Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Bad Reffing Thread (Including Tim Peel Firing)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....:unsure:

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2021 at 8:05 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....:unsure:

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

The amount of PP time doesn't matter, unless you also take into account the number of times a PP was deserved.

 

I don't remember specifics, but I'm fairly confident that the gaffes by the DOPS and refs go far beyond Rome, Danny/Marchand, and Boychuk going unpenalized for Raymond's broken back.

 

When the PP isn't performing well, that just encourages the Bruins to play tougher, and I don't fault them for that.  But the amount of penalties that are called doesn't give any reasons for changing the officiating style.  If it is deserved, call it.

 

If it is not called fairly, then suspecting bias is a logical next step.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kragar said:

The amount of PP time doesn't matter, unless you also take into account the number of times a PP was deserved.

 

I don't remember specifics, but I'm fairly confident that the gaffes by the DOPS and refs go far beyond Rome, Danny/Marchand, and Boychuk going unpenalized for Raymond's broken back.

 

When the PP isn't performing well, that just encourages the Bruins to play tougher, and I don't fault them for that.  But the amount of penalties that are called doesn't give any reasons for changing the officiating style.  If it is deserved, call it.

 

If it is not called fairly, then suspecting bias is a logical next step.

We can agree to disagree, I suppose. I just don't believe that the officiating was biased against the Canucks in that series.

 

As I said, the ruling on the Rome suspension was BS, but that isn't the refs' call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2021 at 8:05 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm honestly confused by all the "biased reffing" claims for the 2011 finals.....:unsure:

 

Yes, there were bad calls (like Danny getting an unsportsmanlike after being punched repeatedly by Marchand) but go back and look at the numbers.....the Canucks had significantly more PP time than the Bruins did.

 

The Rome hit was late and although I agree that the length of the suspension was ridiculous, the refs don't decide suspensions....

Because the Bruins were dirty as hell.  The disparity wasn't nearly high enough when you take into account how many cheapshots they were giving.

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

We can agree to disagree, I suppose. I just don't believe that the officiating was biased against the Canucks in that series.

 

As I said, the ruling on the Rome suspension was BS, but that isn't the refs' call.

I think it was a bit too lenient toward the Bruins overall but i wouldnt say it was necessarily biased.

 

I think the league office was biased af.

 

But the Canucks had their chances on the PP and couldnt score. They didnt lose the series because of officiating or even goaltending. 8 goals in 7 games. Thats the reason they lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I think it was a bit too lenient toward the Bruins overall but i wouldnt say it was necessarily biased.

 

I think the league office was biased af.

 

But the Canucks had their chances on the PP and couldnt score. They didnt lose the series because of officiating or even goaltending. 8 goals in 7 games. Thats the reason they lost.

I'll take that thought even further.....

 

I believe they lost because they had so many walking wounded by the time they got to the finals....the team that led the league on the PP all season long, suddenly couldn't score with the extra man. Hank, Kes, Ehrhoff....all playing injured. That's 3/5 of the PP unit. Combine that with Thomas playing out of his mind and it's no surprise that the man advantage was much less an advantage than it was during the regular season....

  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...