MoneypuckOverlord Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Boohoo. Quit diving. Play hard. It's a mans game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The problem is that Burrows still dives and embellishes quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The problem is that Burrows still dives and embellishes quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Boohoo. Quit diving. Play hard. It's a mans game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The problem is that Burrows still dives and embellishes quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckleface77 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Although I don't think it's a conspiracy where they purposely told the refs to not make calls when Burrows is involved, you would have to be blind to see that they do a lot of stuff slide when Burrows is on the receiving end. Probably has more to do with subconscious bias than anything. There was a game where Daniel got called for embellishment when he was clearly trying to stay on his feet during an interference. All this has to go back to the 2011 cup run where the media hyped the Canucks as divers. We do have divers on the team but the Sedins are definitely not part of this group. When Brown ran Henrik, he tried his best to pop back up. Even when Daniel got viciously elbowed he didn't lay on the ice to draw a major penalty. The Sedins have had some vicious attacks on them and always pop back up so it pisses me off when someone calls them divers. This is an example of how the media can affect the perspective of even the officials which shouldn't be the case. However, the Canucks are not the only people affected by this. For the longest time, Mike Ribeiro couldn't get a call if his life depended on it. It's human nature I guess but it is quite obvious in the NHL when compared to every other league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckleface77 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Troll elsewhere, ya doofus .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I actually think Gallagher is spot on. However, Burrows has made his own bed with his head-snap-back ways. He still embellishes all the time, same with Kesler. They may be on the receiving ends of infractions, but they try to also make it look even worse than it is. If you can't or refuse to see that then you just have blind faith and are a fanboy. When players act like that, they make the refs job much tougher, and in turn, the refs do the same. It's not right, but it's the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 "Quite a bit"? Really? More than other players and other teams? I think he's cut out a lot of it. Part of why it may appear so is that players take liberties as they aren't called (the point of the article). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckleface77 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 "Quite a bit"? Really? More than other players and other teams? I think he's cut out a lot of it. Part of why it may appear so is that players take liberties as they aren't called (the point of the article). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckleface77 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Then the refs should call it - cross check + embellishment. Ignoring both calls just makes everything worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolwut? Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Boohoo. Quit diving. Play hard. It's a mans game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Although I don't think it's a conspiracy where they purposely told the refs to not make calls when Burrows is involved, you would have to be blind to see that they do a lot of stuff slide when Burrows is on the receiving end. Probably has more to do with subconscious bias than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Burrows owned and is continuing to wear the stigma of a player who embellishes. Considering how he plays, he deserves it. We shouldn't be surprised that he gets the calls or non-calls he does, even if he has changed, it will take years for refs to trust him again. I'm not saying the officials have been good, far from it. But as pointed out they are human, and despite best efforts, do get emotionally involved in games, any ref here can attest to this. The only thing Burrows could do is change his game, but he hasn't and IMO never will because this style of play seems to be part of his personality. Don't expect any mercy from the refs in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DooBie604 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 What you described there, is the exact definition of a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Im guessing that if the nhl addressed this , it would be a pretty huge scandal .. These guys are just human , so I understand a little retribution . I just don't think that holding a grudge is ok if your a ref . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 This is another good point. I guess this is my problem with the article. It is one thing to say some guys get more calls against them than others, however when both sides (owners and players union) doesn't seem to think its a big deal I wonder how much merit there is to Ghallagher's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Um...yes...I was defining a conspiracy saying I don't think it was one. I'm saying it's more subconscious bias due to his past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L'Orange Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Boohoo. Quit diving. Play hard. It's a mans game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabinessence Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The G Man with a great article! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.