OT: kelly sutherland beef with Canucks?

[embee]

It is a league wide problem, not just this series.

When I think about the recent NFL official's strike and how awful the replacement refs were and how important the referee's were to the NFL it made me think...

If for some reason, the NHL had to use replacement referees I think the game would actually get better. And that is bad.

Again, I'm not just talking about this series. It's league wide.

 

[Castle1*]

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.

Yea well good luck with that. Those with the most money have the most power and they pretty much always win in the end.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Yea well good luck with that. Those with the most money have the most power and they pretty much always win in the end.

When billionaires sue billionaires, court costs aren't an issue and quite frankly this case would be a slam dunk at this point. Horrible for the league as a whole, the hit to its integrity would be devastating but at this point not really undeserved.

 

[Canucker]

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.

It might be a "lofty goal", but it should be a goal that they strive to attain...not just hope it magically happens.

 

[yoss]

I'd like it if they are going to call a dive, then have the balls to make that and only that call. Don't call an offsetting minor to go along with it, otherwise how does that deter further diving from happening? If a guy knows he can embellish or put on an act completely to put his team at an advantage, then some guys are going to do that. Canucks have done it too, yes; and they should be called on it as well.

I don't get how this has turned into a philosophy of ethics debate, this is a hockey forums, where hockey is discussed. As far as refereeing goes it has got to the point where I've become disillusioned with the NHL's ability to put a fair and impartial hockey game on the ice. A game at the highest level of competitiveness and athleticism, and this is the product we're given?

I can and will and am doing something about it. For one, i will be hesitant from now on the watch every regular season game if all that time is ultimately invested into something that is decided by inconceivably poor officiating. BIASED officiating. The whole POINT of a referee is to keep the playing field level. That's what rules are all about. If they can't do that in the "best" hockey league in the world, then i will cease attending games, buying merchandise etc. etc. and in general lose respect for such a league and spend my time on other things. Why should i support something that i cannot respect?

Does that mean my actions will change the way the NHL is officiated? No, obviously not. But if they're going to make a joke out of the sport of hockey, then i will get my hockey fix elsewhere. Why waste my time.

The way that Boston series was officiated was an absolute disgrace. Would we have won? Who knows, maybe probably not. Same with this series. No one is perfect, but if a guy can't do his job and the statistics and videotape evidence reflect that, he should be gone. Grown men running a professional business at such a level should be able to put whatever egos necessary aside and get rid of guys that aren't doing the job they're paid to.

/whiney rant.

 

[yoss]

Having said that, the Canucks lost and that is on them, so yeah it is a moot point other than my interest level fading in the NHL in general, or until next year in the playoffs if it happens again.

 

[west in the east]

If any person in the real world, any of us, did our jobs as poorly as guys like Sutherland we would be out of a job immediately. That's the NHL for you.

 

[604]

If any person in the real world, any of us, did our jobs as poorly as guys like Sutherland we would be out of a job immediately. That's the NHL for you.

That's not true, there are a lot of people who do terrible jobs but keep them because of seniority or because they are tight with the boss.

I've tried to have my assistant fired (lowest in the department) but have been blocked because she's good friends with the company's President and CEO...so I deal with her in a way that allows us both to get our jobs done despite the fact that she pisses off everyone else in the department and is not that helpful.

Sometimes you have the hammer...sometimes you don't.

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?

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

Your comment would indicate "in your world" you do something when you see injustice however, as people have stated, there are many injustices in this world that are obvious and much more serious than the officiating in a hockey game yet you are not doing anything about them.

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.

Let me get this straight, you want the Canucks to sue the NHL for the level of referring in the league which would completely discredit the league for allowing biased officials to operate.

How much do you sue for? It better be as much as our franchises value $342,000,000 because once the NHL is discredited as a bush league who employees biased officials, and the betting public is done suing the NHL as well, there won't be a league left.

Further, if the league continues to operate, think about how it'll feel going into the meetings with the other owners who you just sued and ruined their franchise values too.

Doesn't strike me as a very good idea...certainly worse than hiring a high level consultant to talk directly to the referees to see what we can do to extend an olive branch this should be a relatively cheap problem to solve...even if it means trading Burrows to Omsk...you can't win with him if we keep getting the officiating we're getting so there's no point in keeping him.

 

[SunshineRays]

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

Your comment would indicate "in your world" you do something when you see injustice however, as people have stated, there are many injustices in this world that are obvious and much more serious than the officiating in a hockey game yet you are not doing anything about them.

My full quote:

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.

Can someone please point out where I was referring to world hunger or poverty? My paragraph and entire post was clearly in context of NHL officiating - not, 'what plagues the world'.
Chill out people.

 

[LiquidSnake]

we really need to let go of the ref BS year after year.

It's always going to be terrible. This team needs to be able to overcome.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

we really need to let go of the ref BS year after year.

It's always going to be terrible. This team needs to be able to overcome.

Question is, is the reffing terrible but fair, or is it more terrible against the Canucks year after year

If its the latter, then no, it is not enough to say the team needs to overcome, it is also up to the powers that be to ensure refs officiate evenly.

 

[604]

we really need to let go of the ref BS year after year.

It's always going to be terrible. This team needs to be able to overcome.

Honestly, it doesn't matter who you have on your roster. If you are shorthanded 16 more times than the other team over a 4 game stretch, you are not winning those games.

That gap, if correct, is ridiculous and likely insurmountable and if it is going to continue we might as well give up now...I'd rather we make an effort to address the issue and I don't think it has anything to do with our style of play and/or physicality.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Let me get this straight, you want the Canucks to sue the NHL for the level of referring in the league which would completely discredit the league for allowing biased officials to operate.

How much do you sue for? It better be as much as our franchises value $342,000,000 because once the NHL is discredited as a bush league who employees biased officials, and the betting public is done suing the NHL as well, there won't be a league left.

Further, if the league continues to operate, think about how it'll feel going into the meetings with the other owners who you just sued and ruined their franchise values too.

Doesn't strike me as a very good idea...certainly worse than hiring a high level consultant to talk directly to the referees to see what we can do to extend an olive branch this should be a relatively cheap problem to solve...even if it means trading Burrows to Omsk...you can't win with him if we keep getting the officiating we're getting so there's no point in keeping him.

/shrug. How much money have the Canucks the business potentially and likely lost over the last three years because of the officiating? Even if your being conservative you would have to suggest its in the 10's of millions of dollars.

If there is no sign of the issue abating (which is there isn't) then what exactly do you do as the owner of the Canucks? Watch your team take a huge continuing financial hit year after year over something that the league itself should have handled from day one?

As for discrediting the league as being bush, that's not on the Canucks, that's on the NHL. The fact that it got to the point it has suggests it is a bush league. If thats true, whats your solution? Ignore it and hope it goes away at some point?

As for how the other owners would feel, I think you badly misunderstand the relationship between owners if you think that would create a lasting issue.

The idea of hiring a consultant to talk to the refs is simply encouraging a corrupt system. Your essentially doubling down and saying ya there is clearly a pretty major problem but instead of dealing with that problem lets just play more politics. The NHL is as much an old boys club as any major sports league in existence, I wouldn't want to be part of the old boys club I would want to dismantle it.

Personally I don't even think its an issue between the Canucks and the Refs I think the Refs are receiving direction from the league itself because of issues with how Gillis operates the team and his relative relationship with the players.

I also don't think it would even get to the point of a lawsuit, I think just going in and making it clear that if things continue as they have then a lawsuit is the next logical step would probably solve the issue.

 

[Dado]

How much money have the Canucks the business potentially and likely lost over the last three years because of the officiating?

$0.

Canucks have not lost a single series because of "officiating".

 

[Awesomesauce]

$0.

Canucks have not lost a single series because of "officiating".

Interesting, how exactly did you determine this? Personally, I have no idea how much they lost and would have a great amount of difficulty in trying to determine the a system that would accurately determine this.

 

[ddawg1950]

$0.

Canucks have not lost a single series because of "officiating".

^ This.

 

[Dado]

Personally, I have no idea how much they lost and would have a great amount of difficulty in trying to determine the a system that would accurately determine this.

Then there is no case, and the previous claim of "tens of millions" is unsupportable.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Then there is no case, and the previous claim of "tens of millions" is unsupportable.

Pretending that the obvious and overwhelming bias in officiating didn't have an effect on the San Jose series is to suggest that officiating is irrelevant in an absolute sense. This is quite frankly stupid, and I don't actually believe that you believe that. So my question comes more to why would you say something like that?

Do some simple math on some of the other series and see if a officiating performance as lopsided as the one that occurred in this last series would have affected the outcome.

Det has 23 power plays working at 26.1%
Ana has 21 power plays working at 28.6%

Change those numbers to 36 for Detroit and 15 for Anaheim (since its over 6 games)

and you change the average score of those games by (36-23) x 26.1 - (15-21) x 28.6

and you get 5.1 or an average shift of almost 1 goal per game, how would that have changed that series?

Most series would result in a swing of almost 1 goal a game, if the San Jose series had been a saw in power plays, lets say 20 a piece for the sake of ease although even this number favors San Jose.

20 x 29.2% = 5.84 instead of 7
Where as the Canucks would have gotten
20 x 20% = 4 instead of 2

Thats a 3 goal swing over a 4 game series where 2 of the games were decided by 1 goal and thats ignoring the nature of being ahead and the effect it has on a teams ability to play a more effective style.

Would the Canucks have won? Probably not imo. Would it have been a 4 game series, very very unlikely.

So that is at the very least 1 home game lost and all related revenue that was very likely due directly to the officiating.

I don't know what the outcome might have been and either does anyone else but that sure as **** wouldn't stop a court from attempting to determine it.

 

[Dado]

Pretending that the obvious and overwhelming bias in officiating didn't have an effect on the San Jose series is to suggest that officiating is irrelevant in an absolute sense.

Doesn't work that way.

You'd also have to go back and demonstrate that variance in officiating didn't, at other times, give Vancouver an advantage in earlier games and/or series.

You'd also have to demonstrate the officiating in this series was actually "wrong", which means a play-by-play analysis of every moment in every game, both near the puck and away from the play, calls and non-calls (especially non-calls) alike.

And then you're still left with the fact that officiating isn't the reason the Canucks lost.

$0 it is.

 

[J Canuck]

I believe the sharks would have won in 5 or 6 games if the officiating was reasonable. That's a sold out house or 2 that was denied to both teams, their owners, fans, and broadcasters, but the series still goes to SJ in the end.

 

[RandV]

$0.

Canucks have not lost a single series because of "officiating".

Technically you don't have to win the series to make more money. If a single game was lost to officiating, then that would mean the Canucks lost x million $$$ from having a game 5 which could have lead to another x million $$$ if there was a game 7.

 

[604]

Technically you don't have to win the series to make more money. If a single game was lost to officiating, then that would mean the Canucks lost x million $$$ from having a game 5 which could have lead to another x million $$$ if there was a game 7.

We're being silly here guys. No matter what, the Canucks aren't going to sue the NHL for allowing biased referees to mess up their games. The league would be a mess and our franchise value would go down the toilet...the franchise is worth $342,000,000.

If there is no sign of the issue abating (which is there isn't) then what exactly do you do as the owner of the Canucks? Watch your team take a huge continuing financial hit year after year over something that the league itself should have handled from day one?

As for discrediting the league as being bush, that's not on the Canucks, that's on the NHL. The fact that it got to the point it has suggests it is a bush league. If thats true, whats your solution? Ignore it and hope it goes away at some point?

I think it's pretty clear what I suggested we do, you even reference it later in your post. Discrediting the league is like cutting off your head because you have a headache.

As for how the other owners would feel, I think you badly misunderstand the relationship between owners if you think that would create a lasting issue.

It would cost them money...therefore it would have a lasting effect. I work with millionaires for a living, they are often petty to the point of stupidity.

The idea of hiring a consultant to talk to the refs is simply encouraging a corrupt system. Your essentially doubling down and saying ya there is clearly a pretty major problem but instead of dealing with that problem lets just play more politics. The NHL is as much an old boys club as any major sports league in existence, I wouldn't want to be part of the old boys club I would want to dismantle it.

A lot of people feel that way about society...they usually live on the street.

The ones who decide they are going to play the game to facilitate the change they want once they get into a position to do that are the ones that have the most success.

Hiring a consultant to figure out how to satisfy the refs isn't doubling down...our current position was to support a player that called out referees publicly (which got Auger fired) then defend him from Ron McLean (who is an asshat) which resulted in Ron's employer forcing him to apologize to us on air. I'm going to say we won both battles and are losing the war.

I'm suggesting the exact opposite of doubling down, I want us to fold because the war that we are fighting doesn't help our team at all even if we win and we are getting murdered on the ice because of it.

Personally I don't even think its an issue between the Canucks and the Refs I think the Refs are receiving direction from the league itself because of issues with how Gillis operates the team and his relative relationship with the players.

I also don't think it would even get to the point of a lawsuit, I think just going in and making it clear that if things continue as they have then a lawsuit is the next logical step would probably solve the issue.

I highly doubt the league is going out of their way to screw the Canucks. The sheer number of people who would have to be involved while keeping it completely secret is staggering. If a couple senior referees want to screw us, it is very easy, especially since the sharing of information and game management strategies is almost encouraged between referees.

The lawsuit idea is stupid and it's pretty obvious to almost anyone. Nobody worth his salt is going to even give it consideration as a real threat for the reasons listed above and it'll likely cost you any allies you have.

 

[Hal 9000*]

nvm......

 

[Kuzmenkshow]

Technically you don't have to win the series to make more money. If a single game was lost to officiating, then that would mean the Canucks lost x million $$$ from having a game 5 which could have lead to another x million $$$ if there was a game 7.

Yea was going to say exactly this, as much as Dado loves to be the witty, know it all mod, getting a game 5 back in Vancouver this year (which they clearly deserved, and were robbed of in game 4) would have earned the club at least a few more million dollars, and that's just 1 example.

 

[Hal 9000*]

Yea was going to say exactly this, as much as Dado loves to be the witty, know it all mod, getting a game 5 back in Vancouver this year (which they clearly deserved, and were robbed of in game 4) would have earned the club at least a few more million dollars, and that's just 1 example.

I think I heard on one of the radio shows that a playoff game is worth about $5mil. Dont know what concessions that includes and obviously revenue for the city.