Believe in... Blackballing ?

[alfstonker]

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.

Fair enough, I apologise for misinterpreting your last remark.

I just can't get my head round the act itself. I saw the Canucks getting hounded in the Sharks series a couple of years ago with some hellish calls but I much preferred AV's stoic demeanour to a coach raising a white flag (towel) I suppose it is a personal thing that I just can't relate to.

Of course we must own it now and try to make a positive of it but I am amazed no one thought like I do at the time.

The only excuse I can come up with now after watching the film is that Neilson was a perfectionist, he worked on every little detail and when his plans were confounded by some questionable refereeing, something he couldn't plan for, he lost the plot.

I wonder how much of a coincidence it is that our "fans" are not only poor losers but we are constantly showing our paranoia claiming the whole of the NHL establishment is against us and conspires to prevent us winning the cup.

Of course there is no connection between a statue showing surrender but in fact was an act intending to embarrass the officials and our continued whining about how games are officiated.

We need to man up and just bury the puck. Ironically it was Burrows himself who showed us how against Chicago in 2011.

[Baggins]

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.

Blindside definition:

1. The side on which one's vision, especially the peripheral vision, is limited or obstructed.

2. The side away from which one is directing one's attention.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blindsiding

Aside from that the hit was late. Which is the reason the suspension was for interference. We'll simply have to agree to disagree Rome deserved his suspension.

[Baggins]

I just can't get my head round the act itself. I saw the Canucks getting hounded in the Sharks series a couple of years ago with some hellish calls but I much preferred AV's stoic demeanour to a coach raising a white flag (towel) I suppose it is a personal thing that I just can't relate to.

Of course we must own it now and try to make a positive of it but I am amazed no one thought like I do at the time.

At the time I saw it as a very public protest as opposed to proclaiming surrender. It was an iconic moment in Canucks history.

[bp79]

N7Nucks, on 23 Jul 2014 - 3:24 PM, said:

We have some bad calls. I can't say for sure we get it worse without watching every game every team plays. But that Burrows penalty in Nashville blows my mind. I doubt it has anything to do with that Nielson stature considering the incident is what, 30 years old?

i agree. I dont think it was to do with the statue it was more of a ego thing with auger. Both calls were terrible, but the 2nd one was just plain cheating. it was a complete phantom call how the league allowed that to go un punished speaks volumes of how canadian teams that are not original 6 teams are basically afterthoughts. we play are games so late back east we will never get treated justly cuz we all know that the big wigs back east barely watch us not to mention hoe every year the canucks are the only team to have a longer road trip then a homstand. for example this year and last 7 games in like 11 nights through 3 time zones. yet are longest homestand 6 games its always like that. not to mention the most back to backs while crossing diff time zones followed by week long stretches throwing off are rythym. burkie and gillis are both on record tryiong to fix it to no avail. dont even get me started on how are players always seem to get suspended while players on other teams dont for the exact same hit. and the cherry on top twice last year we had 7 mins in penaltys at once. one i believe include a 5 min 5 on 3 against the ducks

[RUPERTKBD]

At the time I saw it as a very public protest as opposed to proclaiming surrender. It was an iconic moment in Canucks history.

As someone who saw it and the events that led up to it in real time, I concur.

It was an ironic gesture. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret it otherwise.

[thema]

As someone who saw it and the events that led up to it in real time, I concur.

It was an ironic gesture. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret it otherwise.

It was classic Roger and funny as hell at the time. I do feel that erecting a statue to one of our coaches whining about the officiating says a lot more about this franchise than was intended. The victim mentality; it has driven me nuts for years. It looks like TL and JB are going to do their damnedest to eliminate that particular malaise once and for all. I sincerely hope so...

[darkpoet]

It was classic Roger and funny as hell at the time. I do feel that erecting a statue to one of our coaches whining about the officiating says a lot more about this franchise than was intended. The victim mentality; it has driven me nuts for years. It looks like TL and JB are going to do their damnedest to eliminate that particular malaise once and for all. I sincerely hope so...

This.

Thing is, they didn't only erect a statue "of one of our coaches"

If they wanted to just honour the man/coach, they could have easily done so without adding that stick and towel into the mix.

Fact is though, Roger will best be remembered for that moment so they ran with it. It was sensationalized. Permanently.

My opinion on that is:

honouring the man = great.

honouring that moment = maybe not so great... as it permanently points to a moment in time where the Canucks basically stood up and said " ____ YOU! " to the league.

That brings me to your last point which I also agree with. They can't do anything about it now even if they wanted to. Roger has passed so doing anything in that regard would be hugely disrespectful. So really the only thing TL and JB have at their disposal to try and turn this teams image around, is to do that by way of cleaning house and starting over. That will take a few more years but it will happen.

I do agree (FTR) that this teams image/behaviour has been a problem in the past. I never denied that. Only saying that it's only part of the equation. One that can be controlled, thankfully.

[TimberWolf]

Actually if you hate the refs looking at us funny you have to thank Torts for starting the path. He put a stop to diving and looking to the refs. He wanted the refs to understand we are a hard checking team and not a soft whiny team any more.

Not that Torts did much else but at least it wasn't a waste of time if that sticks around.

It'll take time if ever works at all, the NHL hates it when we go off script

[Tearloch7]

As someone who saw it and the events that led up to it in real time, I concur.

It was an ironic gesture. I'm not sure how anyone can interpret it otherwise.

Ironic AND iconic .. a 'two-fer' .. those were emotional times.

[Sweathog]

I love the history that was made by roger N and the nucks waving the towels . very cool moment .

I hate that we have a statue outside of our arena that says " WE SURRENDER "

That thing needs to be moved

Agree completely, never thought about it that way until you brought it up. While we're at it, why not get rid of that U2 song for the Canucks intro?

Not only do we have the "we surrender" statue, but we have an intro song that begins with "I want to run, I want to hide"

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Blindside definition:

1. The side on which one's vision, especially the peripheral vision, is limited or obstructed.

2. The side away from which one is directing one's attention.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blindsiding

Aside from that the hit was late. Which is the reason the suspension was for interference. We'll simply have to agree to disagree Rome deserved his suspension.

There is a rule in the NHL that prohibits hitting from behind; however, the rule also states that you can't turn you back to someone who is about to hit you and claim it was a hit from behind. The dictionary definition still has it as a hit from behind, but it isn't according to the rules. According to your definition, you could close your eyes and claim every hit was a blindside hit.

"Aside from that the hit was late."

Chara's hit on Pacioretty was latter than Rome's hit on Horton. Pacioretty dumped the puck into Boston's zone and Chara still pushed him into the stanchion... and did so latter than Rome hit Horton. Chara's hit was also a lot more blatant and a lot riskier, but there was no suspension. Nine times out of ten, Rome's hit on Horton would have not even resulting in a penalty. It would have been a highlight reel hit showing why you don't admire a pass and not pay attention to where you are skating.

"We'll simply have to agree to disagree..."

That's cause you are wrong. None of the evidence backs you up on this. There's no way to look at Chara's hit on Pacioretty and Rome's hit on Horton and think Rome deserved a major penalty if Chara doesn't get a four-game suspension. Chara targeted Pacioretty's head, for god's sake.

[BenDrinkin]

I don't understand why refs would make bad calls for being called out for making bad calls, but spite is only human nature I guess.

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

I'm fully aware that I'll probably get called out by some here saying this is ridiculous. But is it?

Like I said, the NHL is an old boys club. What happened that night in Chicago was a major and public slap in the face to the officials and thereby, the league who employs them.

We could have just let it go but instead there is a permanent reminder of this outside the rink, and it seems ever since then things seem to "happen" here which just make matters worse.

(the issue with Burr, and his extremely public shaming of Auger afterwards being only one recent example)

Imagine how Canucks fans and players felt ? Fans every where can agree officiating has and always will be the weakest link of any professional sports league. IMHO It had to be done. Every team should stand up for itself and call out the officials and more importantly the league for their brutal lack of consistency.

Each game every night the refs(yes I know they are only human) blow not one or two calls a game but one or two calls a period that kills momentum for either team thus completely controlling the pace and flow of the game. The refs are not there to single handedly change the course of a game. They are there to officiate and be impartial. The league is becoming a farce especially in the playoffs.

[thema]

This.

Thing is, they didn't only erect a statue "of one of our coaches"

If they wanted to just honour the man/coach, they could have easily done so without adding that stick and towel into the mix.

Fact is though, Roger will best be remembered for that moment so they ran with it. It was sensationalized. Permanently.

My opinion on that is:

honouring the man = great.

honouring that moment = maybe not so great... as it permanently points to a moment in time where the Canucks basically stood up and said " ____ YOU! " to the league.

That brings me to your last point which I also agree with. They can't do anything about it now even if they wanted to. Roger has passed so doing anything in that regard would be hugely disrespectful. So really the only thing TL and JB have at their disposal to try and turn this teams image around, is to do that by way of cleaning house and starting over. That will take a few more years but it will happen.

I do agree (FTR) that this teams image/behaviour has been a problem in the past. I never denied that. Only saying that it's only part of the equation. One that can be controlled, thankfully.

Agreed. Remember that making Luongo captain in direct violation of league rules was also a big FU to the league. That's what "thinking outside the box" will get you...

[Baggins]

There is a rule in the NHL that prohibits hitting from behind; however, the rule also states that you can't turn you back to someone who is about to hit you and claim it was a hit from behind. The dictionary definition still has it as a hit from behind, but it isn't according to the rules. According to your definition, you could close your eyes and claim every hit was a blindside hit.

"Aside from that the hit was late."

Chara's hit on Pacioretty was latter than Rome's hit on Horton. Pacioretty dumped the puck into Boston's zone and Chara still pushed him into the stanchion... and did so latter than Rome hit Horton. Chara's hit was also a lot more blatant and a lot riskier, but there was no suspension. Nine times out of ten, Rome's hit on Horton would have not even resulting in a penalty. It would have been a highlight reel hit showing why you don't admire a pass and not pay attention to where you are skating.

"We'll simply have to agree to disagree..."

That's cause you are wrong. None of the evidence backs you up on this. There's no way to look at Chara's hit on Pacioretty and Rome's hit on Horton and think Rome deserved a major penalty if Chara doesn't get a four-game suspension. Chara targeted Pacioretty's head, for god's sake.

Horton was injured because of the hit. Pacioretty was injured because of poor rink design. Players had been run into those stanchions year after year. It took a serious injury to get the league to finally do something about it. The difference between the two is anywhere else on the ice the Horton hit would have the same result. The Pacioretty hit on the other hand would have been a routine rub out along the boards anywhere else on the ice without injury.

[Ghostsof1915]

How about the Canucks just don't put themselves in a position in the game where the ref has to make a call? That's called discipline.

[kloubek]

I certainly think the Canucks have a recent history of getting bad calls from the refs. And I say that without bias. I didn't notice this watching them for years, but over the last 4 years or so it's been pretty clear to me.

To be fair, I believe there's a direct correlation with refs being against us and the amount of diving we've seen from our team. Luongo, Kesler, Burrows, Lapierre were all members of our swim team.... only cleaning up their recently. It was not only embarrassing to me as a fan, but impossible to defend when being jawed at by Calgary fans. (That's where I live).

I would like to believe the refs being out to get us is over now that our team has stopped playing that kind of game. And I highly doubt Willie will be willing to bring it back. Besides that, I think our team is now run by management that is highly respected by refs and other teams alike. That can only improve relations.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Horton was injured because of the hit. Pacioretty was injured because of poor rink design.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Complete bullshit.

How can anyone even pretend Chara didn't know where that stanchion was? Chara pushed Pacioretty's head into the stanchion. He did it intentionally.

And his hit was later than Rome's hit on Horton.

Horton's injury was a fluke, because nine times out of ten, an open ice hit like that would have resulted in no injuries.

On other other hand, Chara's hit on Pacioretty was practically guaranteed to result in injury.

If you can't see that, then you are intentionally blind to reality.

[RUPERTKBD]

bull. bull. Complete bull.

How can anyone even pretend Chara didn't know where that stanchion was? Chara pushed Pacioretty's head into the stanchion. He did it intentionally.

We don't have to "pretend" that Chara didn't know where the stanchion was, because it's a fact. As Baggins correctly pointed out, it had happened before. Several times.

He did not do it intentionally. He's not that kind of player. If you'd like to be educated on the matter, go back and dig up the original thread.

Oh, and I can say that because I've been playing for over four decades, in many different rinks and I know what I'm talking about.

[Baggins]

bull. bull. Complete bull.

How can anyone even pretend Chara didn't know where that stanchion was? Chara pushed Pacioretty's head into the stanchion. He did it intentionally.

And his hit was later than Rome's hit on Horton.

Horton's injury was a fluke, because nine times out of ten, an open ice hit like that would have resulted in no injuries.

On other other hand, Chara's hit on Pacioretty was practically guaranteed to result in injury.

If you can't see that, then you are intentionally blind to reality.

Not blind, just decades of experience. Players had been run into those stanchions every year for decades. Why? Because players are focused on opposing players and the puck, not the stanchion. It's amazing that such a serious injury hadn't happened before. Although injuries have occurred. But that's exactly what it took to get the league off it's collective arse and fix the problem. And over all those decades I don't recall a single suspension for hitting a player into the stanchion. Not one.

Chara had played 13 years in the league at the time of the incident without a single suspension of any kind. Does that strike you as the kind of guy looking to intentionally injure a player? Chara's only intent was to rub the opposing player out along the boards. I think it's your own Bruins bias thinking it was anything more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXOKlH6rmx8