world mentally, you can't make sense of it.

 

[Scurr]

I think TSN hired Kouleas to help their "suspend everything" brigade.

I've never heard a man or network push for suspensions on every innocuous hit before Kool.

I don't mind him, but he really loves suspensions.

My bro and I met him at the gold medal game. After talking to him for a few minutes and seeing him shoot a street hockey ball on his show I'm confident in saying he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[dave babych returns]

Just to revisit that Burkie quote, it was apparently delivered tongue-in-cheek.

I have no problem with that, pretty cute actually (especially delivered to a hometown crowd), but at this point he probably shouldn't be surprised if people think he's serious when he says stuff like this.

 

[Proto]

Just to revisit that Burkie quote, it was apparently delivered tongue-in-cheek.

I have no problem with that, pretty cute actually (especially delivered to a hometown crowd), but at this point he probably shouldn't be surprised if people think he's serious when he says stuff like this.

If that's the case, then it's actually pretty funny. I'll give credit where it's due.

I do still think that fight had Burke written all over it. That said, I also don't think it would have been a huge deal if Tortorella hadn't lost his ever-loving mind.

 

[VanillaCoke]

The Canucks should give out tortorella masks to the entire lower bowl.
Would be a sight to see

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Just to revisit that Burkie quote, it was apparently delivered tongue-in-cheek.

I have no problem with that, pretty cute actually (especially delivered to a hometown crowd), but at this point he probably shouldn't be surprised if people think he's serious when he says stuff like this.

Hmm are you sure, it sounds like something he would say, he went on to say Hartley handled the situation perfectly, and was miffed about the fine. It all goes together. If he believes Calgary started it and was just joking why would he be miffed about the fine and saying Hartley did nothing wrong?

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014...vancouver-we-all-know-the-canucks-started-it/

It was not presented as being tougue in cheek comments in the article. Unless you have another source i would take him at his word. You cannot be joking about the Canucks starting it then say "why did they fine us" in the same breath.

 

[dave babych returns]

Hmm are you sure, it sounds like something he would say, he went on to say Hartley handled the situation perfectly, and was miffed about the fine. It all goes together. If he believes Calgary started it and was just joking why would he be miffed about the fine and saying Hartley did nothing wrong?

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014...vancouver-we-all-know-the-canucks-started-it/

It was not presented as being tougue in cheek comments in the article. Unless you have another source i would take him at his word. You cannot be joking about the Canucks starting it then say "why did they fine us" in the same breath.

No offense but you need to read that article more closely. It's an article by "National Post Staff" (ie. nobody wants to put their name to it) about a quote on the U of Calgary's website:

"I'm not happy with the fine that Coach Hartley received," said Burke. "Especially since we all know the Canucks started it."

All joking aside, Burke brought words of sage advice to law students looking to break into the world of sports law following graduation, an area of the law that is statistically very hard to be successful in.

"Don't be afraid to take chances when you start practicing law," said Burke. "My theory has always been to work as hard as I can and to explore all of my options so I can do multiple things throughout my career."

Link

He goes on to talk about practicing sports law etc. which was the reason why he was there.

Subsequent Burke quotes in the Nat'l Post article are taken from other settings such as an official statement released via the Flames sticking up for Hartley. As for the "why did they fine us" bit, I can't be bothered searching for / linking to it but I recall reading that Burke's "perplexedness" was subsequently revealed to be as to why the league fined Hartley, and not the Flames organization for example.

Someone in the ProHockeyTalk comments section for this story who claims to have attended the lecture said it was pretty clearly a joke. Take it for what it's worth (not much) but it's not exactly inconsistent with the facts..

 

[Wetcoaster]

No offense but you need to read that article more closely. It's an article by "National Post Staff" (ie. nobody wants to put their name to it) about a quote on the U of Calgary's website:



Link

He goes on to talk about practicing sports law etc. which was the reason why he was there.

Subsequent Burke quotes in the Nat'l Post article are taken from other settings such as an official statement released via the Flames sticking up for Hartley. As for the "why did they fine us" bit, I can't be bothered searching for / linking to it but I recall reading that Burke's "perplexedness" was subsequently revealed to be as to why the league fined Hartley, and not the Flames organization for example.

Someone in the ProHockeyTalk comments section for this story who claims to have attended the lecture said it was pretty clearly a joke. Take it for what it's worth (not much) but it's not exactly inconsistent with the facts..

Too bad that Burkie was such a garbage sports lawyer - remember how he was schooled during the Krutov transfer fee arbitration.

 

[dave babych returns]

Too bad that Burkie was such a garbage sports lawyer - remember how he was schooled during the Krutov transfer fee arbitration.

I was nine, so not really. But I seem to recall you might have posted a brief summary once or twice?

 

[Catamarca Livin]

No offense but you need to read that article more closely. It's an article by "National Post Staff" (ie. nobody wants to put their name to it) about a quote on the U of Calgary's website:



Link

He goes on to talk about practicing sports law etc. which was the reason why he was there.

Subsequent Burke quotes in the Nat'l Post article are taken from other settings such as an official statement released via the Flames sticking up for Hartley. As for the "why did they fine us" bit, I can't be bothered searching for / linking to it but I recall reading that Burke's "perplexedness" was subsequently revealed to be as to why the league fined Hartley, and not the Flames organization for example.

Someone in the ProHockeyTalk comments section for this story who claims to have attended the lecture said it was pretty clearly a joke. Take it for what it's worth (not much) but it's not exactly inconsistent with the facts..

Okay i guess he was joking. Was he joking about being miffed about Harley's fine as well? He thinks Calgary started the fight but is surprised about the fine. I think you are right and he is lying about being miffed about the fine. Just like Hartley was lying when he said starting that lineup was a hockey based decision.
I liked Burke when he was here, thought he was a straight shooter, fighting for his players. However the more i hear from him, the more obvious it is that i was wrong. Burke says whatever is convenient for his agenda, and he does not rally against "the man" for his players, he is apart of "the man" as he repeated close associations with the NHL has proven.

 

[RandV]

What a crock but understandable - Burke is responsible for the actions of his subordinate.

Colie Campbell by the way begs to differ. In a frank interview on team 1040 yesterday, he said Hartley starting a winger at center, who doesn't even attempt to draw the puck, was what started everything.

Hah, that's pretty much how I called it on the main board before the ruling. Starting your 4th line has reasonable doubt, but moving your goon winger to center to take the faceoff and the way he acted on said faceoff is pretty much a smoking gun.

While I've been heavily critical of how the league has disciplined the Canucks in most cases in the past this time I don't have a problem with it. Precedence has been set for causing a ruckus in the other teams dressing room with George McPhee getting a month long suspension, by giving Torts half they recognize it wasn't as sever. Then by fining Hartley, they acknowledge that he instigated the line brawl.

Now on it's own you may say that one punishment seems way more harsh than the other compared to the 'crime' was committed, but these standards were already set without any involvements from the Canucks. Get your players to start a line brawl, you get a fine. Enter the opponents dressing room, you get a suspension.

I mean it could be worse. They could have given Torts the exact same suspension as McPhee, saying that regardless of the fact that one threw a punch and one didn't it's the act of crossing that line that earns the suspension. Then they could have followed this up by not giving Hartley any fine at all, siding with the all the tools on the main who said that starting his 4th line was a perfectly innocent gesture and it was the Canucks who escalated things by matching.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

I am curious to see what the cause was of the conflict in the Ukraine is, any inside?

The Canucks started it. Blame Syria on them too. And the loss of net neutrality.

 

[timorousme]

Too bad that Burkie was such a garbage sports lawyer - remember how he was schooled during the Krutov transfer fee arbitration.

yeah that moment is sandwiched somewhere between 1994 and 2011 on my list of greatest Canucks memories

i still remember where i was when the ruling came down

it was a school day, but we were too excited to do any work until a teacher burst in with the news. we all cheered.

 

[Outside99*]

Hah, that's pretty much how I called it on the main board before the ruling. Starting your 4th line has reasonable doubt, but moving your goon winger to center to take the faceoff and the way he acted on said faceoff is pretty much a smoking gun.

While I've been heavily critical of how the league has disciplined the Canucks in most cases in the past this time I don't have a problem with it. Precedence has been set for causing a ruckus in the other teams dressing room with George McPhee getting a month long suspension, by giving Torts half they recognize it wasn't as sever. Then by fining Hartley, they acknowledge that he instigated the line brawl.

Now on it's own you may say that one punishment seems way more harsh than the other compared to the 'crime' was committed, but these standards were already set without any involvements from the Canucks. Get your players to start a line brawl, you get a fine. Enter the opponents dressing room, you get a suspension.

I mean it could be worse. They could have given Torts the exact same suspension as McPhee, saying that regardless of the fact that one threw a punch and one didn't it's the act of crossing that line that earns the suspension. Then they could have followed this up by not giving Hartley any fine at all, siding with the all the tools on the main who said that starting his 4th line was a perfectly innocent gesture and it was the Canucks who escalated things by matching.

Westgarth not attempting to draw the puck was obviously the signal to the others. If he draws and carries on (playing hockey), nothing happens. Clearly premeditated and considering the Flames are out of the playoffs, bush league.

Didn't realize Torts went into the Flames dressing room, that probably did it for the league.

But what happens if the refs gives a double bench minor to the Flames for unsportsmanlike and maybe a 2 to Westgarth for instigating the line brawl? They diffuse the situation. Instead they do nothing and Torts takes matters into his own hands.

 

[Wetcoaster]

And more blathering from IncontinentJ Stock on the brawl and Tortorella in an interview on HNIC radio.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockeynightincanadaradio/video/#id=2432226796