Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Believe in... Blackballing ?


darkpoet

Recommended Posts

The irony is stunning.

"...was also fully aware Horton didn't see the hit coming."

This is just a lie. The only way Horton didn't see the hit coming was if he had had a stroke and was no longer aware of anything before Rome hit him.. Had Rome not moved, they would have passed within a foot of each other. Horton knew there was a player in front of him and choose to watch the pass instead of watching where he was skating.

Horton was looking to the left and the hit came from the right. Unless he was looking with his ear he didn't see it coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horton was looking to the left and the hit came from the right. Unless he was looking with his ear he didn't see it coming.

Horton was moving in the direction of where the hit came. Unless he was skating blind, he knew the hit was coming. If he was skating blind, he was his own damn fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't around at the time of the towel hoisting but it seems to me the wrong thing to do. Raising a white flag is surrendering in my book and I don't think a sports club should ever surrender, no matter what the circumstances are.

For that reason I was not happy with the statue. Why would you raise a statue "honouring" a surrender?

There are raw deals in any sport. There are poor refs/vindictive refs in any sport, you just have to get your head down and try harder. Pucks in the net and talent will beat any biased referee if the focus is there.

Imo to get involved with the officials before, during, or after the game is to lose focus. Personally I hope Burrows has learned a hard lesson and I hope Daniel will at least skate away if he doesn't intend to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't around at the time of the towel hoisting but it seems to me the wrong thing to do. Raising a white flag is surrendering in my book and I don't think a sports club should ever surrender, no matter what the circumstances are.

For that reason I was not happy with the statue. Why would you raise a statue "honouring" a surrender?

There are raw deals in any sport. There are poor refs/vindictive refs in any sport, you just have to get your head down and try harder. Pucks in the net and talent will beat any biased referee if the focus is there.

Imo to get involved with the officials before, during, or after the game is to lose focus. Personally I hope Burrows has learned a hard lesson and I hope Daniel will at least skate away if he doesn't intend to fight.

The Canucks were not surrendering. It was defiance.

It was "I am mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more" Keep in mind they won the series and without that move the tradition that the majority of NHL teams adopted of shaking towels at playoff games would not have been born.

I was there and you just can't describe the amazing feeling of how this city got behind the team. From those towels to King Richard songs to Na na na na hey hey hey goodbye. All started here and Rog was a big reason.

So when some net troll tries to claim the statue is of surrendering just laugh at their ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several things I'd like to chime ine on:

1 - I don't believe the Canucks are "blackballed". I highly doubt that any ref even thinks about the Roger Neilson statue. However, I think that certain players, Burrows and Kesler among them, do not get the benefit of the doubt from some officials, due to their past history. However, I think the list of players who officials view with a jaundiced eye includes those from many teams, not just the Canucks.

2 - There is no "conspiracy" to help certain teams win the Cup. Generally, the best team wins. If Bettman and co. were truly fixing series', Washington, with one of the league's biggest and most likable stars, would have at least one Cup by now. Yet, a few years back, the Caps lost to the Habs thanks in large part to a disallowed goal on an extremely marginal goaltender interference call.

3 - The Chara - Pacioretti "incident" was not intentional. It happened in Montreal and as Baggins pointed out, it was not the first time. Chara could not be expected to know that the stanchion was there, because he was concentrating on riding Patches out of the play. The call on the ice was interference, which was the correct call. The DOPS reviewed the play and decided that it was "an unfortunate incident", which was also the correct call.

4 - The Rome hit was suspendable. I have a problem with the length of the suspension, but not the fact that a suspension was handed down. My main complaint was that it was not in keeping with suspensions that had been doled out for similar hits over the course of that season. Mike Murphy hinted that a "new standard" for suspensions for such hits was being establised, but IMHO, that is not something you do over 100 games into a season.

5 - People keep saying that the Canucks were victimized in the Boston series, but the fact is, Vancouver had more powerplay time than Boston. The Bruins were content to play the bully role, because the Canucks were too banged up by that time to take advantage on the PP. Injuries, not officiating was the Canucks Achilles heel...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hockey gods and the NHL have jinxed the Canucks and this may even go as far back as the 72 Summit Series when in Game 4 Vancouver cheered for the Soviets and Boo Team Canada before ,during and after the game. :)

Just imagine the embarrassment this would have been for Vancouver if we had social media back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've already said. Stevens was moving towards Kariya prior to him dishing the puck. A boarderline call at best. Also this hit was prior to the crackdown in the past decade. Back then the league didn't seem to care much about such hits and Cherry made a good living making videos of them.

You keep talking about being objective, however every one of your comments are complete bs if you are trying to convince everyone on here that Stevens hit on Karya was clean you are worse off than most of the Canick homers that claim that the canucks do no wrong. You keep suggesting to all that we should be objective, please give it a try. By the looks of your posts, the Canucks are the only team in the entire league who deserve penalties........... Is that you Auger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear Baggins explain away the Colin Campbell e-mail scandal. It is clear evidence that the NHL vice president put direct pressure on officials (director of officials) because of an undesirable outcome from a game and also shows how certain players are regarded as "little fake artists" by the league brass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear Baggins explain away the Colin Campbell e-mail scandal. It is clear evidence that the NHL vice president put direct pressure on officials (director of officials) because of an undesirable outcome from a game and also shows how certain players are regarded as "little fake artists" by the league brass

Deaf ears.

There's no conspiracy! You guys are nuts!

I swear, people bringing that up don't know the definition of the word.

What went on in that scandal was by exact definition, a conspiracy.

But try saying that all you get is LALALALALALALALALAAAAALALAAA hands over ears :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deaf ears.

There's no conspiracy! You guys are nuts!

I swear, people bringing that up don't know the definition of the word.

What went on in that scandal was by exact definition, a conspiracy.

But try saying that all you get is LALALALALALALALALAAAAALALAAA hands over ears :rolleyes:

Did you read the emails from the scandal? It had nothing to do with fixing games and everything to do with trying to oust a referee, Dean Warren, that Campbell didn't like. In fact there were excerpts from his email about how he didn't like a weak tripping call late in a game that influenced the outcome. Don't we as fans feel the same way? I think everyone prefers when the players and not the refs determine the winner.

This idea of teams being blackballed and conspiracy theories.... For there to be a conspiracy there has to be a plan with an intended outcome. You can say the conspiracy then was to fire Dean Warren as an official, although the Ontario Labour Relations board ruled in favour of the NHL concerning Warren's dismissal. You can't claim games were being fixed. Evidence concerning what was going on between Campbell and Walkom in no way supports that.

I don't think anyone disagrees that individual referees have personal biases towards certain players. It's pretty apparent and has been going on ever since the game was invented I'm sure. The Canucks had and have players that are impacted by this as does every other team in the league.

As I said before; only on CDC can complaining about officiating be taken to the extreme of a full blown conspiracy saga. It's a friggin' game. Relax and enjoy it for the entertainment it's intended to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the emails from the scandal? It had nothing to do with fixing games and everything to do with trying to oust a referee, Dean Warren, that Campbell didn't like. In fact there were excerpts from his email about how he didn't like a weak tripping call late in a game that influenced the outcome. Don't we as fans feel the same way? I think everyone prefers when the players and not the refs determine the winner.

This idea of teams being blackballed and conspiracy theories.... For there to be a conspiracy there has to be a plan with an intended outcome. You can say the conspiracy then was to fire Dean Warren as an official, although the Ontario Labour Relations board ruled in favour of the NHL concerning Warren's dismissal. You can't claim games were being fixed. Evidence concerning what was going on between Campbell and Walkom in no way supports that.

I don't think anyone disagrees that individual referees have personal biases towards certain players. It's pretty apparent and has been going on ever since the game was invented I'm sure. The Canucks had and have players that are impacted by this as does every other team in the league.

As I said before; only on CDC can complaining about officiating be taken to the extreme of a full blown conspiracy saga. It's a friggin' game. Relax and enjoy it for the entertainment it's intended to be.

You completely ignore the part where he calls a player "a little fake artist" and this part:

I know Murph and Kinger like [player] as a player but my view of him is this exactly…he puts his whining ahead of the game. I don't think this is a regular occurrence (…..getting screwed) and...exploded...over the disallowed goal. He may be uncontrollable by...and...as I think his frustration level has hit a high point. He hates officials as well. He is still pissed off at [referee] for a call he missed in the playoffs years ago as I remember him bugging Murph about it. Let's give him Warren and [referee] than (sic) he will really have something to whine about.

This shows him telling the director of officiating to assign a certain referee to a certain game because he wants to screw a particular player over. This is the type of person in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canucks were not surrendering. It was defiance.

It was "I am mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more" Keep in mind they won the series and without that move the tradition that the majority of NHL teams adopted of shaking towels at playoff games would not have been born.

I was there and you just can't describe the amazing feeling of how this city got behind the team. From those towels to King Richard songs to Na na na na hey hey hey goodbye. All started here and Rog was a big reason.

So when some net troll tries to claim the statue is of surrendering just laugh at their ignorance.

Sorry bud but a white flag has only one meaning in my book and I have to say in many others too.

"The white flag is an internationally recognized protective sign of truce or ceasefire, and request for negotiation. It is also used to symbolize surrender, since it is often the weaker military party which requests negotiation. A white flag signifies to all that an approaching negotiator is unarmed, with an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate."

You can name it what you like but a statue to a guy raising a white flag is as good as branding us quitters. After all it only happened once and yet it is now a permanent reminder of our paranoia.

I didn't say the city didn't get behind the team. Surely they could not have done anything else. The team was excellent. It wasn't the team that surrendered.

Your calling me a troll because I have an opinion different from you is to your discredit and seems to imply you feel your argument is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You completely ignore the part where he calls a player "a little fake artist" and this part:

This shows him telling the director of officiating to assign a certain referee to a certain game because he wants to screw a particular player over. This is the type of person in charge.

I'm not ignoring anything. So he calls a player "a little fake artist". It shows clear bias on his part but doesn't show him trying to fix the outcome of a game.

And Campbell talking about giving the player Warren and another ref can be interpreted as literal, but by the overall tenor of the discussion I think it can also be interpreted as rhetoric, expressing his displeasure for both the player and the ref he obviously doesn't like.

As I've said, it doesn't excuse it, it's still unacceptable behaviour for a person in his position. My point is it's worlds apart from a league conspiracy to fix games and blackball teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply can't understand how people like you admit that if the reffing wasn't favoring the other team, we would have won the cup, but then go on to say how it was the teams fault for giving up the 2-0 lead.

I remember quite clearly we had more powerplays then the Bruins did in that series.

We couldnt score; Luongo... not sure what happened there but a ton of goals started to go in; got blown away early in games and couldnt recover; injuries...

Edit: For a 7 game series that was strikingly one sided in Boston's favor. I somehow doubt Aaron Rome was going to carry the entire team on his back if he was on the roster (as would have been required of him)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You completely ignore the part where he calls a player "a little fake artist" and this part:

This shows him telling the director of officiating to assign a certain referee to a certain game because he wants to screw a particular player over. This is the type of person in charge.

He had a tendency to be a petty juvenile no doubt.

But it might take a bit more then a few personal gripes by the man to actually make a case that the NHL is engaging in organized corruption on a fairly large scale.

That is, considering this has apparently now become a generational tradition by the NHL to oppress the Canucks, or all Canadian teams, or whatever.

These are family men who are already well off, and I cant imagine what they would risking with all these years of disservice... personal ruin, perhaps even jail time... not sure how that's worthwhile.

I figure this would be Eagleson times ten thousand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry bud but a white flag has only one meaning in my book and I have to say in many others too.

"The white flag is an internationally recognized protective sign of truce or ceasefire, and request for negotiation. It is also used to symbolize surrender, since it is often the weaker military party which requests negotiation. A white flag signifies to all that an approaching negotiator is unarmed, with an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate."

You can name it what you like but a statue to a guy raising a white flag is as good as branding us quitters. After all it only happened once and yet it is now a permanent reminder of our paranoia.

I didn't say the city didn't get behind the team. Surely they could not have done anything else. The team was excellent. It wasn't the team that surrendered.

Your calling me a troll because I have an opinion different from you is to your discredit and seems to imply you feel your argument is weak.

First off I didn't call you a troll. I was telling you how to react to the trolls of other teams fans that try to make fun of the statue. I was responding directly to you and if I was going to call you a troll then I would do it directly. It was advice, not an accusation.

Second, I am aware what a white flag signifies and I am telling you it was used and still is used ironically. No one is surrendering to anyone or ever gave that impression. That statue is in honor of Rog in a memerable moment and nothing else. I get that you were not there in the era but it really was something and that statue belongs. It was an amazing time. When Gen X and beyond dies out feel free to tear it out but for now, it's special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep talking about being objective, however every one of your comments are complete bs if you are trying to convince everyone on here that Stevens hit on Karya was clean you are worse off than most of the Canick homers that claim that the canucks do no wrong. You keep suggesting to all that we should be objective, please give it a try. By the looks of your posts, the Canucks are the only team in the entire league who deserve penalties........... Is that you Auger?

I never said it was clean. Nor did I say the Canucks are the only team to deserve penalties. Quote where I've made either of these statements. When you resort to making it up you've already lost.

I'm saying back then Stevens hit was acceptable by the league. I'm also pointing out Stevens was already moving towards the hit while Kariya had the puck. Which is why I said the Stevens hit was on the boarderline. Whereas Rome didn't turn and make his move towards Horton until after the pass was made. At the time of Rome's hit the blindside hit rule was in place and that didn't exist at the time of the Stevens hit. Imo that adds up to Rome's being the worse of the two. Different times, different rules in place.

Again, I didn't like the Rome suspension, but he did deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear Baggins explain away the Colin Campbell e-mail scandal. It is clear evidence that the NHL vice president put direct pressure on officials (director of officials) because of an undesirable outcome from a game and also shows how certain players are regarded as "little fake artists" by the league brass

Like many things here I think it's been overblown. I'd be more surprised if they didn't discuss the whiners, fake artists, or divers of the league behind closed doors. Many have earned themselves the label. I make fun of some of them as myself. Which was my take on the "let's assign ... and really give him a reason to cry" comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas Rome didn't turn and make his move towards Horton until after the pass was made. At the time of Rome's hit the blindside hit

Firstly, Rome barely moved.

Secondly, it wasn't a blindside hit. Horton was skating towards a Rome when he was hit. If you are not looking where you are skating, then it is your own damn fault.

I know you really don't want to address that late point, but it matters. Blindside hits are when you hit someone in the blindside, not when you hit someone who wasn't looking where they were going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...