There was a penalty on that play but not necessarily the call that was made. I watched the replay of the game on NHL network and the play that is in question could have had 2 infractions called,. First was boarding that was called or you could've called Sedin for interference. Wingel brought the puck in and Sedin knocked the puck off his stick. WHILE they both pursued the loose puck Sedin body-checked Wingel without possession of the puck. Thus the interference penalty.
OT: kelly sutherland beef with Canucks?
- Thread starter CherryToke
- Start date
There was a penalty on that play but not necessarily the call that was made. I watched the replay of the game on NHL network and the play that is in question could have had 2 infractions called,. First was boarding that was called or you could've called Sedin for interference. Wingel brought the puck in and Sedin knocked the puck off his stick. WHILE they both pursued the loose puck Sedin body-checked Wingel without possession of the puck. Thus the interference penalty.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
It wasn't interference, it was a puck battle....it happens all the time. All it was is a bad call. Period.
It's never the Canucks fault. it's always someone's. Shift the blame is the mantra
Frankiedarling
Registered User
We can do two things. It's easy to simultaneously see things that are our fault and notice that some things aren't.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Yes, that's exactly what it is...well played.
It's never poor reffing, they never make mistakes....right?
Plus...you never see anyone criticizing the players, coaches or management around here...we always just shift the blame to the refs for no reason whatsoever.
Johnny Canucker
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2009
- 17,750
- 6,116
This sj team reminds me ALOT like us in 2011. Fantastic pp, and diving left right and center to draw those PPs. Skilled, and steam rolling.
Errrrrrily similar team.
Errrrrrily similar team.
JuniorNelson
Registered User
This is a crushing indictment!
What the ironically named Bettman does not get is that betting drives sports revenues. Nobody will bet money on a sport that has refs casually fixing games! FFS!
The thing goes unsaid. It's why hockey cannot get a foothold in new markets.
I t may indeed happen a lot but it seen as interference. A puck battle infers someone has possession and the other is trying to get it from the other. Understand?
I'm not a big canuck fan(but i do watch their games), but both Montreal and Vancouver had refs assigned to them that we all know and can see have a very lopsided way of seeing the game.
A little strange the head of referees doesn't know that these guys seem to call one sided games against theses teams.
Honestly how chris lee time peel and danny sutherland still have jobs let alone ref in the playoffs astounds me.
There really need to be a committee of ex-refs and players that handles referee assignments and discipline. But we all know that will never happen.
A little strange the head of referees doesn't know that these guys seem to call one sided games against theses teams.
Honestly how chris lee time peel and danny sutherland still have jobs let alone ref in the playoffs astounds me.
There really need to be a committee of ex-refs and players that handles referee assignments and discipline. But we all know that will never happen.
me2
Go ahead foot
I've said it before but they need to start publishing ref stats the way they do with player stats. Let's see who is calling what, missing what, against who etc. Accountability will come from that.
While i agree ill go one further. What if it is the owners who are betting on the games? The league would benifit more with a few massive bets compared to the many small bets us peasants make. This gives the league incentive to guide certain teams like they seem to be doing
You are allowed to do what Daniel did to Wingels in soccer for fart sakes. That's how soft that call is.
A shoulder to shoulder challenge on a 50/50 puck.
If that's interference, then there is interference every time a defensman goes back to get the puck in his own zone. Defensman almost always initiate contact prior to getting to the puck.
Some people just like draggin' lines...
A shoulder to shoulder challenge on a 50/50 puck.
If that's interference, then there is interference every time a defensman goes back to get the puck in his own zone. Defensman almost always initiate contact prior to getting to the puck.
Some people just like draggin' lines...
Only if both players are okay with it. If one of them doesn't want to be engaged physically on a legal play then it's a penalty on the guy throwing a shoulder check.
/NHL Logic
Matt Sekeres was completely embarrassing on air after game 4. Not only do the Canucks need to make changes, it's time to get fresh voices on the radio and in print..it's the same group of guys with the same talking points. And how does a guy like Sekeres get a regular gig on radio? His voice, like Tony G.'s is so hard to listen to.
sandwichbird2023
Registered User
- Aug 4, 2004
- 3,884
- 1,947
after a couple days of "cooling off" and re-watching the bieksa and d. sedin penalties today, i still don't see how those are called, in an elimination game in the playoff no less.
having read the first 4 pgs of this thread, it appears most agree that the canucks are in this situation because they "whine, call out the refs, dive, etc etc". however, for a ref to call a game based on emotion and bias is extremely unprofessional. if i let my personal bias dictate how i treat each client at my job, and treat them unequally as a result, i'll be fired immediately. it amaze me that such un-professionalism is not only tolerated by the nhl, but some "canuck fans" as well.
having read the first 4 pgs of this thread, it appears most agree that the canucks are in this situation because they "whine, call out the refs, dive, etc etc". however, for a ref to call a game based on emotion and bias is extremely unprofessional. if i let my personal bias dictate how i treat each client at my job, and treat them unequally as a result, i'll be fired immediately. it amaze me that such un-professionalism is not only tolerated by the nhl, but some "canuck fans" as well.
604
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2011
- 7,288
- 1,493
It's pretty clear to me that we have a bad reputation with the referees in general.
We should hire a former veteran referee who just retired as a consultant and ask them how to improve our situation.
I have a feeling some might not like what they hear but some items that might come up include:
-trading Burrows because he will never be forgiven by some for the Auger incident,
-firing AV for calling our referees publicly, and/or
-lobbying the NHL in a different way...or perhaps not lobbying the NHL so publicly.
I think having a presence in the NHL board of governors would also be very helpful to us.
What is clear is that we get the short end of the stick at inopportune times.
The thing that ticks me off the most is the consistent non-calls of opposition fouls on the Sedins.
While their play in this playoffs wasn't great, I can't even figure out if it's fair to blame them or not, because pretty near every time they got themselves set up with puck possession in the offensive zone, they'd just be cross-checked or hauled down, and it simply never gets called.
Just over, and over, and over again - if the Sedins are looking remotely dangerous, they get can openered or crosschecked to the ice, and the opposing defenders clear the puck. Is at the point of a joke right now.
Then you juxtapose that against the call on Lapierre for pushing a falling Gomez ... and I don't even know what to say. That penalty happens on the Sedins 10 times in every game.
It seems like right now if you haul a guy down in a transition offensive situation, it'll probably be called, but in a situation where there's contained pressure (which is the Sedins' bread and butter) it's just a free-for-all. Do whatever you want, nothing will be called. And it's such a joke it's unreal.
While their play in this playoffs wasn't great, I can't even figure out if it's fair to blame them or not, because pretty near every time they got themselves set up with puck possession in the offensive zone, they'd just be cross-checked or hauled down, and it simply never gets called.
Just over, and over, and over again - if the Sedins are looking remotely dangerous, they get can openered or crosschecked to the ice, and the opposing defenders clear the puck. Is at the point of a joke right now.
Then you juxtapose that against the call on Lapierre for pushing a falling Gomez ... and I don't even know what to say. That penalty happens on the Sedins 10 times in every game.
It seems like right now if you haul a guy down in a transition offensive situation, it'll probably be called, but in a situation where there's contained pressure (which is the Sedins' bread and butter) it's just a free-for-all. Do whatever you want, nothing will be called. And it's such a joke it's unreal.
604
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2011
- 7,288
- 1,493
I read this again and realize that it's a huge joke.
The Canucks have openly challenged an NHL referee in the public despite the fact that Burrows did blatantly dive which made an NHL referee look bad to start the whole incident (the rest is noise). I don't like the fact that a referee basically influenced the outcome of a game but by taking it public and then basically ripping the referee spokesperson (Ron McLean) we've basically ****ed ourselves.
There is no impartiality here. There is no "justice" here. The question is how long do you want to fight the good fight before you decide to give in? Let's just hire some ex-referees and see what they tell us to do...we may have to trade Burrows to the KHL or something like that but we won't win until we do it, so we might as well get him Russian lessons this summer.
SunshineRays
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2012
- 863
- 0
Uh, ya. There's clearly something going on.
Him and his troll brotha from anotha motha (O'Halloran) were 2 of 4 officials in the SCF 10/11. Both of them officiated 'the' game where Dank got plowed by MarchmanRat 6 times - then gave Dank the penalty. Safe to say, that series was controversial.
Since that time, Sutherlands officiated 9 Canucks games. In those games, the Canucks never played one where they had more PP opportunities than their opponent.
Since the SCF, O'Hallaran has officiated 10 Canucks games. In 9 of 10 games, the Canucks opponent had more PP opps than them.
Since the SCF, there have been 20+ different officials refereeing Canucks game (most multiple times per yr). Not 1, - repeat: not ONE, referee has any type of record even similar to O'Hallaran and Sutherland.
I'm not sure how the NHL doesn't keep the same numbers I do. They should be keeping track of their employees and their records with all teams. They would have never sent Sutherland into a Canucks 'elimination' game had they seen these numbers. Or maybe they did and sent him anyway.
Him and his troll brotha from anotha motha (O'Halloran) were 2 of 4 officials in the SCF 10/11. Both of them officiated 'the' game where Dank got plowed by MarchmanRat 6 times - then gave Dank the penalty. Safe to say, that series was controversial.
Since that time, Sutherlands officiated 9 Canucks games. In those games, the Canucks never played one where they had more PP opportunities than their opponent.
Since the SCF, O'Hallaran has officiated 10 Canucks games. In 9 of 10 games, the Canucks opponent had more PP opps than them.
Since the SCF, there have been 20+ different officials refereeing Canucks game (most multiple times per yr). Not 1, - repeat: not ONE, referee has any type of record even similar to O'Hallaran and Sutherland.
I'm not sure how the NHL doesn't keep the same numbers I do. They should be keeping track of their employees and their records with all teams. They would have never sent Sutherland into a Canucks 'elimination' game had they seen these numbers. Or maybe they did and sent him anyway.
yoss
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 3,006
- 37
Agree completely. How could they *not* know this, is my question. If you were aiming at impartiality and fair refereeing then they must know. If they don't realize these stats then I'm not sure which is worse; being completely incompetent at their jobs or else they are willingly putting the Canucks at an unfair disadvantage.
If I perform poorly at my job, I expect to be fired. If a referee can't refrain from bringing bias against a team when he refs, then he shouldn't be a referee, let alone at the highest possible level. Bush league. Yet will Sutherland be fired?
I don't mind if the officiating is bad both ways, because it will more or less equal out over the course of a series. But to have THAT great a discrepancy is a joke, let alone the timing of the horrendous calls, especially Bieksa and Daniel at that stage of the game.
Sutherland should not have a job, it's that simple imo. It's pretty plain to see and if the officials in the NHL either don't realize it or choose to do nothing about it then that speaks for itself, and for the integrity of the league as a whole.
SunshineRays
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2012
- 863
- 0
I couldn't agree more. I mean this isn't an opinion, this is a fact. He and O'Hallaran clearly have some issues with this team. The NHL should be aware of this. And competent employer would have these #'s.
Unfortunately, it's not just these trolls. They are the stand out trolls, but it's bigger than just them. Whether it's the media driven narrative from the Cup finals run, the teams apparent reputation or the Auger/Burrows incident - the Canucks have up hill sledding with refereeing.
I haven't browsed through the thread, I'm sure the numbers are out there - but it's clear this team has to fight their opponent and some referees every game.
604
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2011
- 7,288
- 1,493
Okay, so you've identified a problem. How do you go about addressing it?
It's pretty clear to me the league doesn't give a flying **** and honestly we could play the victim or we could just admit that we handled things poorly when calling out referees publicly. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
So where do we go from here? Is there any better option than asking the officials themselves for a truce - how does one even go about doing that? I'd assuming asking very recently former senior referees.
SunshineRays
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2012
- 863
- 0
Handled things poorly? Cause Gillis and/or Canucks players are the only ones who ever said things about the NHL officiating. It happens all the time. It's a common occurrence, esp the last 3 years.
I'd address it with the league directly. I'd have my data in hand when I walked into the meeting. I'd display the facts and compare the data to other teams. I'd make sure there's no doubt.
If that doesn't work, I'd blast it from the rooftop. I'd blow the lid off.
It's not going to change till someone does something about it. It's been like this for years now, and it will continue.
Yup. And this is what Gillis was talking about. The fact that they have now realized that these new rules are here to say and it's time to adapt.
I remember how the Sedins would constantly beat defencemen that either went fishing for the puck with poke check, or go for the more physical play on the boards. That doesn't happen anymore. Nowadays, that 1v1 battle is so in favor of the defencemen that they don't have to make that gamble. They can just use both hands, grab, hold, pin, cross check, take down etc to make those defensive plays because it's no longer being called as penalties. Like you said, it's free for all, and the Sedins suffer from that more than others because their whole style is based on board play.
The Boston series started it, other teams started using it now it's became a norm.
