Beware 2 Rulebooks

[Nuxfanabroad]

Another game, another example.

[Nuxfanabroad]

So @Baggins you're fine with Stecher getting a head shot, & no call from DPS? Are you a league apologist, perhaps secretly against the Canucks?

 

The basis of this thread is the league treats Van matters differently/inconsistently. They have historically..& they're STILL doing that now.

 

So do you disagree?(be clear now, not evasive).

 

 

 

[Trebreh]

had Virtanen done that to Hedman he would certainly get at least a phone call or a fine. Buttttt Canucks so 

[Nuxfanabroad]

5 minutes ago, Trebreh said:

had Virtanen done that to Hedman he would certainly get at least a phone call or a fine. Buttttt Canucks so 

Precisely.

 

TWO RULEBOOKS! (eh, Baggins?)

[Drop Em]

5 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Another game, another example.

Talk about beating a dead horse. Sorry, pretty sure the league has better things to do and doesn't have it out for the Canucks. Did Martel give Stetcher a shot to the head, yes.....but not every shot to the head should be suspendable. In last nights game, the Canucks were actually lucky in some respects, because both Hutton and Gudbranson could have been given third man in penalties and kicked out of the game. This would have left us with only 3 defensemen for almost half of the game after Stetcher got hurt. Gudbranson could also have been given AT LEAST a minor for throwing a couple of punches at guys in scrums, especially one haymaking uppercut in particular.

 

Rather than whining and crying about conspiracy theories and the league having it in for the Canucks, I'd prefer to think about how entertaining of a game it was because of everything that went on, ESPECIALLY how the Canucks stood up for each other and didn't turn the other cheek when that hasn't always been the case - especially in recent years.....and you could tell by the reaction of the fans, that I'm not the only one who was happy the way the Canucks responded.

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 minute ago, Drop Em said:

Talk about beating a dead horse. Sorry, pretty sure the league has better things to do and doesn't have it out for the Canucks. Did Martel give Stetcher a shot to the head, yes.....but not every shot to the head should be suspendable. In last nights game, the Canucks were actually lucky in some respects, because both Hutton and Gudbranson could have been given third man in penalties and kicked out of the game. This would have left us with only 3 defensemen for almost half of the game after Stetcher got hurt. Gudbranson could also have been given AT LEAST a minor for throwing a couple of punches at guys in scrums, especially one haymaking uppercut in particular.

 

Rather than whining and crying about conspiracy theories and the league having it in for the Canucks, I'd prefer to think about how entertaining of a game it was because of everything that went on, ESPECIALLY how the Canucks stood up for each other and didn't turn the other cheek when that hasn't always been the case - especially in recent years.....and you could tell by the reaction of the fans, that I'm not the only one who was happy the way the Canucks responded.

You shouldn't allow a collective group to speak for yourself. That's an easy cop out. You don't like the ideas I've expressed here..I have no problem with that(entitled opinion)

 

If you don't think the league has been inconsistent, and/or dishonest in reffing/player safety rulings with our team, it's also possible you might be a troll in sheep's clothing.     

- Do you not think it's dangerous for players to run our guys from behind, then given(perhaps) a 2 min minor?

- You think it's ACCEPTABLE, players like Baertschi are out for months(with NOTHING done)?

- I got no problem with a good ol' hockey donneybrook. Liked seeing the team back each other yesterday. But my friend, that's a WHOLLY SEPARATE matter than the inconsistency this thread is about.

 

Perhaps you start your own thread, & go back(years, decades) & kindly enlighten us why the league has these(IMHO) lame, shoddy, rigged rulings & interpretations.

Perhaps you're wise enough to see all this clearly?

 

Have a nice day :^)

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

So @Baggins you're fine with Stecher getting a head shot, & no call from DPS? Are you a league apologist, perhaps secretly against the Canucks?

 

The basis of this thread is the league treats Van matters differently/inconsistently. They have historically..& they're STILL doing that now.

 

So do you disagree?(be clear now, not evasive).

 

 

 

I wasn't sure it was a suspendable hit at the time it happened. That doesn't mean I like the hit. It's just, as the rules are written, head contact on it's own isn't illegal and suspendable. How the contact is made determines that. Something that is largely ignored here.

[Drop Em]

25 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

You shouldn't allow a collective group to speak for yourself. That's an easy cop out. You don't like the ideas I've expressed here..I have no problem with that(entitled opinion)

 

If you don't think the league has been inconsistent, and/or dishonest in reffing/player safety rulings with our team, it's also possible you might be a troll in sheep's clothing.     

- Do you not think it's dangerous for players to run our guys from behind, then given(perhaps) a 2 min minor?

- You think it's ACCEPTABLE, players like Baertschi are out for months(with NOTHING done)?

- I got no problem with a good ol' hockey donneybrook. Liked seeing the team back each other yesterday. But my friend, that's a WHOLLY SEPARATE matter than the inconsistency this thread is about.

 

Perhaps you start your own thread, & go back(years, decades) & kindly enlighten us why the league has these(IMHO) lame, shoddy, rigged rulings & interpretations.

Perhaps you're wise enough to see all this clearly?

 

Have a nice day :^)

Allow a collective group to speak for myself? Huh? I was speaking for myself.....but the FACT that the fans last night showed (with their ovations after the Canucks stood up for each other) just proved I wasn't alone in thinking that way.

 

Being inconsistent and having two sets of rules just because you wear a Canucks jersey are two VERY different things.

- To answer your question, NO I don't think it's dangerous to run OUR guys from behind.....because I think it's dangerous to run ANY guys from behind, regardless of what jersey they wear. If you watch any other hockey games aside from just Canucks games, you would know that this happens to all of the teams during any given game.

- Inconsistent refereeing also benefited the Canucks last night, because we could have been given two different third man in penalties.....but I guess because that benefited the Canucks, that that isn't part of your conspiracy theory eh?

 

Sorry, but I'll NEVER believe this conspiracy theory of yours.  

 

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

As fans we should keep b*tching towards this #riggeddeckleague hierarchy. Their inconsistencies are corrupt bullsh*t!

[spur1]

Rome’s hit on Horton was cleaner than that hit. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Don't think this riggeddeckleague will ever be straightened out. Everywhere Yank interests go, they ruin or exploit..the whole world over. So tired of it.

[Baggins]

13 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Don't think this riggeddeckleague will ever be straightened out. Everywhere Yank interests go, they ruin or exploit..the whole world over. So tired of it.

If it's rigged why do you bother watching year after year after year?

[xereau]

On 12/20/2018 at 12:58 PM, spur1 said:

Rome’s hit on Horton was cleaner than that hit. 

Rome's hit was 0.6 seconds after the puck left Horton's stick, and it was North/South hit.  Clean.  The league is a joke.

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, xereau said:

Rome's hit was 0.6 seconds after the puck left Horton's stick, and it was North/South hit.  Clean.  The league is a joke.

Which is actually a late hit making it interference. The league got it right. I thought four games in a SC final was harsh but the call was correct and a suspension justified.

 

The joke is homer glasses blinding people to the actual rule book. Which happens with pretty much every fan base.

[spur1]

5 hours ago, Baggins said:

Which is actually a late hit making it interference. The league got it right. I thought four games in a SC final was harsh but the call was correct and a suspension justified.

 

The joke is homer glasses blinding people to the actual rule book. Which happens with pretty much every fan base.

Yes an interference call was warranted. 

The rest was not as it was clean otherwise. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

9 hours ago, Baggins said:

Which is actually a late hit making it interference. The league got it right. I thought four games in a SC final was harsh but the call was correct and a suspension justified.

 

The joke is homer glasses blinding people to the actual rule book. Which happens with pretty much every fan base.

That's idiotic blasphemy to try & be a league-apologist for that corrupt 2011 shyte. I doubt you're truly a fan who wants to see Vancouver win Cups.

 

I'm done with your boorish crap Baggins..you make the ignore list.. cya

[Nuxfanabroad]

Everyone remember the Rome hit?!

 

League says they bring in Burke(enemy of ownership) for advice?! What a public face slap to all Van fans, right in the middle of a F***ing Finals.

 

I remember seeing TSN break it down into digital(frames)..yeah, frame is a fine word here. I'd never seen the bull***t, complicit, lackey media pull THAT particular stunt before. Apropos for what's happened to media in almost all realms. I'll never forget/forgive these compromised b*st*rds for that cheap stunt. Hope ALL true Canuck fans remember League & DOPS, reffs, & media for their compromised, collusive conduct during the 2011 Finals, as our decimated roster had to endure such double-dealing.

 

This AIN'T a Linden Vey thread, Baggins(& you can have last word here, lad)..but I'll hear no more of your apologist-hogwash. Good day to you!

[Nuxfanabroad]

& finally on 2011. I am, & will always remain very proud of that club, & consider them TRUE Champions!

[Baggins]

10 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

That's idiotic blasphemy to try & be a league-apologist for that corrupt 2011 shyte. I doubt you're truly a fan who wants to see Vancouver win Cups.

 

I'm done with your boorish crap Baggins..you make the ignore list.. cya

oh, oh, I'm hurt.

[elvis15]

On 12/24/2018 at 10:35 AM, spur1 said:

Yes an interference call was warranted. 

The rest was not as it was clean otherwise. 

So, as stated in the rules for contact to the head, if the hit is legal apart from the head contact, then the hit is fine. Since the hit wasn't legal (due to being late) and head contact was made, it becomes more than just an interference penalty.

 

That's what people fail to understand, that there are nuances to these rules. Like in the Karlsson suspension thread, people are saying that's legal - and not even in the context of "because there was no suspension on the Stecher hit" - and a shoulder to shoulder hit. People have their ideas no how and why things are legal or not, but often they have very little understanding of the rules.

 

And that's what Baggins is trying to get across, not that the league is great about consistency or even just optics on some hits make it very tough, but that people often think their team is getting the short end of the stick. It's not some conspiracy - and even if it was, it's not all against us.

 

19 hours ago, Baggins said:

oh, oh, I'm hurt.

Careful, he'll have you crying in your oatmeal.

 

Yeah, Nux goes a little far sometimes, but this is too much even for me in this thread.

Edited December 26, 2018 by elvis15