canuck73_3 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 No, the hit on Vrbata wasn't suspendable because... It wasn't suspendable. But Burrows collision is? Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 But Burrows collision is? Give me a break.Pleasantly surprised he wasn't to be honest. I believe everyone here was quietly expecting one, due to what's happened in the past. But I would have liked to see another angle. Where is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Not exactly. Toffoli deliberately hit an ineligible player in an illegal way at a dangerous position on the ice. Burrows just accidentally collided with a player who turned into him while also lowering his head, initiating the contact and causing the head contact. You can clearly see that Gaustad turns into Burrows and significantly lowers his head. Burrows didn't do anything but prepare for impending contact once he realized it was coming, which is not against the rules. Had Gaustad not turned into Burrows they would have just continued skating side by side as Burrows was covering his man, nothing more. Toffoli's hit on Burrows and Burr's collision with Gaustad were not even close to comparable, despite the fact that they ended up with the exact same punishment. I certainly agree that the 5 minute major was a bad call, that no suspension was warranted, and that Gaustad probably embellished. But I still think it was a bad play by Burrows. It was interference. Admittedly, usually the players make contact, no call is made and no harm is done. But Burrows gave Gaustad the opportunity to dive. He really should avoid contact in that situation. He did more than just "brace for the hit". Burrows did actually initiate the hit, which looked like it would be shoulder to shoulder until Gaustad ducked his head down. I am not defending the referees (who were bad in this game, obviously) but I am saying that Burrows needs to play smarter hockey. He is a good enough player that he does not need to be an agitator. And the Canucks cannot afford to lose any more forwards right now as there only healthy backup is McMillan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The infraction was interference. As called by a linesman? And I thought I remembered this name...his MO? Seems this crawling on the ice stuff is something he's practiced for awhile now and has perfected. Path-etic. Honestly. And he collides with everyone out there....maybe it's an issue with him (being aware on the ice), NOT everyone else? i love how he looks up after he hits the ice, see's getzlaf is injured and then proceeds to fake his own injury to avoid getting a penalty... gutless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Your defense of the Jones cross-check not being dangerous is based on the fact the refs didn't call it. But then go on to say that Burrows' "hit" was dangerous despite the DOPS not even fining him. The fact that such a basic amount of logical consistency isn't noteworthy to you either means that you're just being argumentative or you're pretty damn dense. Deflecting childishly doesn't change the fact that you're arguing against yourself at this point. I'm not following his refs didn't call it so it's not a penalty logic these same refs put Henrik in the box because Josi shoved him in to Rinne. But you have to call it because clearly goon Henrik is known for running goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singing chef Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 He doesn't, but most NHL coaches (or any coach for that matter) will tell you that it's a bad idea to put a referee in a position where he can make that call, especially with a game on the line. .........except for the fact that neither of the referees on ice made the call. It was done well after the fact, and by one of the linesmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 But Burrows collision is? Give me a break. So far, the only people I know who consider the Burrows hit suspendable are Button, McLean and a couple of random internet posters.... ...and their opinions don't matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The day you start avoiding bumping another player in hockey is the day you should pack it in. It's a physical game of contact. He grabbed at his leg/groin area. Ain't no brains down there. Didn't some dinosaurs have a second brain in their tail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revelnuck Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 It's the second part of the hit that is problematic, where he drives Vrbata's face into the dasher that should have resulted in a penalty. I certainly didn't expect any discipline as a result of that hit - but what I clearly posted is that it is more suspendable than the Burrows hit - from behind - to the head - and a missed call at the time. They slowed that hit down on the live broadcast - he clearly drives his face into the dasher with the second hit to the back of the head - the first push is really nothing - the second hit is a cross check to the back of the head. Gotcha - didn't catch that at first glance, but see it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Burrows skated across the ice towards Gaustad for meters. Gaustad wasn't aware of his presense until right before the hit. It is likely still incidental contact, but I believe the full context of the hit will point towards Burrows far more than Gaustad. I do think Gaustad was trying to draw a penalty, and he succeeded. I'm glad Burrows wasn't suspended on that. I'm equating this to the Toffoli hit on Burrows. Major, no suspension, move on. To me, Bieksa being tossed too was the refs pandering to the home crowd. We'll live. Yes, Burrows skated towards his man. That's also know as playing hockey. That does not make him responsible for accidental contact. And if he's not suspended (I'd still feel better getting another independent source to validate that...) it's likely because the NHL agrees. I do agree with you though that the major and game on Burr were pandering to the home crowd. It didn't even look like they were going to call a minor at first but then let the optics of it and the crowd convince them that more was needed. I don't agree about Bieksa, though. Diving or not, if he did skate up to the guy and say something rude while he was laying on the ice I'm actually okay with him being tossed. Sometimes guys get hurt on the most innocent looking plays so you just never know. It's best to avoid trash talking someone who might actually be hurt, even if its just a slim possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Good.I don't know where Burrows was going exactly but where does the responsibility on the part of the other player come into this? We always talk about this when someone gets checked from behind into the boards. Why is this idea getting thrown out all of a sudden with everyone not from Vancouver it seems? Gaustad turns and runs right into Burrows. It's not as if Burrows stuck out his elbow or deliberately checked Gaustad in the head with his shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 as i agree with gaustad turning into burrows there was a plan for burrows to be right there at that time burrows knew he was going make the turn... you can tell as burrows was laying down the hit... Burrows can read minds?! That must be why he does so well with the twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I certainly agree that the 5 minute major was a bad call, that no suspension was warranted, and that Gaustad probably embellished. But I still think it was a bad play by Burrows. It was interference. Admittedly, usually the players make contact, no call is made and no harm is done. But Burrows gave Gaustad the opportunity to dive. He really should avoid contact in that situation. He did more than just "brace for the hit". Burrows did actually initiate the hit, which looked like it would be shoulder to shoulder until Gaustad ducked his head down. I am not defending the referees (who were bad in this game, obviously) but I am saying that Burrows needs to play smarter hockey. He is a good enough player that he does not need to be an agitator. And the Canucks cannot afford to lose any more forwards right now as there only healthy backup is McMillan. I agree. It was unnecessary and could easily have cost the Canucks that game. .........except for the fact that neither of the referees on ice made the call. It was done well after the fact, and by one of the linesmen. Splitting hairs. Would it make you feel better if I edited my post to say "officials" rather than "referees"? Linesman make penalty recommendations to refs all the time and there is plenty of precedent for referees calling penalties "after the fact" based on information from linesmen. Either way you slice it, it was a bad decision on Burr's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 LOL and he was so adamant LOL Craig Button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadOgre Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I agree that the hit was not a major penalty nor should it have been a suspendable hit. However, it deserved a 2 minute minor penalty. The thing that rips me off is, the Canucks are fighting for a playoff spot and the score is tied with four minutes to go. Burrows decides to interfer with a player at that critical time. Now i am and always will be a Burrows fan but in my opinion, there needs to be one hell of a better thought process go on in a players head at such a critical time in the game. There was no need to hit Gaustad in that situation. Burrows needs to shake his head about that one and be glad that the rest of the guys kept their head to salvage the win. I think Burrows owes the team a dinner. In addition, did Juice help the team either. Were his comments to whomever that got him a misconduct really necessary. He should pay for the dessert. The thing is Burrows was looking back at the puck and cutting towards the boards to be able to accept the outlet pass. Then he looks towards Gaudstad and realizes he is gonna collide with him so he braces for impact as his body is not positioned in a manner that allows for him to skate away. It just happened to fast to react. Maybe he realized he should have turned but by the time that brain signal comes and goes hes already hit Gaudstad You have to have played hockey to realize this. that's why maybe a bit of confusion. As stated many times there was no head contact and his falling to the ice in agony was clearly an embellishment. But by definition Burrows should have received a 2 minute minor for interference and Gaudstad 2 minutes for diving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadOgre Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Craig Button? Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadOgre Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Craig Button never says anything at normal volume, or with a normal level of enthusiasm. He's basically a walking advertisement for Ritalin... LOl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herberts Vasiljevs Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Craig Button never says anything at normal volume, or with a normal level of enthusiasm. He's basically a walking advertisement for Ritalin... +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Button is always looking like a fool.http://hungergamesfansite99.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/2/6/20261887/4773647.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherCanucksFan Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 If TVA reporter Renaud Lavoie says it's not a suspension then it's not, but shouldn't the NHL be making a statement? The NHL site doesn't even have an article on the hit, so not sure how it's even news worthy. A bunch overhype fueled by Sports writers looking to get more social media attention. It was a shoulder to shoulder hit against Paul Gaustad who is 6 ft 5 in and 233 lbs, while Burrows is 6'1 and 188 lb. Think about 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.