Bad Reffing Thread (Including Tim Peel Firing)

[IBatch]

On 7/1/2023 at 3:47 AM, viking mama said:

Thomas was also permitted by the O’Rourke/crew to take-down H. Sedin with impunity, in game 3. 

 

As a goalie, who has the advantage of wearing large pieces of equipment that other players do not, like a blocker, heavier lumber & a more configured helmet, Thomas should not have been allowed to  head-butt, or thrust his blocker & stick at an opposing player to impede their progress.
 

There was some generous Bruins’ entitlement here - instead of the n standard roughing or interference penalty being called. This is just another small example of the ways in which Canucks’ scoring-opportunities were robbed…in the moment & via another unawarded-penalty situation.  
 

Nobody on the broadcast feed below, thought to mention, the high possibility of yet another serious injury being sustained by a  signifigant & impactful Canucks’ player, in this moment, either.
 

Thomas’ choices were to make the save &/or play the puck, but he chose a 3rd option,..which was to bank upon the gratuitous good will of this gaggle of enabling referees, instead and - voila! It worked out for him, but the hockey-gods all know that Henrik Sedin wouldn’t have been allowed to interfere with Timmy T! If goalies are so easily permitted to cross-check & use their equipment is such a way,…player injuries would most surely go up around the league & be just as imminent. 
 

BTW: This commentary is via a Bruins feed.

Thomas shoved H Sedin with his arms.   Sure maybe it's a penalty because it was the goalie, but your allowed to do that to another player to keep them away from the puck, it's called a check, defenseman do it all the time and it's perfectly legal.   He didn't use his stick, it was in his hand.    Billy Smith was a lot meaner if you dared coming that close.   "To me that's a penalty",  refs didn't see it that way.    We had 2 power plays,  for every one of theirs.    You're not going to get more than that, Boston wasn't that bad.     ANA was a lot meaner than Boston was,   they won a cup and were in the box 3-1 or more all the way.     At one point, given how many short handed goals we'd allowed (they scored more goals than we did on our power plays!) I started to not want them anyways.   Marchand of course burns all of us.    Thomas is the reason why they won the cup, not reffing.   

Edited July 3, 2023 by IBatch

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Thomas shoved H Sedin with his arms.   Sure maybe it's a penalty because it was the goalie, but your allowed to do that to another player to keep them away from the puck, it's called a check, defenseman do it all the time and it's perfectly legal.   He didn't use his stick, it was in his hand.    Billy Smith was a lot meaner if you dared coming that close.   "To me that's a penalty",  refs didn't see it that way.    We had 2 power plays,  for every one of theirs.    You're not going to get more than that, Boston wasn't that bad.     ANA was a lot meaner than Boston was,   they won a cup and were in the box 3-1 or more all the way.     At one point, given how many short handed goals we'd allowed (they scored more goals than we did on our power plays!) I started to not want them anyways.   Marchand of course burns all of us.    Thomas is the reason why they won the cup, not reffing.   

That's actually how Corey Perry was able to get away with alot of stuff during his prime years.  Did *so many* ticky tack stuff all over the ice, because he knew the refs weren't going to call all of the infractions (so the net effect would still give him a clear advantage).  But yeah, we just ran out of healthy bodies (when Nolan Baumgartner had the call to get ready just in case you know it's friggin defcon 4 ) in Finals.  Less so with everything else in that series.

[King Heffy]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

Thomas shoved H Sedin with his arms.   Sure maybe it's a penalty because it was the goalie, but your allowed to do that to another player to keep them away from the puck, it's called a check, defenseman do it all the time and it's perfectly legal.   He didn't use his stick, it was in his hand.    Billy Smith was a lot meaner if you dared coming that close.   "To me that's a penalty",  refs didn't see it that way.    We had 2 power plays,  for every one of theirs.    You're not going to get more than that, Boston wasn't that bad.     ANA was a lot meaner than Boston was,   they won a cup and were in the box 3-1 or more all the way.     At one point, given how many short handed goals we'd allowed (they scored more goals than we did on our power plays!) I started to not want them anyways.   Marchand of course burns all of us.    Thomas is the reason why they won the cup, not reffing.   

Do you actually think the conduct of the refs in that series was acceptable?

[spook007]

9 hours ago, IBatch said:

Thomas shoved H Sedin with his arms.   Sure maybe it's a penalty because it was the goalie, but your allowed to do that to another player to keep them away from the puck, it's called a check, defenseman do it all the time and it's perfectly legal.   He didn't use his stick, it was in his hand.    Billy Smith was a lot meaner if you dared coming that close.   "To me that's a penalty",  refs didn't see it that way.    We had 2 power plays,  for every one of theirs.    You're not going to get more than that, Boston wasn't that bad.     ANA was a lot meaner than Boston was,   they won a cup and were in the box 3-1 or more all the way.     At one point, given how many short handed goals we'd allowed (they scored more goals than we did on our power plays!) I started to not want them anyways.   Marchand of course burns all of us.    Thomas is the reason why they won the cup, not reffing.   

We were not strong enough to fight Boston at their own game...simples...

Tim Thomas should have been nailed at the first opportunity afterwards... Just a puck into the crease and then whack him... 

But Canucks were not able to fight the big boys of Boston, so even a red neck like Thomas took liberties... Marchand as well...

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, spook007 said:

We were not strong enough to fight Boston at their own game...simples...

Tim Thomas should have been nailed at the first opportunity afterwards... Just a puck into the crease and then whack him... 

But Canucks were not able to fight the big boys of Boston, so even a red neck like Thomas took liberties... Marchand as well...

Yes.  Next shift someone should have ran Thomas through the back of the net for sure.     When we played CAL in 94, and McLean was stoning a really great squad, Roberts started to run McLean.    Our team responded, Roberts did it a couple more times, still then stopped, it wasn't working.   Not sure if it was AV or just team structure, AV telling the guys we need the power plays, versus they couldn't  stand up for themselves, i think a bit of both.    But didn't like being on the other side of things.   And Boston in 2011 would have been absolutely obliterated if they played in the alley against some of the teams we used to have, it really was unfortunate.  

 

We lost.   And Tampa Bay was really really good that year, it doesn't get talked about much, a lot of people back then were stoked we drew Boston.    Thomas to me anyways, was the biggest difference maker in that series, but somehow it's all about Marchand speed bagging D Sedin, and Raymond's back etc.   Really, we just couldn't score.      

[viking mama]

On 6/27/2023 at 7:36 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

Again, the suspension to Rome was a ridiculous decision. Nobody made more noise about it at the time than I did....

 

....but it had nothing to do with reffing. It was a late hit and deserving of a penalty.

 

As far as the Boychuk hit on Raymond goes, I'm unaware of any league policy that states penalties should be called based on whether or not a player is injured. Maybe you can post it?

Nothin’ to do with reffing, you say?

Deserving of a penalty, perhaps yes,  but, it wasn’t just a “minor” penalty that this particular officiating crew assessed.
 

Let’s make a few more comparisons to assess who these officials are & what they’ve repeatedly done to Canucks players in dramatic fashion - past to present. 
 

Rome was actually tossed from the  game, by the same “calibre” of crew, who let Duncan Keith STAY in a game, after he & his teammates threatened D.Sedin at their bench & D. Keith followed thru with flying elbow & stick-knobs to his head as Daniel unsuspectingly glanced up at a puck flying overhead. No puck was being played. In a non-combative situation, the more honourable player foolishly expected his opponent to just play hockey…after-all, everyone signs a contract to be union bros & it’s not the WWE.

 

 

 

^I can’t help but think,…what IF one of these more dubious officials had just called ANY kind of penalty on this one? (Moore hit on Naslund) The intact & healthy West Coast Express may well have led the highly-ranked & favoured Canucks onto winning the SCup that season!  

 

Which referees were involved in this & so many other infamous on-ice debacles involving the Canucks? I guarantee, at least one or 2 of the dubious 3 or 4 were involved. 
 

Being responsible for your hockey stick, as a player, is commonly accepted. How about everyone being held to proper account & owning it with a few harmless apologies, on all fronts afterwards, …especially from these officials! Otherwise, the public will not see the learning curves & can only assume there’s continued ill will or some corruption involved. Especially, when the same ol’ mistakes involving the same teams/refs/players keep happenin’, again & again! 

 

Duncan Keith’s hit WAS retribution, plain & simple, for a pedestrian fly-by hit received early-on in a game when enthusiasm for a strong Canucks’ start was high. At this time, ANY player should be anticipating being hit along the boards…just not by the milder-mannered D. Sedin, right?
 

^Was Keith embarrassed by his lack of anticipation, here? Then that  entitled vigilante, received the “benefit of the doubt” or “permission” from a very common-set of dubious officials, to self-police. He received just a minor penalty & stayed in the game to further distract & in-sense his opponents….on a play that the league thought warranted a 5 or 6 game suspension later on. But, in the actual game that “mattered”…everything was fair, uh-huh,..riiiiiiight?

 

Which of these hits could be a simple miscue or hockey-play gone bad? Did these officials have any clues that there was some real “intent to injure”? When a player says he’s going to try & do something out there,… why not believe ‘im?! If a younger upstart player violently over-reaches, officials should be calling a very proper standard & let ‘im know to curb it! But, sadly it’s also a part of this league’s mixed-messaging propaganda machine! Some markets welcome the additional  violence & drama to their fill-up their rinks or just comply with their old-school season-ticket holder fan base expectations…while other  organizations respect the game, the players & their new & younger fans, more.  

 

If dudes can just skate away miffed, & no one’s hurt or decides to drop their gloves over a hit…do Bettman & Jacobs think that this will sell the game, better? 

 

Our team’s star-players were injured & side/lined after the incidents noted in these clips & for lengthy periods, at consequential times of the year. One star-player missed signifigant play-off action

& his team dropped their 1st round series to the eventual 2012 champions. Was that a good thing?! Bettman & Jacobs would reply…that depends upon which team.

 

What of the assailants? Keith got to  rest-up prior to the post-season & didn’t miss a play-off game. His team them had the more successful run. The “right” teams in this scenario,  therefore advanced.
 

 

^This happened in the 2013 play-offs the following year, as Keith’s impulse for undisciplined retaliation continued. But, apologies flowed more far freely this time vs the LA Kings! We’re still waiting for a hint of truth, accountability & proper reconciliation here for Daniel in VAN. I simply cannot cease booing the guy!  He may only be lucky enough to get a reprieve from that, while in retirement.  
 

I put forth that - there’s a track record of bias favouring certain teams with highly-identifiable referees, who are aspiring to score brownie-points with the league’s most powerful team owners & power-brokers. That bias could pay-off well, in more lucrative post-season assignments & post-career jobs.
 

Certain members of this highly-suspicious officiating-fraternity, by their “repeated inactions” at pivotal times, can no longer be viewed as the “best” referees that the NHL has to offer. A dubious 3, were selected to officiate in the 2011 SC-Final & most of us can now see why. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by viking mama

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, viking mama said:

…deserving of a penalty? It wasn’t just a penalty.
 

Rome was tossed from the game, by the same “caliber” crew, who let Duncan Keith STAY in a game, after he & teammates repeatedly threatened D.Sedin from their bench & Keith followed thru by wreaking him with flying elbows & stick knobs into head/jaw as Daniel unsuspectingly glanced up-ward at a puck flying by over-head. No puck was being played. In that non-combative situation, the honourable player foolishly expected his opponents to abide by the rules of hockey.

You really need to pay attention. I was saying that it was deserving of a penalty, as opposed to not deserving of a penalty. The rest of my post is making the point that the punishment is way out of line.

 

I didn't bother with the rest of your post, because literally every team in the NHL can point to specific instances over the years, where they feel they were jobbed by the refs.

 

I think this idea that the league, or the refs (or both) have it in for the Canucks specifically is dumb. Full stop. You and your compatriots can carry on with this nonsense, but you're not going to convince me.....

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

You really need to pay attention. I was saying that it was deserving of a penalty, as opposed to not deserving of a penalty. The rest of my post is making the point that the punishment is way out of line.

 

I didn't bother with the rest of your post, because literally every team in the NHL can point to specific instances over the years, where they feel they were jobbed by the refs.

 

I think this idea that the league, or the refs (or both) have it in for the Canucks specifically is dumb. Full stop. You and your compatriots can carry on with this nonsense, but you're not going to convince me.....

The fact is that the league continues to assign us known problem officials such as Sutherland despite the evidence that he's not willing to conduct himself like a professional.  We even got Auger a couple of times after Burrows got fined for calling out his corruption.  Teams need some kind of recourse for refs who cannot be trusted to call an honest game or a ref is going to be leaving the ice on a stretcher at some point.

Edited July 4, 2023 by King Heffy

[RUPERTKBD]

11 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The fact is that the league continues to assign us known problem officials such as Sutherland despite the evidence that he's not willing to conduct himself like a professional.  We even got Auger a couple of times after Burrows got fined for calling out his corruption.  Teams need some kind of recourse for refs who cannot be trusted to call an honest game or a ref is going to be leaving the ice on a stretcher at some point.

I've already stated my opinion on this line of thinking.

 

I respect your opinion on most things, but you and others who believe that there are refs (and / or the NHL itself) that are specifically biased against the Canucks are wrong. Full stop.

[viking mama]

The IIHF vets their officials well. They treat every game as important. They do their best to eliminate any hint of bias. If officials botch a game or demonstrate that they have lost control over discipline & maintaining a proper standard of conduct upon the ice, they will not get the do-over with these same teams. The IIHF will avoid the controversey & situations of possible carry/over justice.
 

The NHL however, considers botched games with lots of drama, injuries or suspensions - to be “experience” & repeatedly sends  out the same ol’ dubious crews to stir the drama-pot, again.
 

I think there’s more to be said for wiping a slate clean & letting each game play-out on its’ own merits.
 

In today’s NHL, the ranking, vetting & deployment of their referees at play-off time is more accurately akin to bias-planting, if you ask me. 
 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by viking mama

[King Heffy]

4 hours ago, viking mama said:

The IIHF vets their officials well. They treat every game as important. They do their best to eliminate any hint of bias. If officials botch a game or demonstrate that they have lost control over discipline & maintaining a proper standard of conduct upon the ice, they will not get the do-over with these same teams. The IIHF will avoid the controversey & situations of possible carry/over justice.
 

The NHL however, considers botched games with lots of drama, injuries or suspensions - to be “experience” & repeatedly sends  out the same ol’ dubious crews to stir the drama-pot, again.
 

I think there’s more to be said for wiping a slate clean & letting each game play-out on its’ own merits.
 

In today’s NHL, the ranking, vetting & deployment of their referees at play-off time is more accurately akin to bias-planting, if you ask me. 
 

 

 

That's just it.  Give teams a small veto list and a lot of the issue disappears.  I'm sure Toronto isn't thrilled about getting Wes McAuley due to the perceived conflict of interest.

[spook007]

6 hours ago, viking mama said:

Nothin’ to do with reffing, you say?
 

Deserving of a penalty, maybe yes,  
but, it wasn’t just a minor penalty that this particular officiating crew assessed, Let’s make a few more comparisons, to assess who these officials are & what they have repeatedly done to Canucks players, in dramatic fashion -  past to present. 
 

Rome was actually tossed from that game, by the same “caliber” crew, who let Duncan Keith STAY in a game, after he & teammates repeatedly threatened D.Sedin at the benches & D. Keith followed thru, with flying elbow & stick knobs to the head/jaw as Daniel unsuspectingly glanced up towards a puck flying over-head. No puck was being played. In this non-combative situation, the more honourable player foolishly expected his opponent to abide by the rules & just play hockey. It’s not the WWE.

 

 

 

^I also can’t help but think,…what IF one of these more dubious officials had called ANY kind of penalty on this one? An intact & healthy West Coast Express may have led the Canucks to the SCup that season!  

 

Which referees were involved in this & the other debacles? I guarantee, one or 2 of the dubious 3 or 4 are involved. 
 

Being responsible for your stick, as a player is commonly accepted. How about being held to proper account for “intent” & owning it with a harmless apology, afterwards?  

 

Duncan Keith’s hit WAS retribution for a common pedestrian fly-by hit that he received early-on in a game when enthusiasm for a strong Canucks’ start was high. At this time, any player would anticipate being hit along the boards…just not by a mild-mannered Sedin, I suppose. 
 

^Was he embarrassed by his lack of anticipation? As an entitled  vigilante, Keith then got the “benefit of the doubt” & “permission” from a common set of dubious officials, to self-police. He only receive a minor penalty, staying in the game, to distract & further in-sense his opponents. 

 

Which of these hits could be  miscues on hockey plays?  

What clues did these officials have when there was “intent to injure”?
When players say they are’s going to try & do something out there, why not believe ‘em?  When upstart players violently over-reach, officials should show them the proper standard & let them know to curb it! But, this is a part of the mix-messaging this league

sends out. Some marketplaces welcome to more violence & drama to fill their rinks & sell tickets. 

 

When dudes skate away miffed, but no one’s hurt or decides to drop their gloves over a hit…do Bettman or Jacobs think this sells this game better? 

 

In other scenarios, a certain team’s star-players were injured & side/lined for lengthy periods of time, & at consequential times of the year. Another star-player missed  signifigant seasonal & play-off action. His team dropped their 1st round series to the eventual 2012 champions. Is this a good thing? Bettman & Jacobs may reply… uh, depends upon which team it is? 

 

What of the assailants? Keith got to rest-up for the post-season, didn’t miss a play-off game & his team had a more successful run. The “right” teams in this scenario  advanced. 
 

 

 

^This happened in the 2013 play-offs the following year. Keith’s impulsive need for undisciplined retaliation continued. Apologies flowed more freely, this time. We’re still waiting for a hint of truth, accountability & reconciliation for Daniel, in VAN, tho. I cannot cease booing him. Maybe, there’ll be a reprieve in retirement.  
 

I put forth, there’s a track-record of  bias favouring certain teams with highly-identifiable referees, who possibly hope to score brownie-points with the most-powerful NHL owners. Their bias may pay-off more lucrative post-season assignments & post-career jobs.
 

Certain members of this highly-suspicious officiating-fraternity, by their “repeated in-actions” at pivotal times, can no longer be considered the “best” referees in the league. Yet, a dubious 3, were selected to officiate in the 2011 SC-Final & most of us can see why. 

No to argue against you, as I've always suggested that Rome getting tossed, was part of the reason we lost the finals, but it was the ridicules decision by the brasses behind the scenes to suspend him for 4games during the finals that stunk. 

With regards to Duncan Keith, it took 10 years, before he got drilled after the cheap shot on Daniel... 10 flipping years... I think, that's where the real issue lays. 
Every team gets refereeing that isn't right, not just Canucks. 
I think its fair to say, that 'the mother of all elbows' bares testiment to that. 
 

During the 2011 finals we got bullied, and we just couldn't score enough goals. Injuries, or whatever the reason was, we couldn't do it...

Marchand, a little punk, getting to punch our star player in the face at will, was just the icing on the cake. 
Folks saying we didn't want to retaliate, cause we wanted the PPs instead, but where was the retaliation the following seasons?

 

We couldn't deal with Boston, when it mattered. Thomas was likely the difference, and as the previous clip showed, when he started to take liberties, we didn't respond. 
It was a tough pill to swallow....

 

PS. I also get really frustrated at some of the on ice calls or lack of at times, but I still think all teams gets them. 
However, the 4 match suspension to Rome really stunk and does...

[Toews]

On 7/1/2023 at 3:47 AM, viking mama said:

Thomas was also permitted by the O’Rourke/crew to take-down H. Sedin with impunity, in game 3. 

 

As a goalie, who has the advantage of wearing large pieces of equipment that other players do not, like a blocker, heavier lumber & a more configured helmet, Thomas should not have been allowed to  head-butt, or thrust his blocker & stick at an opposing player to impede their progress.
 

There was some generous Bruins’ entitlement here - instead of the standard roughing, interference or cross-checking penalty being called. This is just another small example of the ways in which Canucks’ scoring-opportunities were robbed…in the moment & via another unawarded-penalty situation.  
 

Nobody on the broadcast feed below, thought to mention, the high possibility of yet another serious injury being sustained by a  signifigant & impactful Canucks’ player, in this moment, either.
 

Thomas’ choices were to make the save &/or play the puck, but he chose a 3rd option,..which was to bank upon the gratuitous good will of this gaggle of enabling referees, instead and - voila! It worked out for him, but the hockey-gods all know that Henrik Sedin wouldn’t have been allowed to interfere with Timmy T! If goalies are so easily permitted to cross-check & use their equipment is such a way,…player injuries would most surely go up around the league & be just as imminent. 
 

BTW: This commentary is via a Bruins feed.

That was a deserving two minute minor for interference that wasn't called. The referees sucked in that series but you'd have to be made of glass to get injured on that play. You just can't as a goalie generate enough force to injure someone by a shove to the chest in open ice. The Sedins were tough cookies, you could probably pull up any random shift of them cycling for pucks where they took more far more damage than on that clip that you posted.

 

Over the years I have come around to some of your opinions that the NHL has a way of managing games to produce desired outcomes. I just think this one just ain't it man.

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I've already stated my opinion on this line of thinking.

 

I respect your opinion on most things, but you and others who believe that there are refs (and / or the NHL itself) that are specifically biased against the Canucks are wrong. Full stop.

Most fanbases feel this way.   That they are "wronged" by reffing.   And that leads to paranoid thoughts that somehow there is a little black room somewhere, that refs and Bettman, Jacobs etc, get together and work out how to screw us or whomever next time.   Series have been won and lost by missed or bad calls, not that long ago.   And we weren't part of that.     Suppose that would make us pretty upset.   Boston keep coming up, but let's be real, didn't they score on us more then we scored on them when they were in the box?    Bad calls, missed calls etc, are always going to be part of the sport, and maybe we've been on the wrong side of it more then not but it's closer then some care to admit.    Aside from Otto, that goes back to 1989, I don't remember a missed call that lost us a series.   Keith on D Sedin, and Steve Moore on Naslund are two plays that for sure don't belong in the sport, and screwed us badly.    As for WCE, I doubt even if Naslund was fine that Cloutier wouldn't have melted down anyways. 

 

 

 On the flip side, Bure would have been out of the playoffs for his elbow on Churla with video review, and 1994 would have never happened.   Sure some Dallas fans probably remember that, and some probably feel they'd have won that series (went to six games) and maybe made it to the final as well, if Bure was suspended.    

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, spook007 said:

No to argue against you, as I've always suggested that Rome getting tossed, was part of the reason we lost the finals, but it was the ridicules decision by the brasses behind the scenes to suspend him for 4games during the finals that stunk. 

With regards to Duncan Keith, it took 10 years, before he got drilled after the cheap shot on Daniel... 10 flipping years... I think, that's where the real issue lays. 
Every team gets refereeing that isn't right, not just Canucks. 
I think its fair to say, that 'the mother of all elbows' bares testiment to that. 
 

During the 2011 finals we got bullied, and we just couldn't score enough goals. Injuries, or whatever the reason was, we couldn't do it...

Marchand, a little punk, getting to punch our star player in the face at will, was just the icing on the cake. 
Folks saying we didn't want to retaliate, cause we wanted the PPs instead, but where was the retaliation the following seasons?

 

We couldn't deal with Boston, when it mattered. Thomas was likely the difference, and as the previous clip showed, when he started to take liberties, we didn't respond. 
It was a tough pill to swallow....

 

PS. I also get really frustrated at some of the on ice calls or lack of at times, but I still think all teams gets them. 
However, the 4 match suspension to Rome really stunk and does...

Just saw this, agree Spook.    As for Rome, at the time of the hit, it was the first time I got really worried, because things were going our way, and didn't want one moment to mess with any of that.   "Oh shit, we might have just woke Boston up", believe I shared that with a couple people including my brother.  

 

Watched the TB/Boston series.   TB was all over them, just couldn't score enough on Tim Thomas, but it was also pretty obvious Chara and co played a key role too.   Wanted TB to win, because felt we could match them and a bit more on every level.    Only me and my brother were worried we'd end up playing Boston, of the folks I talked about it back then with.    TB was really on a roll, had a great team and scored a lot of goals, really not any weaknesses.   Boston had Thomas playing like Patrick Roy, and we simply couldn't match them in the alley or the trenches.   With a cycle game, that becomes very, very tough. 

 

Was a sad time, going in as the favourite, and coming up short.   Luongo  melting down was tough too, but it's not like he didn't have two shutouts, and well, how a team can make it to game seven scoring 8 goals ... enough said.   We had 2 power plays for everyone one of theirs.   Think it we scored a couple PP goals and they scored a couple PK goals.    It was part of the momentum swing in their favour for sure.    Good kills swing momentum.   Scoring a shorty is a huge momentum swing and Boston's swagger just kept becoming an intangible we couldn't match, we couldn't match it at the start.      

 

It got to the point where I both wanted the power play, and was worried we'd get scored on lol.   We needed them for sure too.   Felt we could have drew any other team in the league (TB bet we'd have won in five games), and we'd have won a cup.   Keith.   Ugh.   That was too bad too.  So was LA, bad luck, Quick did his best Roy impression, two goalies in a row. 

[Kevin Biestra]

15 hours ago, viking mama said:

^I can’t help but think,…what IF one of these more dubious officials had called ANY kind of penalty on this one? The intact & healthy West Coast Express may have led the Canucks onto winning the SCup that season!

 

Unfortunately the Canucks were never winning a Cup with Cloutier in net.

[Kevin Biestra]

16 hours ago, IBatch said:

On the flip side, Bure would have been out of the playoffs for his elbow on Churla with video review, and 1994 would have never happened.   Sure some Dallas fans probably remember that, and some probably feel they'd have won that series (went to six games) and maybe made it to the final as well, if Bure was suspended.    

 

Went to five.  I was at the fifth game so it's easy for me to remember.  There was one dude in a Stars jersey just sitting there alone in his section of the stands when most people had left.  Looked a lot like Russ Courtnall with a playoff beard...must have flown out from Dallas to watch it.  A few Canucks fans walked over and shook his hand as they were leaving and he was one of the only people still in his seat.  Respected his dedication.

 

But yeah Bure and the Canucks for sure got away with one on Churla back then.

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Kevin Biestra

[RUPERTKBD]

51 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Most fanbases feel this way.   That they are "wronged" by reffing.   And that leads to paranoid thoughts that somehow there is a little black room somewhere, that refs and Bettman, Jacobs etc, get together and work out how to screw us or whomever next time.   Series have been won and lost by missed or bad calls, not that long ago.   And we weren't part of that.     Suppose that would make us pretty upset.   Boston keep coming up, but let's be real, didn't they score on us more then we scored on them when they were in the box?    Bad calls, missed calls etc, are always going to be part of the sport, and maybe we've been on the wrong side of it more then not but it's closer then some care to admit.    Aside from Otto, that goes back to 1989, I don't remember a missed call that lost us a series.   Keith on D Sedin, and Steve Moore on Naslund are two plays that for sure don't belong in the sport, and screwed us badly.    As for WCE, I doubt even if Naslund was fine that Cloutier wouldn't have melted down anyways. 

 

 

 On the flip side, Bure would have been out of the playoffs for his elbow on Churla with video review, and 1994 would have never happened.   Sure some Dallas fans probably remember that, and some probably feel they'd have won that series (went to six games) and maybe made it to the final as well, if Bure was suspended.    

Exactly. I made that same point earlier. There were missed calls, of course, but the Canucks had a big edge in PP time. They just didn't take advantage in that series as they had all season. IMO, they were just too beat up.

 

The thing about people posting videos of missed calls as "proof" of some sort of anti-Canuck bias, is that it's just anecdotal. It "proves" exactly nothing. As you and I have already pointed out, a fan of any team in the league could post a montage of video clips that "prove" it's their team the league/refs have it in for.

 

It's really no different than if I posted 2 or 3 clips of Quinn Hughes making brutal giveaways and cite it as "proof" that he's a lousy defenceman.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Exactly. I made that same point earlier. There were missed calls, of course, but the Canucks had a big edge in PP time. They just didn't take advantage in that series as they had all season. IMO, they were just too beat up.

 

The thing about people posting videos of missed calls as "proof" of some sort of anti-Canuck bias, is that it's just anecdotal. It "proves" exactly nothing. As you and I have already pointed out, a fan of any team in the league could post a montage of video clips that "prove" it's their team the league/refs have it in for.

 

It's really no different than if I posted 2 or 3 clips of Quinn Hughes making brutal giveaways and cite it as "proof" that he's a lousy defenceman.

Yep.   Ohlund also made brutal plays.   So did Jovo.   Of course Edler is recent memory stuff.   I'm actually glad the the video era wasn't around in the 70's to mid 90's.    I'm sure if it was - people would have "proof" Wayne Gretzky was way overrated, despite the fact he made hyperbole seem understated.     Mario made mistakes too.  As did Orr.   It happens.  Linden's idolization would also lose some lustre.    It's the body of work that matters.     I for one, don't think there is any sort of mandate or conspiracy about the reffing.   I also wish we'd go back to the one ref system.   And allow the linesman to watch and call a major penalty.    The plays that stop a scoring chance are rarely missed.   Hardly ever.    Going from 70 or so refs down to 35.   You're going to get the best.   Plus removing one body from the ice would be a good thing. 

[RUPERTKBD]

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Yep.   Ohlund also made brutal plays.   So did Jovo.   Of course Edler is recent memory stuff.   I'm actually glad the the video era wasn't around in the 70's to mid 90's.    I'm sure if it was - people would have "proof" Wayne Gretzky was way overrated, despite the fact he made hyperbole seem understated.     Mario made mistakes too.  As did Orr.   It happens.  Linden's idolization would also lose some lustre.    It's the body of work that matters.     I for one, don't think there is any sort of mandate or conspiracy about the reffing.   I also wish we'd go back to the one ref system.   And allow the linesman to watch and call a major penalty.    The plays that stop a scoring chance are rarely missed.   Hardly ever.    Going from 70 or so refs down to 35.   You're going to get the best.   Plus removing one body from the ice would be a good thing. 

I agree, but I can't see us ever going back to the One Referee system. Their union would never stand for it.