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

[Report] Alex Burrows suspended 3 games


-Vintage Canuck-

What do you think of the Alex Burrows suspension?  

336 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The Neiderrieter hit on Burrows was as bad as this, the only difference was it was a late hit by Burrows and Neiderrieter did NOT get a suspension!

burrows had the puck, NN hit him squarely in the chest. This was argued ad naseum at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to the "many fans that see it like you do". Wtf kind of statement is that. Sure, its not an acutal quote of yours, but that is the way it reads. You running for council or something?

The point is that it may be a headshot, but how the league deals with the inconsistency of it all is bizarre. If he was wearing the Leaves Blue & White, he walks. What happened to McGrattan after the hit on Alberts, who hasn't returned since???? NOTHING.

League is a joke when it comes to suspensions. Look who is in charge? Mr. Concussion himself, obviously still feeling the effects based on his judgements

You did misquote me. So what kind of point are you making when you have to misquote me?

It doesn't really matter as you say it may be a head shot and the league IS inconsistent but that doesn't change whether Burrows deserved his 3 games, does it?

You seem to be calling for some kind of victim complex amongst the fans. So no matter what we see with our own eyes, it doesn't really matter because SOME other teams/players MAY arguably get lighter judgements.

I'm sorry that is no way to clean up a sport. Take some advice from JB accept it and get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL not hiding their disdain for Burrows at all. I guess it's the reputation he earned though.

Kind of ridiculous that the NHLPA can't protect it's players better. The fact that he's never been suspended, and based on other much worse hits that have received nothing, he should have gotten a fine, or 1 game at the most.

Oh well, time to call up Jensen and give him a shot.

Yup...2 games for the unintentional head shot and one game for being Alex Burrows. The guy takes more abuse than any other player in the league without getting any calls and is the first to get tagged with a penalty when he's the aggressor.

Considering the alternative, or what could have been (a penalty during the game, negating Bonino's goal that could have very well took away 2 points), I'll take having Burr sent to prison for three games.

That Burrows is the consummate team guy isn't he? On the heels of Sestito's semi public declaration of "play me or trade me" (well, sort of) talk and Horvat being recalled, Burrows goes and gets himself iced for three games creating the opportunity for his buds. No wonder the boys in the room love Burr.

FTR, I thought Burrows would have received 2 games,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is EXACTLY the point. When it happens to Canucks suspensions NEVER happen. In fact hits such as this occur all the time - without suspensions. Why is it we are always having to call out the league for bias? Because it is always Canucks who are being slapped with ridiculous suspensions while others get away with everything and anything??

And this "homerism" idiocy is baffling. It it really so difficult for you to see the blatant bias coming from the league here? Why is it always open season on the Sedins, and why is it every time a Canuck dishes out a hit he is it risk for suspension?

What you seem to be saying is that you are not happy because Burr didn't get off with a "dirty" hit.

Your reason is that our Club doesn't get Justice when other team's players "dirty" hit our players. If this is true and I am not convinced, why do you think this is only happening to the Canucks.

It is a problem with the NHL disciplinary commission not with Burrows getting justly penalised.

We need to get rid of this victim complex and start winning cups. That way we will have some presage and influence in the league. It's as simple as that.

Maybe we can also instruct Burr not to make totally stupid and reckless hits like the one he made and we will be able to keep him in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be calling for some kind of victim complex amongst the fans. So no matter what we see with our own eyes, it doesn't really matter because SOME other teams/players MAY arguably get lighter judgements.

You call it victim complex, we call it fairness/consistency? I love how people who don't agree throw in fancy catch phrases to try and make it more believable. It doesn't.

And yes, that is an issue. You can't dole punishment based on who, base it on what. The league is STILL failing to do that, and they'll never be successful in eliminating the stuff they're supposedly trying campaigning to address that way. The only way is through diligent and consistent application of the rules and subsequent punishment that the message will be effectively sent. Until then, it ONLY serves to send the message that you may or may not be penalized. And it may or may not be worth going for it due to that slip through the crack possibility.

It's a pretty basic concept. So sure, give Burr a game or two as a first offender which is usually the norm if a player is unhurt and returns to the game, with no on ice call being made. But make sure that every single similar incident is addressed similarly. Right now, it's all over the board and as long as the league feels the need to give "explanations", it means they're winging it. Set some rules and enforce them, thus eliminating the need for lip service after the fact.

No "accidentally on purpose". No thought about why - just that something DID happen.

Set an amount of games and add some for repeat offenders. Have it set in stone and apply it. But that wouldn't fare well as they'd lose ticket sales if superstars aren't in the line up. So the pick and choose and often get it wrong.

But take some advice from JB accept it yourself and get on with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was expecting it to be 2-3 games, but leaning 2 games because there was no penalty on the ice and Emelin was able to return to the game. Nonetheless, the hit was completely unnecessary and Burrows could have at least let up. TBH I don't really see the merit of open-ice hits; they are extremely risky and dangerous, and are also almost always unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is a 3 gamer...can the NHL explain why Keith's hit on Sedin, which made Sedin miss 3 weeks plus the first 3 games of the playoffs, only got 5 games?

The player should be suspended for an illegal hit...minimum the same amount of time the injured player takes to return to playing plus the suspension time.

NHL needs to be consistent.

To be consistent, Burrows hit was a fine or at most a 1 game suspension!??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The League does have that kind of tech, its called put the clip in Adobe Premier and look at the timeline.

I wouldn't know since don't have access to the program you mentioned. But I do agree that the league certainly has access to the tech necessary to get an accurate tenth of a second count and therefore has no good reason to not share the one actually objective metric they have in determining suspensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the NHL has to punish headshots, but we've been down this road before where I feel they've been consistent in determining illegal checks to the head (just maybe not the severity of suspensions).

As far as what Burrows could have done, the onus is still on Burrows to setup the hit correctly (not to mention have it not be late. The suspension video shows Emelin is slowing as a part of trying to pass the puck, and continues to slow up after the pass (especially since it was picked off). Burrows can see well in advance Emelin is leaning forward trying to move the puck rather than skating forward and should know that if he doesn't aim to hit more squarely through the body that he could make an illegal hit if Emelin straightens up. I agree, if Emelin stays bent over at almost 90 degrees then Burrows probably does hit his shoulder, but Burrows isn't aiming at all for anything but the very top part of Emelin's body even in that case.

The changing position part of the rule is for when a player lowers his head into a hit, not when a player moves his head away from contact. Burrows is still responsible to hit squarely through the body so any movement (again, apart from Emelin putting his head directly in Burrows' path) Emelin makes to avoid the hit doesn't result in an illegal check to the head. Aside from the lateness, if Burrows aims at the torso of the bent over Emelin instead of his shoulder, then Burrows still hits Emelin through the body even when he straightens up.

...

And on that bolded part we will continue to disagree. Strenuously.

As for this suspension, at least we can agree to some degree. I don't believe Emelin was stopping in order to pass the puck but only began stopping once the puck was off his stick, perhaps as others have suggested in order to avoid the hit. As a result, I believe his actions directly resulted in the head contact. However, Burrows had time to avoid hitting what he should have had time to realize was an ineligible player. And, while I don't believe Burrows "launched himself upward" I do remain uncomfortable with players pushing up in a hit as it will inevitably target the head. (Unfortunately, the NHL doesn't agree as we've seen that very action be deemed legal more times than I count. I disagreed with them then and it would be hypocritical of me to change my stance now.) As such, the greater onus was on Burrows and therefore he has to take responsibility for the outcome of the hit, even if the head contact was an unknown consequence. For me, that's very different than the Edler suspension for the hit on Hertl.

As you remember all too well I'm sure, on that one we continue to disagree as I believe Edler did everything he was responsible for by keeping his body position low, staying out in front of Hertl so he could easily see contact was imminent, and keeping his arms down. Hertl, on the other hand, deliberately and knowingly left his head in a vulnerable position and that, according to the NHL rules, is supposed to negate any suspension for head contact. In short, Burrows did something that, though not suspension worthy on its own, would have been illegal even without the head contact while Edler did not. For me, that's the difference. If a player does something illegal, they have to take responsibility for the outcome, even if it's not entirely their fault. But, I don't believe players should be suspended for delivering a legal hit that results in head contact only because the other player made a willful and informed choice to leave their head in a vulnerable position. (I'm not trying to reopen our debate into the Edler suspension, as I remember all too well your stance. I'm simply trying to explain the difference in my thinking on these 2 suspensions.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where I noted they can use the number of frames that have lapsed in the video based on the speed of the film. Mythbusters uses that all the time to determine speed (as well as the distance measured over the striped backgrounds they use).

If you don't trust that determination, that's another thing, but you could independently verify it the same way.

Or that.

I don't have access to movie editing programs, nor the money to invest in them. (Unlike with Mythbusters, I wouldn't get paid big bucks to reverse engineer information that the NHL already has readily available that they could so easily share but for some reason don't.) And, even if I did try to determine that information myself, I don't have access to all of the unedited angles that the NHL does and that means more often than not I wouldn't be able to make an accurate determination of the exact fraction of a second the puck leaves a player's stick and the exact fraction of a second contact is made. As such, how would I know that what I determined, based on the available video(s) I had, is consistent with what the NHL decided were the timer beginning and end markers? Even tiny inconsistencies between my and the NHL's decisions on when a puck left the stick and when initial contact was made could easily result in skewed data, making it impossible to know if the NHL was being consistent by their standards and that is what's at question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of the late hit fines were also targeting the head. Burrows had two strikes: late hit + illegal contact to the head. Then add in four previous fines (also disciplinary actions). As I previously said, typically a first offense head shot gets 2 games. For Burrows it's: late hit + illegal head shot + four fines. I actually don't have a problem with 3 games. And I have a Burrows jersey which should tell you something.

We're going around in circles. I was arguing that the head contact was the direct result of Emelin stopping, so you responded by argued that it didn't matter because the hit was late and therefore deserved a suspension for that reason alone. You even brought up the Rome suspension (which was late and NOT deemed a head hit) as proof that the NHL is "consistent" on suspending late hits. I simply proved that that is not the case.

And if you actually read what I've said in this thread, I actually agree with the suspension simply because the head was contacted because I believe it is to the standard I would like to see the NHL hold for any and all head hits (e.g. that the hitter could have been reasonably expected to avoid a hit, as Burrows could have been here due to the fact that the hit was late and therefore even though he didn't know he would be hitting Emelin in the head, he likely did know he was going to hit an ineligible player.) I just don't agree for a second that the NHL has been anything even resembling consistent on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is a 3 gamer...can the NHL explain why Keith's hit on Sedin, which made Sedin miss 3 weeks plus the first 3 games of the playoffs, only got 5 games?

The player should be suspended for an illegal hit...minimum the same amount of time the injured player takes to return to playing plus the suspension time.

NHL needs to be consistent.

To be consistent, Burrows hit was a fine or at most a 1 game suspension!??

Corruption and a complete lack of professionalism in the league office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on that bolded part we will continue to disagree. Strenuously.

As for this suspension, at least we can agree to some degree. I don't believe Emelin was stopping in order to pass the puck but only began stopping once the puck was off his stick, perhaps as others have suggested in order to avoid the hit. As a result, I believe his actions directly resulted in the head contact. However, Burrows had time to avoid hitting what he should have had time to realize was an ineligible player. And, while I don't believe Burrows "launched himself upward" I do remain uncomfortable with players pushing up in a hit as it will inevitably target the head. (Unfortunately, the NHL doesn't agree as we've seen that very action be deemed legal more times than I count. I disagreed with them then and it would be hypocritical of me to change my stance now.) As such, the greater onus was on Burrows and therefore he has to take responsibility for the outcome of the hit, even if the head contact was an unknown consequence. For me, that's very different than the Edler suspension for the hit on Hertl.

As you remember all too well I'm sure, on that one we continue to disagree as I believe Edler did everything he was responsible for by keeping his body position low, staying out in front of Hertl so he could easily see contact was imminent, and keeping his arms down. Hertl, on the other hand, deliberately and knowingly left his head in a vulnerable position and that, according to the NHL rules, is supposed to negate any suspension for head contact. In short, Burrows did something that, though not suspension worthy on its own, would have been illegal even without the head contact while Edler did not. For me, that's the difference. If a player does something illegal, they have to take responsibility for the outcome, even if it's not entirely their fault. But, I don't believe players should be suspended for delivering a legal hit that results in head contact only because the other player made a willful and informed choice to leave their head in a vulnerable position. (I'm not trying to reopen our debate into the Edler suspension, as I remember all too well your stance. I'm simply trying to explain the difference in my thinking on these 2 suspensions.)

Well if you can explain to us how a player can skate with any amount of speed without leaning forward exposing the head I'm willing to listen. The league has been consistent on these calls. If you come from the side you have to hit into in the shoulder. If you come from an angle in front or directly from the front contact with the head is incidental to hitting into the body. Elder came from the side missing the shoulder and hitting the head. That's an illegal hit and a suspension. The hit on Burrows the player came in on an angle making contact to his head incidental to hitting into his body. The explanation in the suspension videos are pretty clear. The onus is on the hitter to make sure his hit is legal. Shanny even explained in the Edler video what he needed to do to make the hit a legal one. Which was consistent with his explanation in other head shot suspensions. You're simply applying your own standard (the target is responsible) as opposed to what the league is applying (the hitter is responsible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going around in circles. I was arguing that the head contact was the direct result of Emelin stopping, so you responded by argued that it didn't matter because the hit was late and therefore deserved a suspension for that reason alone. You even brought up the Rome suspension (which was late and NOT deemed a head hit) as proof that the NHL is "consistent" on suspending late hits. I simply proved that that is not the case.

And if you actually read what I've said in this thread, I actually agree with the suspension simply because the head was contacted because I believe it is to the standard I would like to see the NHL hold for any and all head hits (e.g. that the hitter could have been reasonably expected to avoid a hit, as Burrows could have been here due to the fact that the hit was late and therefore even though he didn't know he would be hitting Emelin in the head, he likely did know he was going to hit an ineligible player.) I just don't agree for a second that the NHL has been anything even resembling consistent on the issue.

Did you watch the suspension video and actually listen to the explanation? Although Emelin did change body position Burrow also changed his body position. Meaning he had time to react. It was taken into consideration. He missed the shoulder and hit the head. Late Hit + Head Shot + Four Previous Fines = Suspension.

If you want all head shots taken out the only hitting allowed would be directly from the side shoulder to shoulder and hip checks from the front. You'd be reducing the hitting in the game and going Euro hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you seem to be saying is that you are not happy because Burr didn't get off with a "dirty" hit.

Your reason is that our Club doesn't get Justice when other team's players "dirty" hit our players. If this is true and I am not convinced, why do you think this is only happening to the Canucks.

It is a problem with the NHL disciplinary commission not with Burrows getting justly penalised.

We need to get rid of this victim complex and start winning cups. That way we will have some presage and influence in the league. It's as simple as that.

Maybe we can also instruct Burr not to make totally stupid and reckless hits like the one he made and we will be able to keep him in the team.

My God, you really are clueless, aren't you?

:picard:

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...