Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Hockey_Canada1

Discussion & Debate Thread: Flames and Canucks

Recommended Posts

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']Regarding tonights canuck game: I thought Saturday was poorly officiated game. This was the exact opposite. Two guys bump, one falls. Penalty. Guys steps on stick, falls. Penalty. Burrows loses balance. Penalty for diving. Canucks finally get a break with a PP. two straight Canucks penalties.

Horse Manure.

Considering all the PP's the Canucks have gotten when Burrows actually dived, I don't really see the problem.
If he actually dove. Whatever. I get the call. But he didn't. He had his legs out wide and reached out too far. it wasn't a penalty, but he wasn't trying to draw anything, he just lost his balance.

Burrows just called out the refs after the game. Good. He could easily get fined for the comments and I don't think he cares. It needed to be said.

And all those tripping penalties he draws when diving aren't legitimate either, you win some, you lose some. From what I have seen this year he has gotten a reputation, now that refs are starting to let things go when they involve Burrows he is crying about it to the media.

He is embarrassing refs on the ice, and off the ice at this point. There is a chance refs will be afraid of being called out by him in the media and start calling it like they used to. There is also a chance it gets a lot worse before it gets any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that sya bout the refs when they can't decide if a play was actually diving or not, so they just say "Well, it was Burrows, so it might have been a dive. I guess I'll call it because he has done it before." That is BS. If it's a penalty, diving, hooking, elbowing, whatever, call it. If it's not, don't.

Burrows better not dare fall down ever again this season, or he could cost the Canucks another game.

@Neufy, I can't recall another time Burrows has been called for Diving this season.

Refs don't have the luxury of instant replay on the current penalty. There is a very very easy solution to this problem, Burrows stops diving and snapping his head back from light contact and the refs have no reason to call dives, or try to get  him back.

Burrows is the cause of the problem here, no the refs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']What does that sya bout the refs when they can't decide if a play was actually diving or not, so they just say "Well, it was Burrows, so it might have been a dive. I guess I'll call it because he has done it before." That is BS. If it's a penalty, diving, hooking, elbowing, whatever, call it. If it's not, don't.

Burrows better not dare fall down ever again this season, or he could cost the Canucks another game.

@Neufy, I can't recall another time Burrows has been called for Diving this season.

Refs don't have the luxury of instant replay on the current penalty. There is a very very easy solution to this problem, Burrows stops diving and snapping his head back from light contact and the refs have no reason to call dives, or try to get  him back.

Burrows is the cause of the problem here, no the refs.
Actually, the easier solution would be for refs to call penalties and only penalties. If they can see joe blow without a rep didn't dive, why can't they see Burrows not dive? Because they don't want to/can't because of his rep.

Refs don't have instant replay, and hockey is a very fast game. How are they supposed to know when a player dives or not?

It's really not that hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']Actually, the easier solution would be for refs to call penalties and only penalties. If they can see joe blow without a rep didn't dive, why can't they see Burrows not dive? Because they don't want to/can't because of his rep.

Refs don't have instant replay, and hockey is a very fast game. How are they supposed to know when a player dives or not?

It's really not that hard to understand.
How come players without a rep never get called for diving?

Well, they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']How come players without a rep never get called for diving?

Well, they do.
When they actually dive, or phantom diving calls?

I only ever see it on the boxscore, so I don't have that answer. It's a very rare penalty. I have seen players without a rep for diving get called on it though.

Seriously though, if you are expecting any sympathy for Burrows getting a diving penalty around here, whether it is legit or not, you are going to be disappointed.

Times Burrows has been called for diving when he didn't - 1

Times Burrows has drawn a penalty because of his diving - More than 1

That is the way I look at it, it's the boy who cried wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']When they actually dive, or phantom diving calls?

I only ever see it on the boxscore, so I don't have that answer. It's a very rare penalty. I have seen players without a rep for diving get called on it though.

Seriously though, if you are expecting any sympathy for Burrows getting a diving penalty around here, whether it is legit or not, you are going to be disappointed.

Times Burrows has been called for diving when he didn't - 1

Times Burrows has drawn a penalty because of his diving - More than 1

That is the way I look at it, it's the boy who cried wolf.
Yeah, that's why I come here. Sympathy.

Well what exactly are you expecting?

Burrows makes the refs look bad on a regular basis, tonight the refs made him look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']Yeah, that's why I come here. Sympathy.

Well what exactly are you expecting?

Burrows makes the refs look bad on a regular basis, tonight the refs made him look bad.
Discussion? Kinda what we are doing right now?

That isn't the refs position to take liberties with players. If they have issues, they should take it up with the league and action can be taken from there.

If Burrows has problems with the refs shouldn't he be taking it to the league instead of crying about it to the media?

It goes both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']Discussion? Kinda what we are doing right now?

That isn't the refs position to take liberties with players. If they have issues, they should take it up with the league and action can be taken from there.

If Burrows has problems with the refs shouldn't he be taking it to the league instead of crying about it to the media?

It goes both ways.
You are right. He shouldn't have sounded off in the post game and instead filed a complaint with the league. Gillis said he did or will file a complaint.

However, if the league isn't aware of the issues with reffing right now, all is lost.

I agree 100% reffing is terrible right now. Every single NHL fan will tell you that.

But guys like Burrows make it a lot worse, they don't play the game honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


bigchief wrote:

Hiphopopotamus']

Burrows and Luongo are overreacting big time. Burrows
may
have got some payback from Auger. The diving call may or may not have been diving. I. I agree with Hiphopopotamus that he gets away with occasions when he does dive, this time he may have missed the benefit of doubt because of it. Burrows is still ahead in the big picture. Solution? Don't dive so much. The interference call had legitimacy, he tried to obstruct by sticking his leg out as he was passing by, to say it was
completely
uncalled for is BS, marginal but not fabricated. I couldn't see enough detail on the Sedin tripping call but his stick was in the other guy's feet, I don't know.

Auger sucks and he can lash out and make bad calls when his temper takes hold, so can Fraser. Luongo's comments about the worst calls he has ever seen in his career were just for the sake of adding some more drama to the crybaby show that Burrows put on. Got a complaint? Go through the proper channels.

All is lost?
laugh.gif
Now now Don, tomorrow is a brand new day.

I agree with the first part except the play wasn't even close to a dive or attempted dive. He simply fell. If he dives and gets called, I won't have any issue with the call. But if he can't even fall down without getting a penalty, that is beyond ridiculous.

I think you may be underestimating the problems with the officiating in the NHL right now. If it isn't improved it is only going to get worse. And if it gets any worse it will become unbearable. It is only a matter of time before a blown call causes a team to miss the playoffs, lose a playoff series and heaven forbid affect the outcome of the Stanley Cup Finals.

Do you get this upset when Burrows draws a penalty by actually diving?

You win some, and you lose some. This seems to be the first time Burrows lost, and for the most part Canucks fans aren't taking it very well. Realistically within the next 10-15 games Burrows will draw another penalty by going down easily, however in that same time-span I don't see him getting another diving penalty for a legitimate trip.

Once again, this is a complete non-issue if Burrows isn't a diver.

The interference penalty isn't quite as bad as people are claiming as well, it's definitely a bit weak but there is a bit of interference there. I doubt the penalty gets called if the Canucks aren't already on the PP, but that is all just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

Do you get this upset when Burrows draws a penalty by actually diving?

You win some, and you lose some. This seems to be the first time Burrows lost, and for the most part Canucks fans aren't taking it very well. Realistically within the next 10-15 games Burrows will draw another penalty by going down easily, however in that same time-span I don't see him getting another diving penalty for a legitimate trip.

Once again, this is a complete non-issue if Burrows isn't a diver.

The interference penalty isn't quite as bad as people are claiming as well, it's definitely a bit weak but there is a bit of interference there. I doubt the penalty gets called if the Canucks aren't already on the PP, but that is all just speculation.

The_Don wrote:

If he dives and gets called, I won't have any issue with the call.

The_Don']If he actually dove. Whatever. I get the call.

eyes.gif

Do you actually believe this is the first time Burrows has come out on the short end of the stick? And no, the Interference wasn't THAT bad. But the fact that it came after a previous weak call on the same player, and followed immediately by another weak call magnifies it.

You aren't really acknowledging my point, more often than not the Canucks are on the right side of the "bad call" when it comes to Burrows' diving. This is the first time he got a diving penalty for not diving.

I get that you don't like the fact that Burrows got a diving penalty. But a lot of times the other fan base doesn't like the fact that their player got a tripping penalty when it wasn't deserved either. It goes both ways, you live by the sword, and you die by the sword.

I just can't imagine you being this upset when the other team is given a penalty that they did not deserve because the ref thought Burrows was tripped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Hiphopopotamus wrote:

The_Don']

eyes.gif

Do you actually believe this is the first time Burrows has come out on the short end of the stick? And no, the Interference wasn't THAT bad. But the fact that it came after a previous weak call on the same player, and followed immediately by another weak call magnifies it.

You aren't really acknowledging my point, more often than not the Canucks are on the right side of the "bad call" when it comes to Burrows' diving. This is the first time he got a diving penalty for not diving.

I get that you don't like the fact that Burrows got a diving penalty. But a lot of times the other fan base doesn't like the fact that their player got a tripping penalty when it wasn't deserved either. It goes both ways, you live by the sword, and you die by the sword.

I just can't imagine you being this upset when the other team is given a penalty that they did not deserve because the ref thought Burrows was tripped.
But the difference is, that happens all the time. Like you said, you win some you lose some. Trips are called when they tripped player "helps" the call all the time. Rarely does a player get singled out for not even attempting to do anything that would be considered diving. I truly believe Burrows comments because they were seemingly confirmed from the calls of the game

I realize it happens all the time, and I hate it. Hell I have seen a Flames player do it twice this season and it pissed me off. 

I believe the NHL were on the right track when they used to fine players for diving, unfortunately the NHLPA whines about it(surprise surprise) and it came to a quick halt. I don't see them bringing it back, but if refs start getting more liberal with diving calls, and maybe a guy gets a couple he doesn't deserve, diving will slowly find it's way out of the game. I don't really see that happening, but that would be great if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The league already addressed Auger's blown call in the Nashville game, it talks about Burrows faking an injury to draw the 5 minute major.

That's the problem, as long as Burrows is doing stuff like this he will get a reputation. Officials don't like to be embarrassed, Burrows had this coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having cheered for a team with Todd Bertuzzi on it last year, no I don't like it, but it is a part of the game. As long as Burrows insists on diving, his repuation will get worse and more of these questionable calls will happen.

As for a ref telling a player he is going to get him back, yeah that is bush league. However at this point there is zero proof of Auger saying that, we only have one side of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


bigchief wrote:

The_Don']Lack of discipline? If what he did on the "dive" was a penalty, there would be 20 powerplays a game.

The Canucks killed the "diving" penalty, I was referring to the interference call on Burrows, that is the one that cost them and he did interfere, therefore, lack of discipline and poor sportsmanship. Do you think he would be freaking out if the Canucks won the game? He is freaking out about the powerplay that cost the game in which he
did
interfere to get the penalty. When the game is on the line and you cannot risk going on the PK, you have to be
extra
careful and Burrows wasn't.

I think Auger is a terrible ref and if he gets reprimanded, he's got it coming too, but Burrows can't take the high ground on this one and expect any support from people other than Canuck fans IMO.

First of all, on the interference, It was incidental contact on both sides. They bumped into each other. That play happens 10 times a game with no call. I am confident that no call would have been made had it not been Auger and Burrows involved 10 times out of 10.

Secondly, Yes I do think Burrows would being making a big deal of it even if we had won the game. This is beyond the game last night, it's a bigger issue.

I've seen similar penalties called this year, even a couple times against the Flames. It is frustrating, but that wasn't the first time a penalty like that has been called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Kristian_Huselius']Curious to see the outcome of this scenario. I didn't see the play so I will refrain from running Burrows into the ground.

Wow. That's a first. laugh.gif

$2,500 fine for Burrows today. Understandable. No word or action on Auger yet.

Yes there is, this was posted a while ago on TSN.

As far as the NHL is concerned, it's case closed.

Stephane Auger won't be fined or suspended by the National Hockey League for allegedly threatening Vancouver Canucks forwardAlex Burrows.

The evidence isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


Kristian_Huselius']Well Burrows has been fined and TSN is reporting there will be no repercussion for Auger.

Right or wrong, I still haven't seen the play, I will say its better its happening to the Nucks (than the Flames) as you KNOW the refs will be all over them for every little thing now. I think everyone knows that when you get a penalties you have to suck it up. Its not right, but it beats all the other unnecessary penalties that follow.

You all seem to be talking about this like he was simply complaining about a couple bad calls against him. It's not the calls that are trouble, but rather that AUger has a history with Burrows and told him he was going to "get him back".

No, Burrows alleges Auger told him he was going to "get him back".

Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow think Iginla has the potential to get back to his game IF the experiment (with Jokinen and Tanguay) works. I wouldn't be overly shocked if he goes back to 90 points and 50 goals. That being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if he gets another 70 points and 30 goals. His is the riskier proposition.

Luongo will almost certainly improve; I can't see his numbers staying the same from last year. He will bounce back a bit at least. However, given past performance and his lack of a significant D-man (not to say Vancouver doesn't have good d-men, just no big star d-man) tells me he won't achieve a top 5 performance.

In other words: Luongo is the safer bet, but if Iginla performs it will be to a higher level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The_Don wrote:


kutarna']I somehow think Iginla has the potential to get back to his game IF the experiment (with Jokinen and Tanguay) works. I wouldn't be overly shocked if he goes back to 90 points and 50 goals. That being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if he gets another 70 points and 30 goals. His is the riskier proposition.

Luongo will almost certainly improve; I can't see his numbers staying the same from last year. He will bounce back a bit at least. However, given past performance and his lack of a significant D-man (not to say Vancouver doesn't have good d-men, just no big star d-man) tells me he won't achieve a top 5 performance.

In other words: Luongo is the safer bet, but if Iginla performs it will be to a higher level.

Luongo doesn't need a superstar goalie in front of him to be top 5. Look at the top 2 goalies last season, neither Miller nor Bryzgalov had a superstar in front of them. But rather, deep and solid defensively. Exactly what the Canucks is now.

Sorry, this might be bad taste, but I just love this comment. First of all, you present a valid point. However:

-I should hope Luongo doesn't need another goalie in front of him. That would be sad. 2 goalies? Is that even allowed?

-Second; "exactly what the Canucks is now"? Are they a collective noun all of a sudden? smile.gif

Now that I've mangled your typos, to address you actual point. You are correct, neither Miller nor Bryzgalov had a superstar in front of them. However, they both play in strong defensive systems, much to their advantage. Luongo isn't so lucky. Saying that the Canucks D core is "deep and solid" is akin to claiming Calgary's forwards are "deep and solid" and that should be sufficient to score loads of goals. Luongo had a player's rear parked in his face for much of the season, and that hurts performance. Without some serious physical presence from the D, he will not achieve top 5 stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that Iginla can potentially make a much larger difference as he's coming from a very bad season (for the Flames anyways). Luongo may have a significant impact, however the Canucks are coming of a great season. What I mean is that I doubt things can get worse for the Flames whereas the Canucks have a much better chance of regressing.

The stakes are higher for Iginla and that is both an advantage and disadvantage; he may fail or he may light up the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha good call. Caught at my own game. Oh well...

And maybe I should re-phrase what I was saying Don, there is little doubt that the Canuck's defense will improve from last season, however the question is how much? Personally, I doubt its going to be by leaps and bounds. Ballard and Hamhuis and an upgrade over Mitchell and for sure. But neither is known for their overt physicality or crease-clearing ability. The Canucks are still without a player who will deal with the Byfuglien-types who plant themselves on Lou all season long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason the Canucks did so well offensively was it was a combination of basically everyone's career years. The likelihood of that happening again is slim. I don't think the Flames are going to surpass them offenseively, but I doubt the gap will be so huge.

Good post Mikael_Backlund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do like the Torres signing (from the Canucks perspective). It is a low-cost player who can be physical (something lacking last year) and still pot 20-25 goals. For $1M, that's a great deal. The only real downside to the deal is that it potentially keeps someone like Hodgson out of the lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "...at the end of the day, we've got to realize we have to take care of our own end first. All three goals were in the slot area. Unfortunately on the last one, I stopped the first four [shots] and only got a piece of the fifth one."

Source

I guess what you think of this comment depends on the interpretation. I remember the media made a huge deal about this. Having never seen the exact quote before, I thought it was worse than this (probably because of the media hype). Sounds pretty rude and immature but not vicious. He goes on to explain that he wasn't trying to throw anyone under the bus and was trying to point out how the team could improve.

"I didn't throw anybody under the bus. I was smiling when I said I stopped the first four. I also said I could have made a couple more saves, too. Maybe nobody quoted that part of what I said."

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Luongo+backs+criticism+defence+after+loss+Canadiens/2519266/story.html#ixzz0zhfuI38H'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...