Burrows not suspended for hit on Gaustad :Team 1040

[Twilight Sparkle]

right this second, craig button's second guessing being on the liquor while he's on the air

[PistolPete13]

Good point dbark95. If I were in Laviolette's shoes I wouldn't have played him any more either. First because mostly top six guys play on the PP and in overtime. Second because referees hate being made to look like fools by divers like Gaustad.

If he goes back out on the ice, then for sure the no good puck stealing linesman who made the call would have been shown up by the Preds. Props to their coach for realizing that. It will be interesting to see if Gaustad plays in the next game.

[PistolPete13]

In other good news I don't think that any Canucks are on the NHLs diver watch list. I think that PK Subban leads the way.

It will be pretty hard for the eastern mediots to label the Canucks as divers this year, when one of their darlings is the poster boy of the NHL dive club.

I understand that PK is working on the "Twister", a bewildering blur of twists and turns which forces him to perform two and 1/2 back somersaults, with two and 1/2 twists in the 1.5 seconds before he hits the ice after an opponent brushes by him.

[Salmonberries]

The fact that Bieksa got a game misconduct for simply speaking his mind that it was a dive and just standing there on the ice not having made any contact with Gaustad, then Burrows gets a 5 minute major and a game misconduct... that ref was angry at us.

Good point, that referee definitely lost his cool.

[soshified]

A little late to the game here....

I try to be as objective about the Canucks when it comes to situations like this. My thoughts on this play is this:

Burrows was absolutely trying to get in front of Gaustad. Gaustad put himself in a very bad position of not watching where he was going, but Burrows certainly could have seen this, and put himself in a position to lighten the situation. I don't buy Burrows' excuse that it happened so fast... he's got great coordination, and he had time to reposition himself.

But if you buy this thought, it becomes a situation like this: Who's responsibility is it in a 2-vehicle accident? Is it the person who distractedly veered into the oncoming lane of traffic, or is it the person who didn't get out of the way of the car that veered into their lane? In an insurance situation, it would be a 100% fault scenario against the former.

On the flip side, the fact that Burrows is a repeat offender and COULD have done something to alleviate the impact speaks to the other side of the coin.

So with all this said, I absolutely think the NHL made the right call, but I would not have been up in arms if he received a 1 game suspension either. Burrows is known (and rightfully so) as being a bit of a cheap player and I would love to see him be a little more sportsmanlike. He's the one remaining player on our team that came from an era where Luongo, Kesler and Lapierre all flopped around like fish to get penalty calls and generally played the game in a questionable manner at times. It was embarrassing then, and it's embarrassing now.

But Burrows didn't and he has only been suspended once in his career.

Tell me, when was the last time Burrows dived? They cleaned up their act after 2011.

[Salmonberries]

It's not likely that the amount of cheapshots / unsafe hits have decreased or increased over time but more that the awareness has been aligned to make the similar types of plays more visible.

You add that with just the increased size, speed and strength of todays NHLer versus pre 2000's it's understandable why more injuries do occur.

Also in comparison of Gretzky and Crosby, Gretzky was one of the best in avoiding hits while Crosby plays an edgy game where players are more inclined to be agitated with him.

Gretzky didn't get the royal treatment from Suter though. from everyone else, yes.

[Hairy Kneel]

Looking at the sports news...what concerns me most is the media's blatant efforts to begin the character assassination process again, just as we saw in 2011 and 2012.

On the front page of Sportsnet, there are two headlines about the Burrows and Bieksa hits and a poll on whether Bieksa should be suspended. While the Nucks were fringe and not a threat, the press paid little attention to the team but now that they are looking like a playoff possibility, the press is once again beginning the campaign to discredit the Nucks and present them as a dirty team, paving the way for the refs and league to manipulate the games in the playoffs.

I hate conspiracy stuff but I've seen this movie before. The eastern media bias and efforts to undermine Vancouver are obvious and not without effect.

This.

[Mongrel]

right this second, craig button's second guessing being on the liquor while he's on the air

Button is the liqour Bo Bandy...he is the liquor.

[Mongrel]

But hockey is a CONTACT sport...it's not supposed to be about avoiding contact.

While this is true there are also rules around that contact.

Football is a contact sport but you can't hit a quarterback after he's released the ball.

A player absolutely has a responsibility to avoid contact at times or be penalized.

[elvis15]

Since nether of the had the puck at any point and no pass was coming to them, it's hard not to argue interference since avoidable contact was made (it's not a hit in the sense of someone with the puck being hit). But yes, no need for subsequent discipline which even the NHL agreed with.

I finally watched end of the game on my PVR versus just the GIF I'd seen earlier, and realize now it was Vancouver coming out of their own zone. I assumed it was Nashville coming out and Gaustad was expecting a pass.

Doesn't make the hit any better obviously, but Gaustad had to be looking to block a pass up ice since he wasn't tailing a forward specifically on the breakout. For sure interference, and even more so unnecessary since Burrows wasn't looking to defend Gaustad in case of a pass. Burr is lucky he didn't make more obvious contact as he could have gotten more given his history.

Fraser's analysis is reasonable and (to me) illuminating on the question of what kind of calls linesmen are allowed to propose. The only part that seems questionable to me is the idea that Burrows initiates contact. As James argues below, Burrows' intent was probably to set a subtle pick but Gausted turned into him beforehand and so was the one who initiated contact. Anyway, a two-minute interference call would certainly have been fine, if the rules allowed it. But the linesman clearly sold the refs a much more sinister interpretation. Fraser basically contradicts himself by affirming that only a two-minute interference penalty was actually warranted on the one hand, but on the other, that Burrows' actions were properly subject to Rule 56.4, and the resulting five-minute major and a game misconduct. And yet this is still, by far, the best media commentary on the incident. That's how bad it is.

I get what you're saying but it's pretty hard for Gaustad to initiate contact on someone he didn't even know was there. There's no way he could know that Burrows was angling so close towards him.

I agree Burrows was surprised by Gaustad turning to the center of the ice, but he's moving towards Gaustad before the hit and does brace for impact which is more than Gaustad can do. As you say, Burrows is planning on minor interference (when is interference considered illegal enough, similar to the when is a cross check illegal debate?) and it ends up worse than he intended but it's still interference.

If it was just that, then a minor makes sense, but the way the contact ended up going and that Gaustad was injured warrants the major and a game. That's how that rule is, and the only way Burrows could have gotten out of that is if he wasn't angling towards Gaustad already to make a pick play.

[-DLC-]

To Mongrel

So do you apply that to Gaustad too? Or does one guy get to aimlessly roam the ice while another has to make sure he doesn't contact him?

Because the Canucks had the puck and were breaking out of their end...there were 3 Preds in Burr's vicinity. So he should give up on the play? Or get into position for that offensive break out, which is the whole point of hockey.

I'd say Gaustad had as much responsibility as Burr did....he actually changed direction after sweeping his stick behind him to get in the lane of a pass. Burr was traveling in the same direction from square one, which was positioning to go up the wing. They were both on a criss cross path but Burr was on the offensive path, with Gaustad acting defensively. I think that should matter, even if it doesn't. The team focused on moving the puck is just that...but the defensive players are more concentrated on the players and how they're positioning themselves in that manner. So Gaustad doesn't have to care about that?

So it's not just Burr's responsibility to avoid contact...and, in that event and the ensuing collision, both parties at least owned the same responsibility to avoid it. Why are you giving Gaustad immunity in that? Burr was traveling with the direction of the puck that his team was in possession of...so he shouldn't get in position to participate in that? He was ahead of Gaustad after a stride or two...I'd say it's more Gaustad's responsibility to avoid contact there.

The fact that a ref had to be told to call it by a linesman? That's a little off.

Sure, Burr gave him an extra nudge. W/E. But FAR more concerning was the crawling on the ice crap that we've seen before with this guy. No wonder Bieksa called him out (even if it shouldn't happen that way). I'm glad he did.

At worst, he had a groin pull because of HOW he was twisting from one way to the other as they collided. Perhaps he should be more present in body positioning and how he's aliining himself with others? He's had a few "collisions", so I'm placing the onus on him (too) in being more aware out there.

[elvis15]

SN had three article and one poll related to Bieksa and BUrrows from last night and only one article on Byfuglien confirming that the media is biased. No talk about suspension for Byfuglien or a poll on whether he should be suspended. That Byfuglien almost be-headed a player intentionally hardly seemed to make their radar yet they were screaming for a suspension for our boys for what were justifiably 2 minute penalties.

The size of the media market counts, and there's still lingering hate/bias from 2011 when we were a top team and easy to rally against. Meanwhile, Big Buff finished his phone hearing an hour ago and we'll see the outcome on that.

And people didn't like the Vrbata check where he got hit into the boards. Geez, that's bad...

EDIT: like really bad, that could have paralysed him.

Let's just move on to talking about that hit.

And this from Jets fans:

KorraPSG ‏@KorraPSG 52m

I don't think Dustin Byfuglien's crosscheck was that bad.. If Byfuglien wanted to do damage to the guy i'm sure he would have. @NHLJets

Jonathan ‏@WpgMaggot 49m

Bettman hates Winnipeg. So I say 5 games for byfuglien #nhljets

Holy crap.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Hilarious to see Button eating crow about his earlier prediction of a suspension for Burrows, and calling what he did "a hockey play". Dreger even says that Gaustad initiated contact with Burrows. Would have been nice if they got it right the first time, but better than the relentless Canuck-hate of spring 2011.

http://www.tsn.ca/video/did-nhl-get-it-right-with-byfuglien-and-burrows-1.245789

[Maniwaki Canuck]

I get what you're saying but it's pretty hard for Gaustad to initiate contact on someone he didn't even know was there. There's no way he could know that Burrows was angling so close towards him.

I agree Burrows was surprised by Gaustad turning to the center of the ice, but he's moving towards Gaustad before the hit and does brace for impact which is more than Gaustad can do. As you say, Burrows is planning on minor interference (when is interference considered illegal enough, similar to the when is a cross check illegal debate?) and it ends up worse than he intended but it's still interference.

If it was just that, then a minor makes sense, but the way the contact ended up going and that Gaustad was injured warrants the major and a game. That's how that rule is, and the only way Burrows could have gotten out of that is if he wasn't angling towards Gaustad already to make a pick play.

All depends on whether initiating contact needs to be understood merely as an action or as a conscious decision, which I agree, it almost certainly wasn't in this case. As for the minor versus major question, that was the part that I thought Fraser covered well. He pretty clearly favoured a minor as the correct call, but allowed that given the linesman's "perception", which (reading between the lines) Fraser doesn't share, 5 and a game would follow from Rule 56.4. Unlike Bieksa, I am willing to believe that Gaustad might be legitimately injured, but that doesn't justify Burrows' penalties since it wasn't a malicious hit from behind away from the play, which is what Rule 56.4 is supposed to cover. Anyway, we survived and it's all water under the bridge now.

[elvis15]

All depends on whether initiating contact needs to be understood merely as an action or as a conscious decision, which I agree, it almost certainly wasn't in this case. As for the minor versus major question, that was the part that I thought Fraser covered well. He pretty clearly favoured a minor as the correct call, but allowed that given the linesman's "perception", which (reading between the lines) Fraser doesn't share, 5 and a game would follow from Rule 56.4. Unlike Bieksa, I am willing to believe that Gaustad might be legitimately injured, but that doesn't justify Burrows' penalties since it wasn't a malicious hit from behind away from the play, which is what Rule 56.4 is supposed to cover. Anyway, we survived and it's all water under the bridge now.

I actually didn't get that at all from the article.

Neither referee reacted to the interference infraction. Play was stopped as a result of the injury to Gaustad. Had Gaustad not been injured on the play it would have resulted in a missed minor penalty for interference. It would appear, however, that based on the injury, one of the linesmen reported the incident to the referee and recommended a major and game misconduct be assessed to Burrows as per Rule 56.4 and .5.

Linesmen are not empowered to call a minor penalty on this play -- only a major. Based on the accurate perception of Burrows' deliberate contact and Gaustad's resulting injury, the linesman was well within his authority to recommend a major and game misconduct be imposed. The major penalty for interference was implemented a few seasons ago to deal primarily with open-ice hits from behind when a player was unsuspecting of the contact and therefore vulnerable to injury. While not violent or malicious, Burrows' deliberate shoulder contact fell within the spirit and intent of Rule 56.4.

Maybe he would have called it a minor in real time, but I think he's supporting the major and misconduct after seeing the replay.

Mark Spector's Snet article is just brutal. What a clown

Could've been worse, could've been Damian Cox.

Damien Cox ‏@DamoSpin Apr 1

Byfuglien Xcheck, brutal causing me to re-think stance on fighting. Clearly, enforcers are needed. Bring them back ASAP, keep the game safe.

Clearly having a goon is going to stop a guy who's 6'5", 260lbs from doing whatever he wants on the ice.

[Zdenek]

Only a phone interview? Remember Bertuzzi? The league has a short memory.

[DIBdaQUIB]

Clearly having a goon is going to stop a guy who's 6'5", 260lbs from doing whatever he wants on the ice.

Hard to believe Big Buff would be concerned about retaliation but then again, he doesn't really fight.

I believe that most players do care about the other guy and wouldn't intentionally try to injure anyone...on the other hand, just like in society, there are bullies and psychopaths (to varying degrees) who are not deterred by anything other than a threat to their personal safety. Fines and suspensions mean nothing to them and do not affect their behavior. The only thing they understand is the threat of harm to themselves. This is where the enforcer was effective at "policing" the cheap shot artists and keeping the fringe players "honest".

There is a reason the Sedins play with more aggression and physicality when Kass is on their line and the incidences of cheap shots against them drops. Hockey is a hard, physical game and crossing the line happens but by not having immediate repercussions or fear of reprisal in the game, too many guys cross that line and take advantage, knowing they may get a penalty or a fine/short suspension. To them, it's worth the risk of taking out a Crosby, Sedin etc.. If they are faced with the prospect of having their face pummeled by someone tougher than themselves, they might alter their behavior.

It is interesting that it is seldom the "enforcer-types" that take cheap shots on vulnerable players. Removing them from the game has allowed teams to employ the services of "rats" who are tasked with creating as much pain and suffering as possible to top players, something that would have seen their face rearranged in days gone by.

I doubt the players have any more respect for the Department of Player Screwing than most fans do.

[elvis15]

Only a phone interview? Remember Bertuzzi? The league has a short memory.

That had premeditation as an angle, where I don't think Byfuglien's does. It's just a bad, bad cross check on a player laying on the ice with his back turned to any contact. I don't think this gets just a game or two though.

Hard to believe Big Buff would be concerned about retaliation but then again, he doesn't really fight.

I believe that most players do care about the other guy and wouldn't intentionally try to injure anyone...on the other hand, just like in society, there are bullies and psychopaths (to varying degrees) who are not deterred by anything other than a threat to their personal safety. Fines and suspensions mean nothing to them and do not affect their behavior. The only thing they understand is the threat of harm to themselves. This is where the enforcer was effective at "policing" the cheap shot artists and keeping the fringe players "honest".

There is a reason the Sedins play with more aggression and physicality when Kass is on their line and the incidences of cheap shots against them drops. Hockey is a hard, physical game and crossing the line happens but by not having immediate repercussions or fear of reprisal in the game, too many guys cross that line and take advantage, knowing they may get a penalty or a fine/short suspension. To them, it's worth the risk of taking out a Crosby, Sedin etc.. If they are faced with the prospect of having their face pummeled by someone tougher than themselves, they might alter their behavior.

It is interesting that it is seldom the "enforcer-types" that take cheap shots on vulnerable players. Removing them from the game has allowed teams to employ the services of "rats" who are tasked with creating as much pain and suffering as possible to top players, something that would have seen their face rearranged in days gone by.

I doubt the players have any more respect for the Department of Player Screwing than most fans do.

I'd think (apart from in the heat of the moment) that Byfuglien would be much more worried about a suspension of any length. There are stories all over the place today about how Big Buff is one of the main reasons they're in the playoff hunt to begin with, but this hit could be the reason they don't make it.

He could care less about the money, and can handle anyone who comes at him (a la Chara) but 3-5 games out of the lineup could mean he's putting the boat in the water early again this year.

[Baggins]

All depends on whether initiating contact needs to be understood merely as an action or as a conscious decision, which I agree, it almost certainly wasn't in this case. As for the minor versus major question, that was the part that I thought Fraser covered well. He pretty clearly favoured a minor as the correct call, but allowed that given the linesman's "perception", which (reading between the lines) Fraser doesn't share, 5 and a game would follow from Rule 56.4. Unlike Bieksa, I am willing to believe that Gaustad might be legitimately injured, but that doesn't justify Burrows' penalties since it wasn't a malicious hit from behind away from the play, which is what Rule 56.4 is supposed to cover. Anyway, we survived and it's all water under the bridge now.

56.4 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of interfering with an opponent

Where does it say malicious hit from behind?

[Mackcanuck]

Meanwhile back in Winnipeg !