-
Posts
5,509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by poetica
-
It's been confirmed on TSN that Hank will not play tomorrow.
-
Vancouver Canucks @VanCanucks #Canucks practice underway in @RogersArena. Henrik is not on the ice. Vancouver Canucks @VanCanucks Schroeder and Stanton are practicing for #Canucks this morning.
-
It's not just that video...
-
He could have ignited a brawl in a tight hallway where people could fall down and get trampled by people wearing skates. You don't see how that's dangerous? That sort of thing can not be allowed to happen! Torts was unprofessional for going over to their dressing room and he knows it. And as a result, he needs to be suspended for a few games, even if just to prove that the NHL doesn't allow that sort of thing even if they can understand why he was so angry. Harley should be fined and publicly blamed for the line brawl that he deliberately started in hopes of keeping his job. He needs to be shamed.
-
Interesting opinion piece by CBC's Elliotte Friedman: NHL has no choice but to suspend John Tortorella Some questions before I fly home from Fight Night Saturday in Vancouver: Will John Tortorella be suspended? The NHL has no choice. You can't have team personnel charging into the opponents' dressing room area. In fact, the league owes one of its most fearsome fighters, Brian McGrattan, a huge thank you for preventing an escalation of this conflict. McGrattan kept calm throughout a potentially explosive situation, holding back both Tortorella and Calgary assistant Clint Malarchuk from doing something they'd really regret. The NHL, which has asked CBC for all video from the hallway camera that captured the event, frowns on coaching/management off-ice confrontations. Rule 46.8, "Fighting Off the Playing Surface," specifically deals with this, reading, "Whenever a Coach or other non-playing Club personnel becomes involved in an altercation with an opposing player, Coach or other non-playing Club personnel on or off the ice, shall be automatically suspended from the game, ordered to the dressing room and the matter will be reported to the Commissioner for further disciplinary action." In 1999, Washington GM George McPhee was fined $20,000 and suspended one month for punching then-Chicago coach Lorne Molleken after an exhibition game. McPhee was angry at the Blackhawks for roughing up his team. There is no evidence Tortorella threw any punches, so that harsh a punishment seems unlikely. But, the NHL has to send some kind of message. You give Tortorella's brethren any reason to think, "Hey, that wasn't a bad idea... let me try it" and you've got more of these coming. Should Tortorella have started a different group? We'll get to Bob Hartley's role in all this. PJ Stock and I had a good debate about how the Canucks coach responded. PJ felt Tortorella could have put out a skill line against McGrattan and Kevin Westgarth, thereby cooling the temperature. During the game, I texted a few coaches and GMs to ask their opinion and a couple executives agreed with PJ's point. So, it's not like he's on an island with this one. The reason I took the opposite stance was the coaches polled felt otherwise -- for one reason: Henrik Sedin's injury. An injury, by the way, that prevented Sedin from finishing the game. Calgary didn't need this game like Vancouver did. The Canucks have higher expectations and were reeling after a brutal week. A loss at home to the Flames was not acceptable. If Sedin is healthy, Tortorella can throw another line or centre out there. But, in this situation, he needs Ryan Kesler and Brad Richardson to play. He cannot afford to lose them as secondary fighters or to injury or whatever. PJ said off-air Tortorella could have ordered them not to fight, but, in the heat of the moment, who knows what happens? In some ways, he's in a no-win situation. He gets criticized for sending out his tough guys, but, if he sends out non-heavyweights, he probably gets ripped for serving them up to a beating. What exactly was he doing in the hallway? Because he's going in front of the NHLs justice system, it doesn't benefit Tortorella to answer this question now. But, here is one man's theory: It's been an interesting week for Vancouver. Not only were there three losses by a combined 11-1, but the Canucks had some unusual moments with the referees. Even Keith Olberman noticed Tom Sestito's 27-minute penalty parade in Los Angeles. Then, they were penalized with seven-minute five-on-three at the end of the Anaheim blowout. Justified or not, that doesn't happen very often. I didn't get a chance to talk to anyone about it last night, but there is no doubt Vancouver feels it gets officiated much more harshly since the Alex Burrows/Stephane Auger incident in 2010. I look at it another way: sometimes, I think teams get penalized when they play "differently" than expected. Basically, every team has its identity and some of them are edgy. Some aren't. The Canucks, right or wrongly, don't have an "edgy" reputation as a group. So, when things happen (like Sestito on Dustin Brown), it stands out. If Sestito played for Detroit, it would look weird, too. Anyway, I'm betting your house that Tortorella HATES this... and is going to try and change it. The Canucks are in a kind of transition anyways, with some good young prospects ready to force their way into the lineup as soon as next season. As new blood finds it way in, he wants a new attitude, a change in the way his team is perceived. Was charging into the Flames' hallway a message to his team as much as it was a message to Calgary? Shouldn't Bob Hartley be punished, too? He's not getting suspended. But, you have to think he'll be fined. In September, then-Sabres coach Ron Rolston was fined a reported $10,000 for "player selection and team conduct" issues. John Scott was sent on the ice after Corey Tropp was injured in a fight with Toronto's Jamie Devane. Scott immediately went after Phil Kessel and the predictable gong show ensued. If Rolston was guilty of "player selection" for that, then Hartley certainly is, too. He put on an amazingly innocent performance in his post-game media scrum, but, like Tortorella, he knows he's in trouble with the league and is thinking, "Do I want them to fine me $20,000...or $50,000? I'll take the lower one, thanks." Last night was Westgarth's 10th game with Calgary and that line combination never started before Saturday. Just talking with the players Saturday morning, it is a hugely frustrated group. They are competing hard, but aren't scoring and losses are mounting. Hartley tried to ignite them the old-school way, simple as that. Also, as some of you helpfully pointed out on Twitter, Hartley and Tortorella have a history. In 2005, with the former coaching Atlanta and the latter in Tampa, they met in Tortorella's office after he ripped Eric Boulton for elbowing Paul Ranger. As Tortorella yelled and Hartley stood there ignoring him -- which undoubtedly made the Canucks coach even angrier -- it was pretty obvious they don't give each other friendship bracelets. Wasn't Brian Burke there last night? Why yes. Let's make this very clear: Burke is not responsible for this. Hartley and Tortorella are adults responsible for their own actions. But, let's look at what's going through Hartley's head on Saturday: The team is really trying, but has three wins in 16 games. The guy who hired you is gone and the guy in charge is publicly praising you, but that doesn't really mean a ton. When he takes over, Burke comes right out and says he doesn't like the way the Flames play, wanting more toughness, for one thing. On Saturday, he ended a lengthy silence by telling The Calgary Sun's Eric Francis he can't sleep because the team is losing. And, he shows up at the game. It's been kind of a weird dynamic with Burke so far. He hasn't been at a lot of road games, so when Hartley reads that and knows the boss is coming, his mind is working overtime. He's done the best possible job with this group and there are only 30 of these spots available. Hartley had to wait longer than he wanted to get this opportunity, so he's going to do whatever it takes to keep it. It made for a wild night. One that I won't soon forget, if ever. And one that will have some consequences.
-
He will be suspended and deserves to be. What he did was dangerous and unnecessary. And accomplished exactly nothing. That being said, I'm hoping the NHL doesn't throw the book at him to make an example of him now that he's the Canucks coach. If Roy deliberately knocking down a heavy divider which he knew could have seriously hurt someone didn't get anything more than a token fine, Torts doesn't deserve more than a steep fine and a few games. I'm hoping no more than 5. Of course, it might all depend on how sorry he can pretend to be during his in person meeting, as opposed to spouting off about how the NHL has allowed the refs to declare open season on the Canucks and how the Flames likely thought they'd start a brawl and get one of those recently created 7-minute 5-on-3 PPs out of it. Not that he'd be wrong, but it's not going to help his case to point out that little bit of bold face obviousness.
-
Good battle back game. And battle in game. Luo was great and the D did amazing with so much ice time. Glad Torts got his wits about him before the start of the second. Not looking forward to the NHL throwing the book at him, but he definitely deserves punishment.
-
Not kidding. I think that's fair since it seems no actual physical contact was made. Of course, given NHL bias it could be a 20 game suspension.
-
Torts will and should be suspended for a game or 2 for going after them in the hall like that. No matter what, that's just too dangerous to ever allow. The NHL should also suspend themselves a few games for creating this mess by telling teams it's not only okay to go at our guys but that they'll actually be rewarded with a 7-minute PP.
-
Haven't heard any news, but did notice that TSN lists him as injured with "bruised ribs" and "questionable for Saturday's game against Calgary."
-
*sigh*
-
Some mistakes you made there. One: No matter how you construct the message, it's not pointing out "interesting points" if you're just arguing with them, so why be disingenuous? Why not just post your opinion and let it stand on its own? (Fine, you don't want to call it a slash because he didn't swing his stick, but still used it as a weapon, jamming it in Santo's ribs and likely hurting his shoulder by pushing up violently on it with his stick. So maybe suggest something else to call it instead of just be pointless snarky. Crosschecking? Roughing? Whatever you call it, a Canuck would have likely be penalized for that!) Second: The NHL has already announced Hanzal got fined for deliberately crosschecking Booth in the face and causing an injury. Or, put another way for doing something worse than Kass' recklessness in the pre-season which got him suspended. Apparently I do know the future. And sadly my distrust and anger with the kangaroo nature of the NHL's version of "player safety" remain unchallenged. ...Off to buy a lottery ticket.
-
Lack was awesome! He deserved to be the 3rd star in the game. The goal should have counted. It deflected off Hank's body and was not directed in in any way. Hanzal should have never been allowed to attacked 3 of our players. He should have been called for the first slash on Santo. And he should be suspended for crosschecking Booth to the face/head. But he won't, thus once and for all proving the NHL's bias and inconsistency. If it'd been the other way around, a Canuck would have gotten a major, game misconduct and a 5 game suspension. (And deserved it!) Of course, a Canuck would have been called for the earlier slashes, so it wouldn't have happened. Instead the refs were busy calling Hank for hooking. At least they got their priorities straight. Our offense still sucks. Our guys apparently all need a hug. *hug hug* Now suck it up and do your job!
-
What's going on with David Booth?
poetica replied to Everybody Hates Raymond's topic in Canucks Talk
We don't know why he wasn't there, but I think we can all agree that it at least smells bad. If he's been a healthy scratch that means he's been healthy enough to play, so he should have been well enough to do some silly skills competitions. And if he were injured, why would he not have been excused from practices the day before or after? If he had the flu that would be understandable that he wasn't there, but not understandable that Torts would have said "banged up" instead of "sick with the flu." That's hardly the kind of thing they use euphemisms to cover up by calling it an "upper body injury" or anything. I don't know what's happening, but it's definitely fishy. In the end the only thing that really matters though is that it doesn't effect the rest of the team if there is drama behind the scenes. This is a team full of professionals, not the Real Hockey Players of Vancouver. -
What's going on with David Booth?
poetica replied to Everybody Hates Raymond's topic in Canucks Talk
Vancouver Canucks @VanCanucks When asked why Booth wasn't present at #SuperSkills - "He's banged up," said Torts. -
That is all good to hear. Thanks for posting the audio! (I really liked what he had to say about goalies getting run and how the league needs to protect them. I just hope his "we'll deal with it" actually materializes into something tangible on the ice!)
-
Lack deserved a better fate, especially on his birthday. I'm really hoping there's a flu going around the team. It would explain so much. And help me sleep at night.
-
[Game Topic] Canucks @ Ucks - 01.05.2014: No "D" Whatsoever
poetica replied to Brad Marchand's topic in Canucks Talk
I hope Torts not only rips them a new one, I hope he removes the old one first. That was pathetic! -
[Game Topic] Canucks @ Ucks - 01.05.2014: No "D" Whatsoever
poetica replied to Brad Marchand's topic in Canucks Talk
I think there's something wrong with my feed. Seems like it's repeating last night's game. -
So frustrating! Luo deserved a better fate. Guys running him is way beyond ridiculous at this point and needs to stop!!!! Good on Sestito for trying to make that point. Too bad he was alone.
-
Saw that yesterday. Funny stuff! And good on Sestito for replying in kind: Tom Sestito @TomSestito23 @strombone1 they said they weren't taking an All Star team and didn't take the best players obviously #2018
-
Unwritten rules of attending a hockey game (Article)
poetica replied to Tom Sestito's topic in General Hockey Discussion
I'm not getting your point, or why you responded to that part of my post... -
Unwritten rules of attending a hockey game (Article)
poetica replied to Tom Sestito's topic in General Hockey Discussion
You're welcome to like or dislike anything you want, as am I. And I was obviously not talking about people celebrating with the crowd. I'm talking about those jerks that bang on the glass every time players are battling for the puck near their seats just to get the attention. Watching on TV, it makes it hard to hear the sounds of the game. And I'm sure the people who paid good money for their seats who are trying to see around the "everyone look at me!" jerk banging on the glass for no reason aren't pleased with it either. -
Unwritten rules of attending a hockey game (Article)
poetica replied to Tom Sestito's topic in General Hockey Discussion
I never equated a team's success or talent to the noise level in the crowd, only pointed out that various athletes have said they get energized by a loud crowd. If you don't like that, take it up with them. As for questioning my logic, you didn't have to work too hard to follow it as I explicitly laid it out for anyone not preoccupied with looking for a pointless debate. Cheering is a communal activity in which everyone can join in. That's part of the fun of attending a sporting event. One jerk banging on the glass, however, is a selfish act that makes it hard for everyone else to hear and/or see what's going on on the ice. If you don't understand the obvious difference between those 2 activities, I don't know what to tell you.