AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 09/10 (II): We're very perverse

[Ben Kenobi]

My assessment was that Luongo faced far more good scoring chances than Kipper did but that the the two goals against Luongo were more capable of being stopped than those scored on Kipper-- That Sedin passing play was really NICE

I agree with your assessment that the Calgary offense outplayed Vancouver. However, since the game ended in a tie after OT, the logical statment would be that Kipper was outplayed by Luongo.

Or are you willing to concede that the Canucks weren't outplayed on offense? It's either/or.

[Ben Kenobi]

Canucks are so incredibly despicable.

Yeah, you don't see why Iginla is way more of a thug. I remember last time he injured someone deliberately, you brushed it off.

[Asher]

As I said Luongo outplayed Kipper and almost stole one away. Flames really came to play, but the result was inconclusive.

The result was conclusive...Calgary won.

[Asher]

Yeah, you don't see why Iginla is way more of a thug. I remember last time he injured someone deliberately, you brushed it off.

You are so incredibly stupid. Blows me away every time you open your mouth. Job well done. Best village idiot I've ever seen.

[Asher]

I agree with your assessment that the Calgary offense outplayed Vancouver. However, since the game ended in a tie after OT, the logical statment would be that Kipper was outplayed by Luongo.

Or are you willing to concede that the Canucks weren't outplayed on offense? It's either/or.

Amazing intellect on display here.

Goalies are defined by their ability to keep pucks out of the net. Both Luongo and Kipper let 2 goals in regulation and OT get by them. In the shootout, Luongo let all 3 goals in...Kipper didn't. To say Luongo outplayed Kipper when he failed his team in the shootout is typical Canucks fan awesomeness. Keep up the good work.

[Asher]

Canucks fans

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/burrows-tosses-live-grenade-at-nhl/article1429048/

Also yesterday, Vancouver hockey fans lit up talk shows questioning the NHL’s neutrality. Roughly 70 per cent of respondents to a Team 1040 AM poll said that they believed the Canucks were a “marked” team by the NHL.

Auger ejected Burrows from a game in Montreal last season, but is most notable for accusing Phoenix Coyotes forward Shane Doan of uttering an anti-Francophone comment in 2005. The NHL investigated and absolved Doan of wrongdoing.

Burrows, meanwhile, is no angel. The fifth-year forward has a reputation as one of the mouthiest players in the league, and he is not above a strategic dive if it will draw a penalty or knock an opponent off his game.

“Seeing the player this is coming from, I’m not surprised,” Montreal Canadiens enforcer Georges Laraque said.

“No one likes a tattletale,” Calgary Flames centre Craig Conroy added. “That’s kind of what it looked like to me. Maybe he’s got a valid point and if he does, then someone’s in big trouble.”

Bunch of children.

[Asher]

Can't wait to hear from Ben how Luongo invariably outplayed his opponent again tonight, before he got pulled after a couple of the worst goals I've seen in months.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can always tell when Luongo had a bad game, it's when Asher posts about him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Goalies are defined by their ability to keep pucks out of the net. Both Luongo and Kipper let 2 goals in regulation and OT get by them. In the shootout, Luongo let all 3 goals in...Kipper didn't. To say Luongo outplayed Kipper when he failed his team in the shootout is typical Canucks fan awesomeness. Keep up the good work.

Shootout as a measure of goaltending prowess is just as valid in Hockey as in Soccer.

[Asher]

Can always tell when Luongo had a bad game, it's when Asher posts about him.

I've got him in my pool. He's killing me with his ineptitude.

[Asher]

Shootout as a measure of goaltending prowess is just as valid in Hockey as in Soccer.

Yes. And it's valid in soccer too, if the shootout is part of the game. Dumbass.

[Ben Kenobi]

No coach chooses a keeper based on his prowess in the shootout.

[Asher]

No coach chooses a keeper based on his prowess in the shootout.

If it's not a factor given how many games go to shootouts in today's NHL, that coach should be fired.

The media is starting to turn more sensible re: the Burrows thing. People have suddenly realized the guy is an immense douche with a history of lacking integrity. His word is not to be believed.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/750559--critics-take-aim-at-burrows

Critics take aim at Burrows
Colleagues back Auger as Canuck's detractors highlight his penchant for diving, ref baiting

Referee Stephane Auger is off the hook, and now it's Vancouver Canucks forward Alex Burrows who must fend off the critics.

Those critics allege a history of diving and railing against the refs, including the fact he was suspended in 2003 for spearing an official in the ECHL.

"Let's adjust the halos here," said former NHL director of officiating Bryan Lewis. "It seems the guys in stripes are always wrong unless they can prove themselves right."

In a post-game rant, Burrows accused Auger of having it in for him, of calling penalties against him that cost the Canucks Monday's home game against Nashville.

The NHL fined Burrows $2,500 (U.S.), automatic for criticizing officials.

On Wednesday, the league closed the book on its investigation of Burrows' claims and exonerated Auger.

"We have determined that Mr. Burrows' account of referee Auger's comments to him before the game, and specifically Burrows' suggestion that these comments indicated bias against the player or the Vancouver team, cannot be substantiated," said NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell.

Reached in his Calgary hotel room, Auger declined comment.

"I hired him," said Lewis. "I know him as being a good, young official. I would hire him again tomorrow. He's a very good young man. To see and read the headlines, I'm troubled by this. The whole implication is the referee is wrong."

Lewis, with more than 30 years of refereeing experience, lamented that some media outlets dredged up the fact Auger gave Phoenix captain Shane Doan a misconduct for offensive anti-French language in a game in Montreal.

Lewis pointed out it was the linesman who called the misconduct and Auger simply delivered the penalty to the timekeeper.

Lewis said the focus shouldn't be on Auger's credibility, but that of Burrows, saying the tape that showed the two talking before the game indicated Auger's innocence.

"What I'm led to believe, the conversation (between Auger and Burrows) was: `Instead of doing that (diving), why don't you just play hockey and let me referee.'

"It was very generic," said Lewis. "You can see on the tape, it doesn't look like there's any malice or heated discussion within that."

Lewis said if Auger had threatened Burrows, then Burrows should have acted sooner.

"I can't think of any player who wouldn't high-tail it to his coach and say: `I've got to tell you what this guy said to me.' Then it would be handled internally and not in the manner that it was."

Lewis, who mentors officials in the ECHL, says Burrows has a history of diving and was suspended in the minors for spearing a referee.

He said officials note which players "fall down easy" in their post-game reports, information that is shared with other officials.

"(Divers) make your job tougher," he said. "And you're questioning my integrity the moment you do it."

Burrows said Auger told him he would get back at him for an incident Dec. 8, when Auger refereed a Nashville-Vancouver game in which Auger called a penalty on the Preds' Jerred Smithson that was later rescinded when the league determined Burrows dove and embellished how much he was injured.

On Monday, Auger called three penalties – two minors and a misconduct – on Burrows in the third that led to Nashville's winning goal.

A player that fakes an injury in the hopes of drawing a major penalty is also a pariah, because it can often result in the penalized player wrongly being fined.

Referees don't like to be goaded into making calls. But they'd never carry a grudge, as Burrows alleged, said retired official Kerry Fraser.

"It's an inner conflict," Fraser told the Star's Rob Cribb.

"Somebody (ticks) you off, you get beat, fooled, how do you respond? The professional response is to be bigger than seeking retribution or payback. You certainly can't win in that."

Retired ref Dave Newell, a veteran of 23 seasons, said it's not outside the realm of possibility, "but you better not be making it obvious.

"I'd be shocked if a referee would be stupid enough, with cameras everywhere, to put a player on warning before the game," said Newell. "Some guys were a complete and utter pain in the (butt). You keep notes in the back of your mind. But you don't go gunning for somebody."

This article takes the Canucks to task:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/750557

Canuck's claims simply excuses and whining

Here's the problem from which Canadian hockey fans, in general, suffer.

They see what they perceive to be a bad call in a game, one that goes against their team. They scream their disagreement, but too often take it one step further.

They accuse the referee of making the bad call intentionally. It's a vendetta against their team; it's a conspiracy. And then everything goes off the rails.

How can a referee defend himself, particularly if he messed up in the first place? So the zebra says nothing – what can he say? – which means only the accusation is heard.

Loud and repeatedly.

One spring, Philadelphia president Ed Snider accused the referees in a playoff series against Toronto of being biased against the Flyers because one official was related to a Leaf employee. Last spring, after the Vancouver Canucks were beaten in the deciding game of their Stanley Cup playoff series against the Chicago Blackhawks, there were outrageous suggestions the league simply wanted the Hawks to win and so arranged the officiating to work against the Canucks.

Now, fast forward to the Alex Burrows/Stephane Auger incident.

Both the player and the official were, to varying degrees, at fault, although Burrows was fined $2,500 by the league and Auger was cleared because Burrows' allegations, according to a league statement Wednesday night, "cannot be substantiated."

Auger has learned a tough lesson here and his reputation has been damaged. He probably shouldn't have had a chat with Burrows before the game about an incident from a previous match.

To be fair, refs have these unofficial conversations all the time with players. Burrows, however, apparently isn't one of those players who believes what is said on the ice should stay on the ice.

Still, that conversation hardly looks like a threatening one on videotape. Auger has his arm around Burrows' shoulder in a friendly, almost fatherly way. At no point does Burrows look unnerved, or even startled, by something Auger has said. And he was so offended he told exactly no one.

But after two iffy calls went against Burrows late in the game – the first a reasonable penalty, the second a poor call – it gave Burrows a convenient chance to hang Auger out to dry.

And the perception, everything in sports as in politics, is lousy for the official.

But the key here is the suggestion that it wasn't just a bad call by Auger, or two bad calls. It was the implicit accusation they were intentional. He was out to get the player.

A vendetta. A conspiracy.

Just like the Canucks and Hawks last spring. Just like those fools who still insist Kerry Fraser intentionally screwed the Leafs in the 1993 Western Conference final.

And a good old Canadian hockey player would never lie.

But a ref would, right?

How Burrows is granted the high ground on this distasteful incident is anyone's guess. There was his abuse-of-official incident in the ECHL several years ago, and he has been called on the carpet by the NHL a few times.

It was his faking of an injury against Nashville in December that motivated Auger to have that pre-game conversation on Monday.

Did Auger make bad calls? They all do. Is he a lousy referee? He's clearly not one of the best. But incompetence is a far cry from intentionally using the whistle to dictate the result of an NHL game.

If Burrows had made his accusation after a Vancouver victory, it might hold more water. Otherwise, it's just excuses and whining, like the Grade 5 student who comes home with a bad report card and says the teacher hates him.

Sadly, it might mean Burrows' creative assortment of dives will now go unpunished, with other referees reluctant to be Auger-ized.

Burrows can question calls all he wants. But being the boy who called conspiracy is just the worst kind of gamesmanship, pandering to the worst instincts of hockey fans.

If you want to accuse a referee of deliberately trying to decide a game, come up with better evidence than a player who just helped lose the game.

[Flubber]

The NHL exonerated Auger because they essentially had to. The word of one player, unsubstantiated, against the word of an official. The only facts in Burrows favor were that some of the calls looked awful but frankly I have seen worse. So no shock in how this ended.

Oh and I used to referee and while I was never ever out to "get " a player, the officials did share information about who we had seen playing dirty or diving or whatnot. Once identified as such, it would take a clearer foul against you to get the call and your borderline hits would probably be called where a known "clean player" gets the benefit of the doubt. I saw no problem with this

[Flubber]

Luongo-- simply a bad night-- They all have one from time to time

Kipper was not bad last night at all but he did get outplayed by Fleury (37 saves IIRC)-- The Flames again dominated the game but don't take my word for it -- ask Syd the Kid who was quoted as saying that "Fleury stole that game for us"

In any event, I am disappointed with the loss but if the Flames can keep playing this way, it will not be an issue-- they will win LOTS of games