Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I didn't get to watch the game live but tuned in for the replay and man what a game. I like the fact they few commercials during the replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 While I sadly believe Burrows will be suspended, he shouldn't be. The most he deserved was a 2-minute penalty because I don't believe Burrows was going for a hit at all. Rather, he was staying with his man, thinking that the Nashville player who had the puck directly behind them was going to pass it up to Gaustad. It would seem Gaustad thought so too, as he was looking backwards for a while and then turned around and lowered his body in order to pick up speed, likely in hopes of a breakaway. The contact was not a hit but instead was, as Burrows said, a collision. Correction: I got so involved in watching the contact I forgot who had the puck. The Canucks actually had the puck. My original remains unchanged, however. Both players were taking their man and the contact was a result of a collision rather than a deliberate hit. [Original video] While Burrows was shadowing Gaustad (or, you know, hockey) he seems to be trying to match Gaustad's movements, not initiate a hit. The contact only happens because Gaustad turned towards Burrows. Burrows certainly sees the contact coming and solids himself up, but that's not against the rules. Further, the head contact is the direct result of Gaustad altering his body position, including turning towards Burrows and lowering his head's position. Also, if you watch their feet it's clear that Burrows is only gliding when the contact happens while Gaustad turns towards and actually skates into Burrows (after looking right at him.) The NHL rulebook says, "A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck." (56.2) From what I see, Burrows did not deliberately check Gaustad and therefore should not be suspended for interference. (For comparison, this hit is entirely different than the interference Cowen was suspended for recently.) On the other hand, unfortunately I do believe that Bieksa deserves a 2-game suspension for his hit on Stalberg. Ironically (for those of you playing along with the forum "I Hate the DoPS" game), I think Bieksa actually did the hit Edler was suspended for with Hertl (but didn't actually do). [Original video] Stalberg's head is down well before Bieksa goes in for the hit and Bieksa is looking directly at him so he should know where his head is. Further, Bieksa not only fails to lower his body position enough to avoid direct head contact he fails to angle into Stalberg to initiate body contact but rather cuts across the front, targeting the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned this yet, but the reffing in this game was TERRIBLE. I mean... DEAR GOD TERRIBLE! Canucks are an inspiration this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 While I sadly believe Burrows will be suspended, he shouldn't be. The most he deserved was a 2-minute penalty because I don't believe Burrows was going for a hit at all. Rather, he was staying with his man, thinking that the Nashville player who had the puck directly behind them was going to pass it up to Gaustad. It would seem Gaustad thought so too, as he was looking backwards for a while and then turned around and lowered his body in order to pick up speed, likely in hopes of a breakaway. The contact was not a hit but instead was, as Burrows said, a collision. [Original video] While Burrows was shadowing Gaustad (or, you know, hockey) he seems to be trying to match Gaustad's movements, not initiate a hit. The contact only happens because Gaustad turned towards Burrows. Burrows certainly sees the contact coming and solids himself up, but that's not against the rules. Further, the head contact is the direct result of Gaustad altering his body position, including turning towards Burrows and lowering his head's position. Also, if you watch their feet it's clear that Burrows is only gliding when the contact happens while Gaustad turns towards and actually skates into Burrows (after looking right at him.) The NHL rulebook says, "A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck." (56.2) From what I see, Burrows did not deliberately check Gaustad and therefore should not be suspended for interference. (For comparison, this hit is entirely different than the interference Cowen was suspended for recently.) On the other hand, unfortunately I do believe that Bieksa deserves a 2-game suspension for his hit on Stalberg. Ironically (for those of you playing along with the forum "I Hate the DoPS" game), I think Bieksa actually did the hit Edler was suspended for with Hertl (but didn't actually do). [Original video] Stalberg's head is down well before Bieksa goes in for the hit and Bieksa is looking directly at him so he should know where his head is. Further, Bieksa not only fails to lower his body position enough to avoid direct head contact he fails to angle into Stalberg to initiate body contact but rather cuts across the front, targeting the head. Fantastic post. I agree, and while I'm hoping Bieksa doesn't get a suspension obviously, of the two it's the far more intentional looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 While I sadly believe Burrows will be suspended, he shouldn't be. The most he deserved was a 2-minute penalty because I don't believe Burrows was going for a hit at all. Rather, he was staying with his man, thinking that the Nashville player who had the puck directly behind them was going to pass it up to Gaustad. It would seem Gaustad thought so too, as he was looking backwards for a while and then turned around and lowered his body in order to pick up speed, likely in hopes of a breakaway. The contact was not a hit but instead was, as Burrows said, a collision. [Original video] While Burrows was shadowing Gaustad (or, you know, hockey) he seems to be trying to match Gaustad's movements, not initiate a hit. The contact only happens because Gaustad turned towards Burrows. Burrows certainly sees the contact coming and solids himself up, but that's not against the rules. Further, the head contact is the direct result of Gaustad altering his body position, including turning towards Burrows and lowering his head's position. Also, if you watch their feet it's clear that Burrows is only gliding when the contact happens while Gaustad turns towards and actually skates into Burrows (after looking right at him.) The NHL rulebook says, "A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck." (56.2) From what I see, Burrows did not deliberately check Gaustad and therefore should not be suspended for interference. (For comparison, this hit is entirely different than the interference Cowen was suspended for recently.) On the other hand, unfortunately I do believe that Bieksa deserves a 2-game suspension for his hit on Stalberg. Ironically (for those of you playing along with the forum "I Hate the DoPS" game), I think Bieksa actually did the hit Edler was suspended for with Hertl (but didn't actually do). [Original video] Stalberg's head is down well before Bieksa goes in for the hit and Bieksa is looking directly at him so he should know where his head is. Further, Bieksa not only fails to lower his body position enough to avoid direct head contact he fails to angle into Stalberg to initiate body contact but rather cuts across the front, targeting the head. Huh? The Canucks had possession and were breaking out. If anyone was expecting a pass it was Burrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetliner Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 tsn2 guy sounds soo confident that burrows will get suspended. what a tool. but he is probably right cuz tsn and the league hates the canucks. but anyone with a reasonable size brain will know the play is not a head shot. heck when was the last time u ve seen a 5 min major and misconduct for inteference. Good on Bieksa for giving it to the player who's ''injured'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 While I sadly believe Burrows will be suspended, he shouldn't be. The most he deserved was a 2-minute penalty because I don't believe Burrows was going for a hit at all. Rather, he was staying with his man, thinking that the Nashville player who had the puck directly behind them was going to pass it up to Gaustad. It would seem Gaustad thought so too, as he was looking backwards for a while and then turned around and lowered his body in order to pick up speed, likely in hopes of a breakaway. The contact was not a hit but instead was, as Burrows said, a collision. [Original video] While Burrows was shadowing Gaustad (or, you know, hockey) he seems to be trying to match Gaustad's movements, not initiate a hit. The contact only happens because Gaustad turned towards Burrows. Burrows certainly sees the contact coming and solids himself up, but that's not against the rules. Further, the head contact is the direct result of Gaustad altering his body position, including turning towards Burrows and lowering his head's position. Also, if you watch their feet it's clear that Burrows is only gliding when the contact happens while Gaustad turns towards and actually skates into Burrows (after looking right at him.) The NHL rulebook says, "A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck." (56.2) From what I see, Burrows did not deliberately check Gaustad and therefore should not be suspended for interference. (For comparison, this hit is entirely different than the interference Cowen was suspended for recently.) On the other hand, unfortunately I do believe that Bieksa deserves a 2-game suspension for his hit on Stalberg. Ironically (for those of you playing along with the forum "I Hate the DoPS" game), I think Bieksa actually did the hit Edler was suspended for with Hertl (but didn't actually do). [Original video] Stalberg's head is down well before Bieksa goes in for the hit and Bieksa is looking directly at him so he should know where his head is. Further, Bieksa not only fails to lower his body position enough to avoid direct head contact he fails to angle into Stalberg to initiate body contact but rather cuts across the front, targeting the head. I finally see the Bieksa hit. Missed it live, he should get a game or two and rightfully so was reckless hit and he had time to adjust and let up or lower to hit Stalberg's chest/shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Aww, did my post get removed? It had 8 upvotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Prediction: Burrows receives 3 game suspension. Immediately after the suspension is given, Gaustad will be 'magically' ok to play again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 How is what Burr did worse than this: http://share.gifyoutube.com/yDn7b3.gif (Trouba hit on Burr) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmen81 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Woot woot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Are Francois Laurent and Marc Joanette 2 of Stephane Auget's best buds or something? Gheez!! The Lack/eye-skewer blunder, soft late-game calls and the Burrows/Bieksa heavy-hand assessments were inexplicable. So who is seeding these guys into games or giving 'em their assignments, anyway? Is it only Stephen Walkom who needs to be vetting these NHL officals better than this? Are there ever any attempts being made to investigate or root-out possible bias from these officiating crews at all? If NHL wants us to believe that this league has any measure of integrity left.,,they should start doing something like the IIHF model, where even the appearance of officiating-crew bias is avoided, if at all possible. I bet the NHL knows that we are aware tere is some seeded-bias in these crews,..but it's just business and they will always attempt game-manage as the league's most powerful king-pins will dictate or see fit. Good thing, at least for tonight, that the hockey-gods seemed to conclude - enough was enough. Way to go 'Nucks! Way to beat the odds stacked against ya. You have to ask? Someone on 1040 revealed that one or both of them run a referee school in Quebec together Marc and Stephane deciding who they will screw over in some game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffyangel2000 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 So happy the boys got the 2 points, but they took WAY too many penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revelnuck Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Lol to the battle of wits over the hit. The way I see it (I think in a non homer way) is that burr was intentionally trying to play a little light interference by cutting across his lane. He didn't see burr turned into him felt contact to the head and decided to milk it. I see no intent to deliver a head shot and no way that burr could have avoided the contact nor did he deliver the contact (he was skating almost parallel to him before he turned into burr) so there should be no suspension. The call should have been interference on the play and of the 2 min varity. Pretty much the way I view it too. I think Burrows (crafty ol' Burr) knows there's a pretty good chance that the guy moves into him exactly how he does end up moving into him, and Burrows positions himself accordingly. Maybe gets a game a two. Hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistolPete13 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Horvat and Kenins are like "Did he just say that????" Willie D is a beaut. After that, his players went through the bloody wall to hold off the Preds. 5 minute power play and then for them to carry that momentum through the overtime. Boys really gutted it out. So proud of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetliner Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 So happy the boys got the 2 points, but they took WAY too many penalties. are u high bro? u know the refs were a joke right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Go watch hockey from the 90's and tell me that these love taps players are dishing out are enough to knock a guy to the ice like he's been hit by a truck. If contact like this is illegal then we better trade Virtanen right now, because he won't play more than 10 games in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistolPete13 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 You have to ask? Someone on 1040 revealed that one or both of them run a referee school in Quebec together Marc and Stephane deciding who they will screw over in some game Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I think one angle made it appear that way...I'm still convinced that the straight on angle I captured is more how it was actually placed. Thing was, Gaustad did the drama down like a ton of bricks thing so, with him lower than Burr in that, it appeared that way. Truth is I'm splitting hairs with myself while commenting on your post. Objective criticism. Saying you did a terrible job was a bit hyperbolic. Likely a first around here. I think we agree on one thing: Burr should miss no further time. I agree with everything you said, but would add that it could be construed that when Burr braces for impact he is readying for a shot. The result is sold hard, but hopefully the league doesn't buy it like the refs (read: linesman) did on the 1st pass. Bieksa getting a game would not surprise me in the least. In fact, I'd say he deserves it. I'd want to see one going the other way were it on one of us. Jones on Verbata is iffy though. should have been a minor for sure, but a game? Coin toss with the no side weighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 To be fair they actually both got the same punishment unless there actually is a conspiracy and Burrows gets something further. True. I guess I'm just assuming the worst when it comes to Burrows. And with some of the hockey media already screaming for a suspension, I almost expect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.