OT: kelly sutherland beef with Canucks?

[604]

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.

How often do you hear anyone accuse an NHL official of intentionally being biased and intentionally affecting the result of a game? There's a place for that conversation and it's not in front of the media. Also, it's pretty obvious Burrows dove to get a call to start things off (in the first Nashville game), the ref took revenge on him in the next Nashville game, then Burrows went to the media. (Further, we basically forced Ron McLean apologize on the air which is bad since you know he talks to a lot of the officials...talk about winning a battle and losing the war - you want to get even with him later, Aquaman could have someone rough him up no questions asked.)

Do I think what Auger did was right? Absolutely not....but I have to admit that what Burrows did wasn't right either.

The league isn't going to do anything to the referees. The guys you are talking about are rated among the best referees in the game (that's why they've gotten the finals in multiple years). At this point, the best you can do is open the lines of communications between the refs and see how you can address things for them...they are a different entity from the NHL.

Shouting to the media and complaining to the NHL is exactly what is getting us screwed over as an organization, you want to keep going down that road, I'm betting we won't like the results.

This isn't about who's right and who's wrong, this is a question of how much longer you want to get ****ed and whether you want lube or not. We need to put our egos and self-righteousness aside and bury the hatchet even if it means that we have to do something we don't like...such as trading Burrows.

What we do personnel and coaching wise won't help us if we keep giving up an extra 3 power plays every game when games start to matter.

 

[Proto]

Does anyone know if a player can be fined more than the usual $1500 for making comments about officials? I know coaches and GM's can take a real haircut, but what about players?

 

[Proto]

Similarly, it would be funny to see AV get fired, then take a run at someone like Sutherland when he's no longer a coach (and can't subsequently be fined for it). Probably would screw him over when he got back in the league, but I'd love to hear more about this.

 

[PhilMick]

Similarly, it would be funny to see AV get fired, then take a run at someone like Sutherland when he's no longer a coach (and can't subsequently be fined for it). Probably would screw him over when he got back in the league, but I'd love to hear more about this.

Haha that would be sweet. I was thinking yesterday I bet we could see AV added to a tsn panel or something, I hope if he gets that platform he goes off.

 

[arsmaster*]

How often do you hear anyone accuse an NHL official of intentionally being biased and intentionally affecting the result of a game? There's a place for that conversation and it's not in front of the media. Also, it's pretty obvious Burrows dove to get a call to start things off (in the first Nashville game), the ref took revenge on him in the next Nashville game, then Burrows went to the media. (Further, we basically forced Ron McLean apologize on the air which is bad since you know he talks to a lot of the officials...talk about winning a battle and losing the war - you want to get even with him later, Aquaman could have someone rough him up no questions asked.)

Do I think what Auger did was right? Absolutely not....but I have to admit that what Burrows did wasn't right either.

The league isn't going to do anything to the referees. The guys you are talking about are rated among the best referees in the game (that's why they've gotten the finals in multiple years). At this point, the best you can do is open the lines of communications between the refs and see how you can address things for them...they are a different entity from the NHL.

Shouting to the media and complaining to the NHL is exactly what is getting us screwed over as an organization, you want to keep going down that road, I'm betting we won't like the results.

This isn't about who's right and who's wrong, this is a question of how much longer you want to get ****ed and whether you want lube or not. We need to put our egos and self-righteousness aside and bury the hatchet even if it means that we have to do something we don't like...such as trading Burrows.

What we do personnel and coaching wise won't help us if we keep giving up an extra 3 power plays every game when games start to matter.

You don't think that sounds absolutely ludicrous?

We have to trade a certain player, so our team gets officiated to the rule book, like they should be.

Sorry, can't get on board with that. It's not rational. It's idiotic.


YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE OFFICIALS CALL AN IMPARTIAL GAME. THAT IS THEIR JOB.

Sorry for the caps, but I just think that is a silly approach. I think it's fair to expect the officials in a professional sport to act professionally. I understand they are human, but it seems like these calls/non-calls aren't human errors. They are blatant disregard for infractions against, and lets just say inconsistent calls for.

 

[freakydave]

To be fair, we were much more undisciplined than the Sharks, this was obvious. I don't know to the extent of the penalties, but we deserved to get more calls against us.

bad calls happen, I don't buy a conspiracy

This is how they get away with it---"We were much more undisciplined than the Sharks, this was obvious." The evidence is in the fact that we took more penalties. It seems really difficult for some fans to accept that the officiating was biased & unprofessional.
The Canucks were no more undisciplined than the sharks -the sharks infractions went uncalled-Every profession has people in it who are not that great at their jobs, the NHL is just not prepared to admit it & act on it much to the detriment of the sport.

 

[freakydave]

You don't think that sounds absolutely ludicrous?

We have to trade a certain player, so our team gets officiated to the rule book, like they should be.

Sorry, can't get on board with that. It's not rational. It's idiotic.


YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE OFFICIALS CALL AN IMPARTIAL GAME. THAT IS THEIR JOB.

Sorry for the caps, but I just think that is a silly approach. I think it's fair to expect the officials in a professional sport to act professionally. I understand they are human, but it seems like these calls/non-calls aren't human errors. They are blatant disregard for infractions against, and lets just say inconsistent calls for.

+1---they are supposed to be impartial & some just are not. The league refuses to see it .

 

[Win One Before I Die]

How come if a team complains about reffing they seem to get breaks... but when its the Canucks things get worse.

 

[Canucker]

Other than the obvious issue of biased/unprofessional refs, what I don't understand is why management was blind to the issue...this has been going on for a few years now, understanding that refs can make a serious impact on a team's season should make you look at what you can do to mitigate their impact...improve your penalty killing, improve your faceoffs, BECOME MORE DISCIPLINED. Under AV we have always been one of the more penalized teams in the league, that can't happen....we need to be squeaky clean...25th in the league in faceoff % is no good either, it makes a huge difference.

I'll be interested to see if Gillis makes any moves to try and combat biased reffing this off season.

 

[Whale]

I think that Gillis nailed it, I blame the local media. They should be writing articles about this, I mean, a guy put his hand on the puck and swept it off the goal line and cost us a game, that should be a major story and it's like it didn't happen.

The call on Daniel was absurd, its a deciding game in OT, I have never seen that before, or a four game suspension in the SCF for a hit that they admitted was legal but was .2 seconds late, no previous suspensions... I mean really...

I have friends who won't even watch Canucks games anymore because the officiating is so biased.

 

[Jack Tripper]

I think that Gillis nailed it, I blame the local media. They should be writing articles about this, I mean, a guy put his hand on the puck and swept it off the goal line and cost us a game, that should be a major story and it's like it didn't happen.

The call on Daniel was absurd, its a deciding game in OT, I have never seen that before, or a four game suspension in the SCF for a hit that they admitted was legal but was .2 seconds late, no previous suspensions... I mean really...

I have friends who won't even watch Canucks games anymore because the officiating is so biased.

that was pretty poor form by gillis...for one, the media was writing and talking about it (has he listened to the team1040 lately?) and second, the local media has absolutely no responsibility to focus on stories that advance the interest of the team

 

[ruiner]

I don't see how anyone can blame our players. What about Cooke and Marchand? Somehow the refs manage to not screw their teams over.

 

[604]

You don't think that sounds absolutely ludicrous?

We have to trade a certain player, so our team gets officiated to the rule book, like they should be.

Sorry, can't get on board with that. It's not rational. It's idiotic.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE OFFICIALS CALL AN IMPARTIAL GAME. THAT IS THEIR JOB.

Sorry for the caps, but I just think that is a silly approach. I think it's fair to expect the officials in a professional sport to act professionally. I understand they are human, but it seems like these calls/non-calls aren't human errors. They are blatant disregard for infractions against, and lets just say inconsistent calls for.

Great, I agree with the bolded. Does it make a difference that we agree? (No)

It doesn't matter what is fair, it is not happening. This is not a philosophical discussion about the role of a referee in a hockey. This is not a discussion about what is fair and what is not fair. This is a discussion about what is actually happening and I'm trying to take it further to make it: "We know what is happening...what do we do about it."

Idiotic is:
-Recognizing there is a problem.
-Realizing the problem is big enough that it is insurmountable unless it is addressed.

-Not doing whatever it takes to address it.

What we are doing now clearly isn't working and in fact might actually be hurting us.

My approach:
If we talk to senior officials through a consultant (like I said, hire Stephen Walkom or someone like that to help us as a consultant). Figure out what we need to do to start getting calls or at least bringing us back to even. Then do whatever that consultant says we need to do.

As an alternative, I'm sure Aquaman could get some guys with good tatoos and bad attitudes to "visit" referees that have been screwing over the Canucks...I'm sure the lost playoff revenue is pretty significant to him. (not actually serious, but you would be surprised how often this actually happens in business when millions are involved)

 

[JC]

Great, I agree with the bolded. Does it make a difference that we agree? (No)

It doesn't matter what is fair, it is not happening. This is not a philosophical discussion about the role of a referee in a hockey. This is not a discussion about what is fair and what is not fair. This is a discussion about what is actually happening and I'm trying to take it further to make it: "We know what is happening...what do we do about it."

Idiotic is:
-Recognizing there is a problem.
-Realizing the problem is big enough that it is insurmountable unless it is addressed.

-Not doing whatever it takes to address it.

What we are doing now clearly isn't working and in fact might actually be hurting us.

My approach:
If we talk to senior officials through a consultant (like I said, hire Stephen Walkom or someone like that to help us as a consultant). Figure out what we need to do to start getting calls or at least bringing us back to even. Then do whatever that consultant says we need to do.

As an alternative, I'm sure Aquaman could get some guys with good tatoos and bad attitudes to "visit" referees that have been screwing over the Canucks...I'm sure the lost playoff revenue is pretty significant to him. (not actually serious, but you would be surprised how often this actually happens in business when millions are involved)

Walkom is going to be busy helping Colin Campbell fire any refs that screw the Bruins over.

 

[StringerBell]

Maybe this is what the 5% raise is going towards. Were going to pay the refs to call an impartial game.

 

[SunshineRays]

How often do you hear anyone accuse an NHL official of intentionally being biased and intentionally affecting the result of a game? There's a place for that conversation and it's not in front of the media. Also, it's pretty obvious Burrows dove to get a call to start things off (in the first Nashville game), the ref took revenge on him in the next Nashville game, then Burrows went to the media. (Further, we basically forced Ron McLean apologize on the air which is bad since you know he talks to a lot of the officials...talk about winning a battle and losing the war - you want to get even with him later, Aquaman could have someone rough him up no questions asked.)

Do I think what Auger did was right? Absolutely not....but I have to admit that what Burrows did wasn't right either.

The league isn't going to do anything to the referees. The guys you are talking about are rated among the best referees in the game (that's why they've gotten the finals in multiple years). At this point, the best you can do is open the lines of communications between the refs and see how you can address things for them...they are a different entity from the NHL.

Shouting to the media and complaining to the NHL is exactly what is getting us screwed over as an organization, you want to keep going down that road, I'm betting we won't like the results.

This isn't about who's right and who's wrong, this is a question of how much longer you want to get ****ed and whether you want lube or not. We need to put our egos and self-righteousness aside and bury the hatchet even if it means that we have to do something we don't like...such as trading Burrows.

What we do personnel and coaching wise won't help us if we keep giving up an extra 3 power plays every game when games start to matter.

I said " work it out with NHL directly". 'If' that doesn't work, go to media.

There is no right and wrong way to deal with the issues Auger presented. Reality is, he should have never did what he did in the 1st place. Players dive all the time, the referee is paid to be unbiased and officiate the game from 3rd party perspective. It's their job description.

I'm not sure which world you live in, but in mine - I don't stand for injustices. The NHL is a business, the individual teams are businesses. And in business where lots of $$ is invested, you don't stand around and watch biased officials dictate the outcome of your business. Money is at stake - among other things.

This one sided officiating should never happen. The NHL should be tracking their employees - as all businesses to - they would see the one sided outcomes form specific referees. If they don't, it's up the the CEO of the business to show them.

 

[604]

I said " work it out with NHL directly". 'If' that doesn't work, go to media.

We've clearly already talked to the NHL. H. Sedin referenced lobbying the referees in a different way during his post game comments in San Jose.

There is no right and wrong way to deal with the issues Auger presented. Reality is, he should have never did what he did in the 1st place. Players dive all the time, the referee is paid to be unbiased and officiate the game from 3rd party perspective. It's their job description.

I love how "players dive all the time." is how you brush over the first thing we did wrong but somehow in the same paragraph demand that the refs don't play the game within the game (which is, you dove last game, I'm going to make you pay for it this game). I'm almost certain that stuff like that happens all the time.

We then took it nuclear by making it public, we nuked them (Auger was fired) and they nuked us (by screwing us in the playoffs multiple years).

Diving was wrong. (not a big deal, happens all the time)

What Auger did was wrong. (probably not that big a deal, happens a lot)

Going to the media about it post-game was wrong. (huge, never happens)

The way our games are being reffed now is wrong. (huge, never seen it this bad)

The wrongs don't cancel to make rights. It seems the the NHL referees have more of an ability to hurt us than we have to hurt them. So the way we've tried to "escalate" the problem towards a good resolution clearly isn't working.

Like I said, you can keep fighting but it won't matter. Results say that we're going to get screwed and Auger already has gotten his (as he was fired) and we've lost a chunk of skin too (bad calls against us when games matter most). It's a fight where there is no winner. Now we need to call a truce and do whatever it takes to achieve that.

I'm not sure which world you live in, but in mine - I don't stand for injustices. The NHL is a business, the individual teams are businesses. And in business where lots of $$ is invested, you don't stand around and watch biased officials dictate the outcome of your business. Money is at stake - among other things.

Really? "I don't stand for injustices."?

I'm pretty sure we both live in the same world. I recognize there is injustice everywhere and often it goes without reaction (children being slaughtered, oppressive governments etc.) but you've decided to make your stand when the hockey team you cheer for gets screwed? What a joke!

Business is often not on the level too. Right now there's an issue with a public company who's management had a disagreement with their shareholders about what to do with money they received from the sale of an mining property. Because they knew the disagreement might get them fired, management approved huge new contracts for each other with big payouts if they get fired right before the shareholders had a chance to replace them. Are you going to go do something about it? Or do you save your, "I don't stand for injustices." for important things like hockey games?

We need to live in the real world and figure out how we can resolve our issue with the referee fraternity in general.

 

[The Bob Cole]

We've clearly already talked to the NHL. H. Sedin referenced lobbying the referees in a different way during his post game comments in San Jose.



I love how "players dive all the time." is how you brush over the first thing we did wrong but somehow in the same paragraph demand that the refs don't play the game within the game (which is, you dove last game, I'm going to make you pay for it this game). I'm almost certain that stuff like that happens all the time.

We then took it nuclear by making it public, we nuked them (Auger was fired) and they nuked us (by screwing us in the playoffs multiple years).

Diving was wrong. (not a big deal, happens all the time)

What Auger did was wrong. (probably not that big a deal, happens a lot)

Going to the media about it post-game was wrong. (huge, never happens)

The way our games are being reffed now is wrong. (huge, never seen it this bad)

The wrongs don't cancel to make rights. It seems the the NHL referees have more of an ability to hurt us than we have to hurt them. So the way we've tried to "escalate" the problem towards a good resolution clearly isn't working.

Like I said, you can keep fighting but it won't matter. Results say that we're going to get screwed and Auger already has gotten his (as he was fired) and we've lost a chunk of skin too (bad calls against us when games matter most). It's a fight where there is no winner. Now we need to call a truce and do whatever it takes to achieve that.

So what you're saying basically is

 

[SunshineRays]

We've clearly already talked to the NHL. H. Sedin referenced lobbying the referees in a different way during his post game comments in San Jose.

Link?

I love how "players dive all the time." is how you brush over the first thing we did wrong but somehow in the same paragraph demand that the refs don't play the game within the game (which is, you dove last game, I'm going to make you pay for it this game). I'm almost certain that stuff like that happens all the time.

I'm saying diving is a common occurrence for any team. Is it right? No, technically it's a penalty just like holding and roughing. Give them a penalty and move on. Does a referee hold a interference call from a previous game against the same player? It's a penalty, call it, move on to the next game.

We then took it nuclear by making it public, we nuked them (Auger was fired) and they nuked us (by screwing us in the playoffs multiple years).

Diving was wrong. (not a big deal, happens all the time)

What Auger did was wrong. (probably not that big a deal, happens a lot)

Going to the media about it post-game was wrong. (huge, never happens)

The way our games are being reffed now is wrong. (huge, never seen it this bad)

The wrongs don't cancel to make rights. It seems the the NHL referees have more of an ability to hurt us than we have to hurt them. So the way we've tried to "escalate" the problem towards a good resolution clearly isn't working.

We don't 'clearly' know what isn't working, cause we don't know what the Canucks actually did about it. If anything. We don't know. That's why I stated my 'opinion' of what I would do.

Like I said, you can keep fighting but it won't matter. Results say that we're going to get screwed and Auger already has gotten his (as he was fired) and we've lost a chunk of skin too (bad calls against us when games matter most). It's a fight where there is no winner. Now we need to call a truce and do whatever it takes to achieve that.

That's your opinion. I don't see a situation where a truce needs to be made. I see a situation where the problem needs to be rectified.

Really? "I don't stand for injustices."?
I'm pretty sure we both live in the same world. I recognize there is injustice everywhere and often it goes without reaction (children being slaughtered, oppressive governments etc.) but you've decided to make your stand when the hockey team you cheer for gets screwed? What a joke!

I'm not making any stand, at the end of the day I have very little to do with the outcome of this issue. It's not a business I own. I'm stating an opinion of how I would deal with the situation.

Business is often not on the level too. Right now there's an issue with a public company who's management had a disagreement with their shareholders about what to do with money they received from the sale of an mining property. Because they knew the disagreement might get them fired, management approved huge new contracts for each other with big payouts if they get fired right before the shareholders had a chance to replace them. Are you going to go do something about it? Or do you save your, "I don't stand for injustices." for important things like hockey games?

We need to live in the real world and figure out how we can resolve our issue with the referee fraternity in general.

The referee fraternity is employed by the NHL. If the Canucks have an issue with the referees, they should go to the employer.

We don't how or why this one sided officiated started. It's all debatable. What isn't debatable are the numbers. They give historical context to a pattern of lopsided officiating against this team - and the GM/owner/CEO need to fix it. Standing around hoping it will change over time will not work. Nor does saying "they're going to do what they want anyways so why bother". The one sided officiating has the potential to (if it hasn't already) predetermine the outcome of Canucks games. It has the potential to dictate playoff series (if it hasn't already). All you want as a business is an even playing field - they don't have that now according to the numbers.

 

[Dado]

I'm not sure which world you live in, but in mine - I don't stand for injustices.

We're here posting on an entertainment chat board while 3 billion people are going to bed hungry tonight.

I get being upset about this, but let's keep some perspective here. We're talking about a damn game, this has nothing to do with "justice" in any meaningful sense

 

[Awesomesauce]

Dealing with it would seem to be rather simple. I think there is more then enough evidence at this point for a civil lawsuit.

Unbiased reffing is the leagues responsibility not the Canucks. It would be nearly impossible to argue against the now overwhelming evidence of official corruption, and the extremely high likelihood of the economic damage that followed. Hell even the threat directed at NHL centrals old boys club would probably provide the impetus for them to step in and make it clear that it needs to end.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

How come if a team complains about reffing they seem to get breaks... but when its the Canucks things get worse.

Because we're looking for those penalties. San Jose dove like crazy but outside a few occasions (mostly Couture) didn't make much of a case to the refs if they didn't get them. We always look to the refs or balk at them for calls. If you're going to dive, dive. Just shut up about it if the call does not come.

 

[Luongos Knob]

NHL reffing is very clearly biased, there is no arguing against that.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1372019

 

[SunshineRays]

We're here posting on an entertainment chat board while 3 billion people are going to bed hungry tonight.

I get being upset about this, but let's keep some perspective here. We're talking about a damn game, this has nothing to do with "justice" in any meaningful sense

There are injustices everywhere in the world. At no point, in any post, did I state one is more important than the other. I stated the officiating issue is an injustice - it is. Why do people keep associating it back to "there's hungry people in the world" etc. What does that have to do with my most post about officiating?

 

[Castle1*]

We're here posting on an entertainment chat board while 3 billion people are going to bed hungry tonight.

I get being upset about this, but let's keep some perspective here. We're talking about a damn game, this has nothing to do with "justice" in any meaningful sense

Exactly.

'Justice' is a lofty goal. Even the 'Canadian Justice System' does not successfully attain that goal.

In real life there is rarely 'Justice' in my varied experiences.