apollo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I don't really post much, but I'm on the forum reading through everything daily (does that make me creepy?). While the whole refs are out to get us thing is annoying, there's a reason so many people notice it and mention it. I went to the game against the Kings the other night - I was sitting row 1 at the blue line, right behind Devorski for most of the night. Before the game started, I was watching him, and he was super chummy with the Kings, even winking at a couple of them. So what? Maybe they're just friends, a wink is a wink.. But for some reason, as a fan who traveled from Victoria and spent close to $1000 for me and the girlfriend to get over there, get a hotel and see the game (with pretty awesome seats), it made me super uneasy seeing him wink at the other team, and laugh it up with them. He didn't do that once with the Canucks. I mentioned it to my girlfriend at the start of the game that this guy is notorious with Canucks fans, and pretty much straight away it showed. He had some super questionable offsides (I was right on the blue-line), and a couple questionable icing calls. You can tell the players are frustrated with it - Stanton knew he messed up, but he also knew it was a weak call - the look on his face was pure frustration. When Devorski called that terrible icing on Daniel, the look on Daniel's face wasn't even surprised, it was just an annoyed, frustrated, almost laughing at the situation. Somethings gotta give - I know these guys are humans, but they have to try their best to be robotic in their job - I don't want to see them laughing with or winking at the opposing team, it's not professional, and as a fan it just pissed me off. Just my 2 cents.. Oh boy that really boils my blood... Infuriates me. I'm not surprised that he was winking and interacting with the King's. He's a devorski. 3 blown offsides clearly caught on video... How are you going to shoot when you come in on side and then the ref blows you offside? hd71 posted all 3 images that clearly shows we went in on side and devorski blew it. Not to mention penalties and non penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 That's somewhat my feeling too. Some of the regualr So-Cal crews ,..can & do 'fan-girl' all over the Kings & their celebrity friends. It can happen in 'limelight' communities like LA. They wouldn't want to burn their bridges with the Stanley Cup Champs, a team who progresses in the play-offs ,..or harm their reps in that communty, in anyway. That's their hub. They like being there & have simply developed a bias especially - among some of these more senior & planted officials. This is why officiating crews need to be more-properly vetted & rotated ...& why accusations of bias should be taken a little more seriously...in this league of parity.Perceptions & biases affect the way games are permitted to play-out. The 14-4-2 home record of the Kings vs their 5-8-6 road record is telling, in that it's the biggest differential in the league. Most have home & away records comparable to one another. We can speculate as to why this is & I'm just offering-up my own point of view on that, too.Could also be that the Kings play better at home in The Staples Center compared to on the road. Staples Center has become one of the toughest places to play in because the Kings perform much better there compared to on the road. Much like how Chicago is a much tougher team to play against at home than on the road.. Using this season's statistics, one could argue that Nashville is the toughest place to play in because they're currently 14-2-1 at home compared to their road record of 11-7-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TU90 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Oh boy that really boils my blood... Infuriates me. I'm not surprised that he was winking and interacting with the King's. He's a devorski. 3 blown offsides clearly caught on video... How are you going to shoot when you come in on side and then the ref blows you offside? hd71 posted all 3 images that clearly shows we went in on side and devorski blew it. Not to mention penalties and non penalties. I was yelling at him every time he lined up on the blue line. Calling penalties is one thing - all teams get bad calls and also get away with calls. However, calling a bad offside or icing can make a difference - you can take away scoring chances and kill momentum with the blow of a whistle, and people generally overlook it - people mainly focus on blown penalties. Devorski has been in the league since 1993 (I believe) - and yet he makes obvious mistakes like that multiple times in a game? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. I should note: I don't think it's some grand conspiracy, but I really wouldn't be surprised if small subtle things like this happen all the time, and to more teams than just us. Take away momentum a couple times a game, and kill the odd scoring chance here or there. The refs in the NHL are garbage for the most part, and need to be held accountable for blown calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Could also be that the Kings play better at home in The Staples Center compared to on the road. Staples Center has become one of the toughest places to play in because the Kings perform much better there compared to on the road. Much like how Chicago is a much tougher team to play against at home than on the road.. Using this season's statistics, one could argue that Nashville is the toughest place to play in because they're currently 14-2-1 at home compared to their road record of 11-7-2.Nashville or any team's home-hub of officials should go under the micro-scope if there are repeated accusations of bias or impropriety - too. But NASH's away record isnt a losing record by comparison's to LA's nor as far-off their home record. You'd think most teams would play a bit better at home. But - when it's a HELLUVA-LOT better, ..and if there's accusations of homerism, favoritism & bias by the fans, let alone insinuations by the players or raised eye-brows by their team's executives...due diligence says you should check-it-out properly - if you're the Director of Officials,...just sayin'!BTW - Shorty indicated a couple of times that Devorski was having another sketchy outing in the Wings/Nux game, again tonight. He's only 1 of a crew,..but he just sees things thru skewed-vision & should be moved elsewhere, IMO. I think he's tainted & spoiled for further work in this division - period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 honestly, i love it when this team gets shafted from weak calls or missed calls. it makes reading canucks talk so entertaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCK-EXPRESS Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Every fans in any sports thinks that Zebras are the reason they lose games. Nothing new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Not every major-league sport refuses to let their officials address the media when outrageous or controversial mistakes are made. I reference, the base-running umpire who erred in making a wrong-call that would have preserved a pitcher's no-hitter. He owned his mistake in the media, apologized to the player & his team, and became the face of integrity instead of a villian, for his sincere remorse. MLB officials earned a little more respect from the public & their ball-fans, that day. The results of the game in question were not over-turned,..but - I believe this particular official made an honest mistake & is going out there trying to do an honest job..not wanting to repeat the same mistakes, again. I DON'T get this same feeling about a number of the most-senior officials in the NHL. They appear too crusty, arrogant & very unaccountable. The fans boo & chant when they offer us little or no remorse or any apologies what-so-ever ...to help us believe that their mistakes are even somewhat regrettable. With NO accountability or opportunity for the press to submit questions to them, we can very easily develop suspicions that their mis-deeds may be purposeful and/or devious. It's a situation that breeds dis-respect. See the difference here, folks? By not being more publicly accountable, like that official in MLB,... about the deployments or on-ice conduct of their officials ...the NHL's operations or machinations cannot be above suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanIsleNuckFan Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Not saying that you guys are wrong, however I have some thoughts on this subject: 1.) As I understand it, what you guys are suggesting is that all 30 of the owners of NHL teams have to be in cahoots with the league brass on this conspiracy, to improve the chances of larger market teams winning a championship at the expense of these "smaller market" teams, in order to build TV revenue.. Also, what kind of risks of exposure is the NHL facing each time they have to deal with a potential new owner? Would you want to buy a small market franchise which has zero chance of winning a championship until the league decides that it benefits from allowing it to happen? When is this potential owner brought in on the conspiracy, before or after the purchase goes through? 2.) Assuming number one is true, what sort of compensation are these smaller market franchises getting to go along with this plan? Certainly some financial compensation could be diverted to them from NHL coffers or larger market teams, but from what account to what account is this money moved? Is it done through personal accounts, and if so what about taxes? This money would be "easy" to track if you had a good accountant, and yet there doesn't seem to be any findings in this area. Also, there has to be some kind of reward for an owners ego. Who really wants to own a losing team, but of greater importance, who wants to own a losing team which doesn't have a chance of ever becoming a winner (ie. win the Cup) unless the league decides that it is in their best interests? 3.) There must be some very tight security on this conspiracy below ownership level, otherwise someone at management level (or another emplyee) might have leaked an e-mail or hard-copy memo on the subject. When do these guys get read in to the conspiracy, if ever? 4.) The people in charge of NHL referees/linesmen would have to be involved in this conspiracy, wouldn't they? If they were on the outside then they'd not be able to give directives to the on-ice officials with regard to how to call a particular game. And if they were on the outside, wouldn't they notice that something was fishy if they call in a particular official because of a number of suspect calls, and are then told to back off by the head office? Perhaps the league can get away without including every on-ice official in this conspiracy, but even if they have a limit of six or so that's still a heck of a lot of potential leaks. Further, how are these on-ice officials compensated for their part in this conspiracy.? So many questions... regards, G. Good questions, but I think you are missing one crucial point, The larger market teams such as LA and New York for example, when they made it to the playoffs last year both drive huge TV and Ad ratings due to the popularity of these teams in these cities, based solely on population and population density.. Compare that to a playoff finals between Vancouver and Carolina for instance, or Ottawa, way way less ad revenue, no espn, no NBC, etc etc. All you have to do now is remember the league wide profit sharing deal, and think, ah ha, when the league brings in that kind of ad revenue, everybody wins financially, and helps keep the unpopular expansion teams in the lower US... I hope that with the Rogers deal, being a canadian company and all, will help steer hockey in our direction, and with the change in the standings, I think this reins true a little bit, but at the end of the day they are still going to do whats most profitable, because it's a business... We've seen this is Soccer, we've seen this, admittedly by a ref in the NBA under Bettmans watch, to garner the same deal he used to have with NBC.. ....in the past the refs just favored the og 6 teams, now they favor who pays their cheques, either way, the former glory of the WHL Canucks has not yet been restored, I will be watching, hoping and cheering that's for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivas Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I've never worried to much about Ref decisions much in the past, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of the referee's still hold a negative bias against the Canucks since the Borrows incident whether they realize it or not. It so easy for the refs to call or not call a penalty, icing, or offside to have an effect a game one way or another, with penalties the easiest to fudge. If they were ever called out on it, the video would show it was actually a penalty, but so benign it wouldn't normally call it. Almost on every shift, in any hockey game, there are possible penalties to be called. All people have bia's whether they admit it or not, and they can easily effect the outcome of any situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Every fans in any sports thinks that Zebras are the reason they lose games. Nothing new here. Not true. And when they do...its Bull. This is no Bull. I follow maybe a dozen different teams right now . Only Canucks have this issue. I think the main reason it was so bad for them (us) is because they were actually good enough to win it all for 4 or 5 years. Extra effort had to be taken in order not to waste a Stanley Cup on the City of Vancouver. Now a diet of 5 on 3s for a few games is enough to break the teams resolve when they get too cocky. (Anaheim last year, Ottawa this year) lol Have we ever gotten a 5 on 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I wonder why the refs didn't make it so Detroit won the game last night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I wonder why the refs didn't make it so Detroit won the game last night? Why would they. Detroit is hockeytown. They are comfy in the standings. LA probably just needed a little push because they've been stumbling a bit. Nothing to get upset about, right? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Not true. And when they do...its Bull. This is no Bull. I follow maybe a dozen different teams right now . Only Canucks have this issue. I think the main reason it was so bad for them (us) is because they were actually good enough to win it all for 4 or 5 years. Extra effort had to be taken in order not to waste a Stanley Cup on the City of Vancouver. Now a diet of 5 on 3s for a few games is enough to break the teams resolve when they get too cocky. (Anaheim last year, Ottawa this year) lol Have we ever gotten a 5 on 3? I recall one vs Arizona. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Good questions, but I think you are missing one crucial point, The larger market teams such as LA and New York for example, when they made it to the playoffs last year both drive huge TV and Ad ratings due to the popularity of these teams in these cities, based solely on population and population density.. Compare that to a playoff finals between Vancouver and Carolina for instance, or Ottawa, way way less ad revenue, no espn, no NBC, etc etc. All you have to do now is remember the league wide profit sharing deal, and think, ah ha, when the league brings in that kind of ad revenue, everybody wins financially, and helps keep the unpopular expansion teams in the lower US... I hope that with the Rogers deal, being a canadian company and all, will help steer hockey in our direction, and with the change in the standings, I think this reins true a little bit, but at the end of the day they are still going to do whats most profitable, because it's a business... We've seen this is Soccer, we've seen this, admittedly by a ref in the NBA under Bettmans watch, to garner the same deal he used to have with NBC.. ....in the past the refs just favored the og 6 teams, now they favor who pays their cheques, either way, the former glory of the WHL Canucks has not yet been restored, I will be watching, hoping and cheering that's for sure! Yup. I am aware of profit sharing and I believe I addressed that in the first paragraph of the post to which you were responding, chum. "...to improve the chances of larger market teams winning a championship at the expense of these "smaller market" teams, in order to build TV revenue." What I was also addressing is the idea of a conspiracy where the NHL is actively tilting the ice in favour of one team over another, and that they are using on ice officials to achieve this goal. That is absolute bull excrement. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 What I was also addressing is the idea of a conspiracy where the NHL is actively tilting the ice in favour of one team over another, and that they are using on ice officials to achieve this goal. That is absolute bull excrement. regards, G. So you have no issue with the NHL repeatedly assigning us Devorski, O'Halloran, and Sutherland for crucial games despite the garbage they pull on a consistent basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam linguine Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Not saying that you guys are wrong, however I have some thoughts on this subject: 1.) As I understand it, what you guys are suggesting is that all 30 of the owners of NHL teams have to be in cahoots with the league brass on this conspiracy, to improve the chances of larger market teams winning a championship at the expense of these "smaller market" teams, in order to build TV revenue.. Also, what kind of risks of exposure is the NHL facing each time they have to deal with a potential new owner? Would you want to buy a small market franchise which has zero chance of winning a championship until the league decides that it benefits from allowing it to happen? When is this potential owner brought in on the conspiracy, before or after the purchase goes through? 2.) Assuming number one is true, what sort of compensation are these smaller market franchises getting to go along with this plan? Certainly some financial compensation could be diverted to them from NHL coffers or larger market teams, but from what account to what account is this money moved? Is it done through personal accounts, and if so what about taxes? This money would be "easy" to track if you had a good accountant, and yet there doesn't seem to be any findings in this area. Also, there has to be some kind of reward for an owners ego. Who really wants to own a losing team, but of greater importance, who wants to own a losing team which doesn't have a chance of ever becoming a winner (ie. win the Cup) unless the league decides that it is in their best interests? 3.) There must be some very tight security on this conspiracy below ownership level, otherwise someone at management level (or another emplyee) might have leaked an e-mail or hard-copy memo on the subject. When do these guys get read in to the conspiracy, if ever? 4.) The people in charge of NHL referees/linesmen would have to be involved in this conspiracy, wouldn't they? If they were on the outside then they'd not be able to give directives to the on-ice officials with regard to how to call a particular game. And if they were on the outside, wouldn't they notice that something was fishy if they call in a particular official because of a number of suspect calls, and are then told to back off by the head office? Perhaps the league can get away without including every on-ice official in this conspiracy, but even if they have a limit of six or so that's still a heck of a lot of potential leaks. Further, how are these on-ice officials compensated for their part in this conspiracy.? So many questions... regards, G. C'mon, obviously all owners arent actively involved in a conspiracy. I expect it is like most businesses where a few guys run the show, and the owners sit back and make money. If money is being made, you'd best be quiet. That is the common mantra. Manipulation could be as easy as giving an official a rating of 9 out of 10 for a game a certain team wins as opposed to 6 out of 10 when they lose. Or just keeping perceptive officials working during the playoffs. lol. You dont have to tell anybody anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 So you have no issue with the NHL repeatedly assigning us Devorski, O'Halloran, and Sutherland for crucial games despite the garbage they pull on a consistent basis? What I have a problem with is that people believe that there is a conspiracy of any kind with the goal of screwing over the Canucks. Do you believe in the league wide conspiracy, where everyone from Bettman, all 30 of the owners and anyone else on down are in on this conspiracy? And what about the players? Are they brought in on this conspiracy? Bettman - "Yeah Sid, while you are the face of the NHL we aren't going to have your team win the Cup this year." Crosby - "Damn, I had my heart set on getting another Cup this season. What about next year?" Bettman - "We'll have to see about that. We're having talks about whether we should throw Arizona or Edmonton a bone next season. I'll get back to you... say, you interested in relocating?" On the other hand, if you don't hold with the idea of a large scale conspiracy then perhaps you are a small scale conspiracy theorist, where a handful of on ice officials are fixing games (for whatever reasons). I have a problem with this one in that if it was actually happening then it would raise some eyebrows at head office. Ownership, general managers and so on would be raising concerns which the league would have to investigate. The on ice officials are (supposedly) being evaluated by the league, and with all of the video and audio capability a deliberate campaign to screw over a particular team by one or more officials would be very obvious. So, since the league hasn't been dealing out any kind of discipline to its officials I can only conlude that they haven't noticed anything significant... or that there really is a top down conspiracy to screw over some teams (specifically, the Canucks). Or, it's all male bovine excrement. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 C'mon, obviously all owners arent actively involved in a conspiracy. I expect it is like most businesses where a few guys run the show, and the owners sit back and make money. If money is being made, you'd best be quiet. That is the common mantra. Manipulation could be as easy as giving an official a rating of 9 out of 10 for a game a certain team wins as opposed to 6 out of 10 when they lose. Or just keeping perceptive officials working during the playoffs. lol. You dont have to tell anybody anything. So you're of the belief that only a portion of NHL owners, with the assistance of the league head office, are setting the agenda of who wins and who loses? And that this isn't something that would be noticed by people who are external to the league and are probably a whole lot brighter than you (not that I'm saying that you aren't smart)? And so on... Okay. Since you are so full of *answers*, could you also address why a team would bother to spend close to their cap ceiling when they haven't got a chance of winning a championship? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to maximize their profit from all of this TV revenue coming in from the league coffers by not spending money on salaries of players? Or are some teams receiving additional compensation in return for them giving the appearance of trying to be a contender? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papayas Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Yep. Last night was distinctly annoying. I don't really care about the fact the Canucks have had virtually no powerplay time in this last run in with So-Cal teams, but that powerplay gift at the end of the game was infuriating - because it was so gd predictable. Like you, I was reading Watson throughout that game, and when you know it's coming, it's unacceptable...... Both of Watson's calls on Stanton were exceptionally weak - and given the 'let them play' standard that was set throughout that game, to calll that crap with 4 minutes left wreaked of game management. L.A. does not play shrinking violet hockey - they play hockey on the edge - and the only incident deemed worthy of a penalty to them. last night was a blatant trip on Hansen resulting in a faceplant into the boards. That part I can live with. The contradiction of repeated weak calls the other way - nope. Devorski may have mangled the blueline repeatedly, but that's another matter - difficult judgement calls, one of which he owned the mistake. But in the actual context of last night's game, those two calls on Stanton were fn slanted - and the second one smelled like a lump of dogturd. It robbed MIller of a bloody stellar performance. What makes me laugh about the official apologists around here is the idea that a team deserves to lose if they are outplayed. That is crap. The Canucks have lost countless games over the past half decade where opposing goaltenders have stolen games - hell opposing backups have stolen lots of games against this team. It's part of the game - goaltenders win games, steal games - and last night that was what Miller was doing - until he was jobbed at the 17:53 mark. Some pretenders around here posturing that this team should be above winning ugly - what a load of self-righteous crap. Who cares about embellished 'conspiracy' dismissals - that is not what this is really about. NHL officials lack accountability - they've ironically put their foot in their mouth fairly substantially - and imo haven't really recovered from the controversies they've surrounded themselves in (for those of you unfamiliar with the Campbell email scandal, Dean Warren's failed game management compliance, etc).. I expect more and I expect more transparency and accountability. Carey Fraser hasn't really been that shy about outing the incompetency and debatable integrity. The Canucks went into SJ and won despite a deficit of a handful of powerplays and a pair of debatable penalty shots. Otherwise, I've actually been fairly pleased with NHL officiating for the most part this season. The majority of games it hasn't really been an issue. But to follow that up with last night's performance by Watson was infuriating. Miller and the Canucks had managed just enough to withstand L.A's relentless puck possession game - but that gift of a dubious last minute man advantage. What a piss off. And who are we kidding? Some of these guys - Chris Lee, Dan O'Halloran, Tim Peel, Kelly Sutherland - they're not household names because they're all stars - we know them because of the frequency with which they mangle what are otherwise good, entertaining hockey games. If it weren't so predictable in some cases, it wouldn't be so gd infuriating. Wow.... I never thought I see the day where oldnews is actually pissed off before Anyway people should have knew that game management exist ever since the Boston series... If that series wasn't enoguh to convince people, the sj series a year later should make any logical person realize that the results in the nhl playoff are rigged. The only people who still think the nhl is clear are the ones who love the game too much so they are being willingly ignorant, or the ones who invest everything into bitcoins last year because it's suppose to be sitting at 10k a pop by now according to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.