| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 02:24:19
Yup, admittedly, i'm worried! Even though i picked the Canucks in 5 in our little contest here, i've not been too comfortable about our matchup since it was confirmed! Not sure what it is, but they just don't seem to be the team they were for the majority of the reg season? I have a ton of friends jumping on the "start Schneider" bangwagon, but that 's the least of my worries! I have no problem with Luongo at this point as most of the goals i don't find to be "weak". I just don't see the "want" in these guys! I've noticed since game 1 that the Sedin's, more than ever, seem to stay clear of ANY physical play (when they can?). They really seem to lack the desire to pay the price. I don't care if a guy doesn't wanna throw a hit, but you'd better be able to take one to make a play!!!
Hard to figure. I mean, with their respective records,there's NO way in the world the Canucks could/should lose more than a game, maybe two, but now i'm worried!!!
Def not giving up on them, but the pressure is mounting huge on them as they roll into Chi-town for game 6!
Nuxfan, hope you didnt' spend too much on the tix for tonights game???
Gotta keep cheering, gotta keep smilin'.......... |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest0859 |
Posted - 04/27/2011 : 03:27:46
Oh my goodness I am so relieved.
It's three in the morning and my voice is hoarse. My TV is fine, I don't need stithches in my hand or my face and I don't have to be an Islanders fan.
Bring on Nashville. For some reason I have less stress on this series than I did for Chi.
Enjoy the rest of the playoffs PUH! |
| sealz19 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 23:20:11
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Beans....yes, 3-2 would be equittable, but you've mentioned 2 calls missed in Chi's favour and on that video alone, there were 5 or more against the Canucks including that ice clearing scenario which, for the record, isn't supposed to happen in OT on an icing call. I don't recall the two you mention so i can't say that they were as BLATANT as the one's i've mentioned. H. Sedin apparently got "slew footed" by someone as well, though i don't recall that particular one (it was mentioned by Keith Jones on the "panel" i believe). I'm not here to argue so i'll try to end it with this post. I just don't know, like i just mentioned, how you can feel it was equitable, when "true neutral minds, not Canuck hating ones, have come out and said the reffing in game 6 favoured the Hawks...". I'm just trying to point out that it's not a homer / biased opinion, when it's an opinion shared by most of the hockey minds who have NO TIES to either team!!!! I'm baffled you can't see that side of it!
Anyway, i'm hoping that the refs go unnoticed tonight and let the players decide the outcome. I'm off, leaving work early, my nerves need a cold one (or 4) before i walk into that building!!!
Enjoy the game everyone and,
GO HABS GO
GO CANUCKS GO
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 19:06:17
Alex, I think it will be hard to see you at the stadium. I bet there will be about 18,000 fans crying into their 5th beer.
Do me a favour and pin that $50 you will owe me after tonight to your hat. I will be able to see you then!!
Go Hawks!! |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 18:56:19
1st goal is gonna be HUGE Alex. |
| Guest4615 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 16:03:48
Go hawks go You deserve to win.. You havent choked....Lou is so overrated and looked really bad on that OT goal... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 14:49:58
Beans....yes, 3-2 would be equittable, but you've mentioned 2 calls missed in Chi's favour and on that video alone, there were 5 or more against the Canucks including that ice clearing scenario which, for the record, isn't supposed to happen in OT on an icing call. I don't recall the two you mention so i can't say that they were as BLATANT as the one's i've mentioned. H. Sedin apparently got "slew footed" by someone as well, though i don't recall that particular one (it was mentioned by Keith Jones on the "panel" i believe). I'm not here to argue so i'll try to end it with this post. I just don't know, like i just mentioned, how you can feel it was equitable, when "true neutral minds, not Canuck hating ones, have come out and said the reffing in game 6 favoured the Hawks...". I'm just trying to point out that it's not a homer / biased opinion, when it's an opinion shared by most of the hockey minds who have NO TIES to either team!!!! I'm baffled you can't see that side of it!
Anyway, i'm hoping that the refs go unnoticed tonight and let the players decide the outcome. I'm off, leaving work early, my nerves need a cold one (or 4) before i walk into that building!!!
Enjoy the game everyone and,
GO HABS GO
GO CANUCKS GO |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 14:44:38
Okay – I haven't quite left town (or this forum) just yet!
Beans – you're becoming an expert at the "Mississippi Sidestep" where you repeatedly make your same point, and overlook anyone else's point.
Let me ask you to address your comment about Mike Gillis's rant, where you specifically stated that his comments were giving his team and the Vancouver fans an excuse if they lose.
Would you say the same about Gretzky's rant? That's the question. I suspect you will try to demonstrate the difference between the two rants, and while this might win you a debating contest, most people would see that the rants had the same purpose, and that is to fire up their hockey teams. (And showing their absolute frustration at the same time.)
It worked in Gretzky's case, and I hardly think anyone thought Gretzky was lining up an excuse for the Canadian team (and their fans) to use in case Canada was knocked out of the Olympics. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 14:27:46
It's really easy to say it is being equitably called. Without establishing any more missed calls by going back and looking through video of the games in super slo-motion and mulitple angles to which a ref does not have access to during the game, 3 bad calls for the Canucks, 2 bad calls for the Hawks. Is that not equiable??? I didn't say equal, I said equitable.
The calls were missed, and I never argued that. But calls have been missed on both sides and that's the point. The bad reffing is bad reffing. Bad reffing does not favour one side or the other. You can't call foul on a Vancouver call when there is a Chicago call as well. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 14:22:05
To continue on my last posting, I'm not suggesting Mike Gillis has the same stature as Wayne Gretzky, but his comments are definitely appreciated by his coach and players.
And admittedly, these things are remembered when they work, like when Messier "guaranteed" a game six victory in a best of seven series with the Devils. So only time (and not much time) will tell if Gillis's rant inspired the Canucks to a game seven victory.
(I now bid adieu to this forum, so if Beans has a good rebuttal, I will have to get back to him.) I'm off to New York for 10 days, and while my hopes of seeing a Rangers playoff game have been sidelined, I'm pulling for a Philadelphia win over Buffalo, in order to catch a Flyers game in round 2!)
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 14:14:26
Beans, again, the refs are not costing the Canucks this series, BUT, i have to admit, after seeing that clip that was very cleverly put together (and admittedly somewhat biased), i do feel the reffing was very poor in game 6 and did in fact favour Chicago. I really wish Vancouver got a real cheap goal in OT so that i could show you that you're wrong as you'd likely see many posts on here and elsewhere saying just what you said you never see. "The Canucks won despite the poor reffing.....".  Sure, i just mentioned 3, but those were the absolutely blatant ones, front and center, right in front of the refs. Can you honestly, as an intelligent hockey fan, explain to me how NONE of the three were called? Don't forget the other one's i've left out (Kesler cross checked, Sedin slew footed, the decision to clear the ice after an icing call, etc).
Beans, how is it that true neutral minds, not Canuck hating ones, have come out and said the reffing in game 6 favoured the Hawks, and yet you've seen an "equittably called series"???
You need not preach to me about how calls even out and how reffing is a poor excuse for losses. I'm in agreement, always have been. BUT, that's not to say i can't have an opinion that the calls in game 6 favoured Chicago. Like i said, these things even out and maybe the Canucks get the breaks tonight?
As for Gillis' comments, i still don't have a problem with them and i actually do believe they "can" have an impact on reffing. In fact, it's been done by coaches and GM's all over the league over the years. Lindy Ruff made similar comments the other day in fact, so it's not as though Gillis came up with some moronic idea that's never been done before??? Your opinion, it's ridiculous / stupid, so be it. But i betcha somewhere in the past, an Oiler coach has done EXACTLY that!
FTR, i too never implied that Vancouver was being penalized unfairly earlier in this series and in fact felt they deserved most of the penalties they took. I was simply defending AV when you claimed he is a poor coach who's losing/lost control of his team and that they were taking costly penalties by explaining that the way i saw it was those penalties weren't costly because the game was out of reach. That's all.... |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 14:05:28
Sorry Beans, I don't agree with a number of your points, and for a lot of reasons.
First of all, many posters (including Nuxfan, Alex, etc.) made the comments about the bad officiating BEFORE Mike Gillis's rant.
The majority of people commenting about the lopsided officiating in Game 6 are not suggesting that officiating is the reason why this series is tied 3-3. You keep saying that "bad calls even out over time," but while this may be true most of the time, it's not true all of the time.
And most posters are not blaming the Canucks woes on the bad officiating. It's just stating the obvious, and what took place in Game 6 was obviously bad officiating, and just like bad playing or bad coaching, it deserves to be mentioned.
And as far as Mike Gillis's rant goes, from what I've heard, he's the only one in Vancouver ranting – the coach isn't, and the players are not blaming the officiating for their situation. (And most of their reasonable fans are not.)
A little bit of history on rants though. Gretzky did it at the 2002 Olympics, just after a game where he felt the Canadians got the short end of the stick. I think Theoren Fleury was cross-checked in front of the net, and I seem to recall that it was Hamrlik who cross-checked him.
The point is that Gretzky's rant was credited with inspiring a bit of "us against the world" mentality with the players, and many people (fans, media, and even players) credited this as the turning point of the Olympics. The Canadians, of course, went on to win the Gold Medal at the 2002 Olympics. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 13:28:54
quote:
Just a few days ago both you and Nuxfan were defending AV and saying that Vancouver is not getting any more penalties than normal.
er no, thats not quite what I said. I was defending the fact that Vancouver's penalties have for the most part not hurt them this year like they did last year. They've taken plenty of penalties, I was simply illustrating that the bulk of them have come when the games in question are far out of reach and penalties can no longer hurt you in the game.
I have not had a problem with the reffing in games 1-5 of this series, for the most part it was equitable and generally fair. I did have a problem with the reffing in game 6, which we have talked about. From what I've seen in the media (local and otherwise), and from Gillis's rant, I would say I'm not the only one. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 13:02:56
Alex, I think you should know that through my 6000+ posts I don't complain about the refs. Not for my team or any other team. Refs are people and make mistakes. Every other person connected with the sport of hockey get a pass for the mistakes they make with the exception of Gary Bettman and the refs. Mike Milbury can trade Chara and Spezza for Yashin and he is fine. Players can signed multi-million dollar contracts and crap the bed for the rest of their careers and that's fine. But if a ref should miss a single call, someone better get a noose ready.
Point being, bad calls and good call even out over time. I truly do not believe that Vancouver hasn't gotten any substantial impact from penalties. Just a few days ago both you and Nuxfan were defending AV and saying that Vancouver is not getting any more penalties than normal. In fact, it was in this thread!! To your defense, you have not blamed the penalties. But it's not like magically the refs were worse because Gillis said so!!
To that point, Gillis is not taking pressure of his team, he is giving his team and the Vancouver fans an excuse. His statements were not ridiculous to the point that they were wrong. He has a right to his opinion. They were ridiculous because the impact they have is stupid. Why give your team an out?? Why not take your message to the players and tell them to pull their panties out of the a$$ cracks and play through the penalties like true champions always do.
Bad reffing is a crap excuse. It is simply impossible that the team that loses always had crap reffing. You just never hear people say things like, "They won despite the poor reffing."
I am truly believe this series has been called equitable. Not good or bad, but similar for both teams. If it was a penalty for Vancouver it was a penalty for Chicago and visa versa. You noted three non- calls against Chicago. I already noted two non-calls against Vancouver and I am sure I could find a pile more.
Canucks, stop making excuse and play the game. |
| Sensfan101 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 12:58:30
Do making comments like that really help your team? I heard Pierre Mcguire say something interesting this morning, you never hear about people from Detroit doing that sort of stuff.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 10:12:11
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Really, the Gillis comments were easily the most rediculous statements made all season by anyone in the NHL. It's typical from what comes out of Vancouver's teams. It's never their fault, it is always someone else's fault. I wonder if Gillis took the time to review the 'video' that he has discussed and counted up all of the calls that didn't go in Chicago's favour?? I doubt it.
C'mon Canuck hater, take those "ridiculous" comments for what they were. An attempt to take pressure of his team. If the tide were turned, and it was Bowman doing this, i find it hard to believe you'd classify the comments as anything other than brilliant!  I agree with Slozo, it might just be enough to earn them a call in a crucial game. Also, it's funny how i've watched numerous sports media guys discuss game 6 and they've ALL said the reffing was in favour of Chicago! Again, i certainly don't blame the way this series has gone, but the refs certainly didn't do the Canucks any favours in game 6, that's a given!
Beans, just curious, did you watch that vid i linked? I know, very biased, but until i see something like it showing all the missed calls the other way, i have to figure it was a little one sided.
The high stick to sedin, the punch to Burrows and the charging by Bickell were ALL so blatant / obvious that i'm at a loss for how not a single one was called!
On a side note, Bickell's apparently done for the playoffs after having surgery on his wrist (an injury that he'd been playing with?). Seems strange, he's been very effective and suddenly can't play through it?
Another thought would be this.....If he'd been suspended for the hit on Bieksa, and then had surgery and was out anyway, would the suspension carry over? I'm guessing not as he could maybe have waited to have the surgery? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 09:38:51
Really, the Gillis comments were easily the most rediculous statements made all season by anyone in the NHL. It's typical from what comes out of Vancouver's teams. It's never their fault, it is always someone else's fault. I wonder if Gillis took the time to review the 'video' that he has discussed and counted up all of the calls that didn't go in Chicago's favour?? I doubt it.
Regardless of him being right or wrong, it comes across like whining.
Prediction:
The Vancouver fans are rowdy and ready to explode. Vancouver will own the play for the first few minutes but Crawford weathers the storm. Vancouver takes a penalty (justified) and Chicago scores on the PP on a goal that Luongo should have stopped. The crowd gets quite very quickly. First period ends 1-0.
The second period starts with Chicago out like a house on fire. Vancouver weathers the storm. Reasonably un-eventful afterwards. Second period ends 1-0.
Vancouver plays tense hockey for the first 1/2 of the period and gives up a goal making it 2-0 Chicago. Vancouver shakes it off and controls the play for the next 5 or so minutes and scores a greasy goal to give the fans hope. The final 5 minutes is the best hockey of the season for either team. They pull Luongo for the extra attacker in the final 1:10 and the Crawford completely robs Kesler on a sure goal. Hossa ices the game with an empty netter with about 25 seconds left.
Hawks win - 3 -1 |
| n/a |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 05:00:47
Lovely to see the angst to Canuck fans littered about here like remananta of a Saturday night drinking binge . . .
. . . some comments:
1) most pivotal game of Luongo's career
This might be what decides it all going forward . . . and it isn't often that a game 7 in the FIRST ROUND is that game, but here it is for the Canucks. The much maligned Luongo has to come up with a win, and very good play, otherwise it'll be a loooong summer of trade rumours and backbiting. I think he should look at it like this: one great game, and you are golden. At any rate, Luongo was named as the starter if I read it correctly this morning.
2) The GM comments on the reffing should have an evening effect . . . that is, it should even out the reffing which has probably not been in Vancouver;s favour. Part of it is the team they are playing is seen as disciplined ex champs; part of it is that Vancouver has a bad reputation, especially in the playoffs, with taking bad penalties. Hopefully we see a good game called, and I think we will. Please don't let this one be decided by a ref!
3) It would be an UPSET, but not a HUGE upset, if Chicago wins. Not often that one can say that when it's a dominating presdient's trophy winner versus the 8th seed, but it's the reigning champ Hawks, and they have winning pedigree, so it ups their status a whole lot as an underdog.
It would be an enormous COMEBACK, however - obviously, as it would join the few other great comebacks from a 3-0 defecit, as last year's Philly team can attest to.
4) The one thing to watch for that no one is talking about:
Rookie goalie in his first ever game 7. Will Crawford continue to make those big saves and at least equal Luongo on the other end? With no pressure on him it's easier, granted . . . but still, he has never been in this position before, and where there was no pressure before . . . I'd have to wager there certainly is some now for Crawford in this situation. Even good rookies like Crawford (he has played very well thus far) can fold like a rented chair.
I predict at least one soft goal here.
5) Predictions!
Ok, I cannot resist . . . so after weighing all factors, and giving it lots of thought . . . . I predict . . . .
Vancouver 6 - Chicago 3
Luongo doesn't steal the game, Crawford is pulled after the 4th goal, and Vancouver's offence dominates throughout.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest0859 |
Posted - 04/26/2011 : 04:01:50
Do any other Canucks fans cringe when they think of goalies playing the puck?
To Cory Schneider
Please never ever ever touch the puck again, unless it's flying at you at accelerated speeds. Ever.
Thank you.
We can talk about these penalties, lopsided or not, all we want but if the Canucks knew these secret rules that I know, they would have won this game.
Secret Rule # 1
Open net = Goal
Secret Rule # 2
Don't touch the f***ing puck you f***ing rookie goalie
Very sorry, just so angry, deflated, and disheartened by that game. I think I've given up on the Nucks. Let's go Islanders, right? Stanley cup 2017! f*** me.
Well here comes game 7 and as much as I hate to admit it, I think the Blackhawks are going to win. I'm thinking that sonuvabitch Patrick Kane is going to score a hat trick in the first six minutes of the game. Then I will wake up at three in the morning on the living room floor with my fist and my TV both broken with shards of glass in my head and face and I mark my calendar the next day with a reminder to go an Islanders jersey.
Goodbye Vancouver Canucks. I will miss you.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 22:30:23
Lol nuxfan, did you make this vid???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCvAcNvC1qo&feature=player_embedded
Obvioulsy quite biased, but does show the poor officiating, that's for sure! I'd almost forgotten about that Scott ogre punching Burrows in front of the net with no consequence! Amazing Burrows kept his cool, though, not much he could do with that dude!!! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 19:49:39
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
There was also the puck being cleared into the bench by Chicago that was questionable in the 3rd and was ruled as not a penalty.
Forgot to reply to this part of your post earlier Beans. I was praying that was a penalty and was surprised they didn't show a replay, but i have to assume they got the call right or else the Canucks would have been complaining like mad for sure? AND, you'd have heard about that from the GM today in his rant!!! |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 17:15:37
[quote]Originally posted by nuxfan
It looks like I'm not the only one that thought the reffing was suspect...
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+Mike+Gillis+blasts+over+uneven+officiating+team+faces+Game/4672369/story.html
Just keeps adding to the intrigue for game 7!
[/quote/
Not surprised to hear Mike Gillis's comments about the officiating in game six. (Just saw him on CBC after the first period of the Penguins-Lightning game.) There were not the same number of bad calls both ways, which is oftentimes the case when one team is facing elimination. In an earlier posting, I provided a few examples where referees seemed to favour a team battling to make the playoffs, and when they were facing a team which had nothing to gain and/or the opposing team was already out of playoff contention.
When I state that it "seems" like officials do show a bias sometimes, I'm not suggesting there's some kind of conspiracy, or that the league wants certain teams to advance, or the
league wants to see a game seven. But referees are human, and sometimes human nature takes over.
I remember seeing a report which showed that teams who were down two or more goals were given a power play significantly more than half the time. And also, that home ice teams were provided more power play opportunities than visiting teams, or that teams who just received three or more calls against them, usually got the next call in their favour.
Getting back to game six, I can't see how anyone (without a bias or money on line) could think that there was an even number of bad calls both ways. And I'm not surprised to hear Mike Gillis's comments.
That's all I have to say about officiating. The Canucks lost game six, and officiating was not the reason why. Players and teams need to control the factors they can, and things which are within their control. Like strong goaltending, fewer turnovers, more disciplined play, etc. And the team which does that will usually come out on top! |
| The Duke |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 16:39:40
Luongo better get his act together for game 7...not saying its all his fault but if he is ever going to have the game of his life it better be the next one.
Chicago still has nothing to lose after being down 3 games to zip, the tide is surely on their side. Vancouver better score the FIRST goal or this could get ugly. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 16:21:24
Not surprising, and it's prob a good move by him. It certainly can't hurt? Could even possibly "buy" them a call tomorrow night.
More than likely, he's legitimately pissed, but is prob trying to take the focus/pressure of his team more than anything. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 16:09:27
It looks like I'm not the only one that thought the reffing was suspect...
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canucks+Mike+Gillis+blasts+over+uneven+officiating+team+faces+Game/4672369/story.html
Just keeps adding to the intrigue for game 7! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 14:47:43
The disagree comment was intended in jest.
Chicago has far more to lose now than they did a week ago. No doubt about it. It will be far more heartbreaking for that team to lose game 7 after winning 4,5 and 6 than if they had just rolled over and died in game 4. That might be a bigger long term impact to that team if the fought all the way back to even only to lose again.
There will be a significant pressure on all sticks tomorrow night, regardless of the jersey. However, as Alex said, I can't imagine that building if Chicago scores a cheapie and then puts the clamps on. A 1-0 loss, regardless of the goalie, on a cheap goal would crush that franchise. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 14:40:51
As much as i hate to admit it, this is pretty brilliant!
Be sure to scroll down to the "Click here to listen" in blue.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/luongo-weeps-tonight/?amp& |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 14:29:12
oh don't get me wrong, the Canucks have pressure galore. But for the first time since game 3, the Hawks have something to lose, and they know they're on the edge of some history. If you think they'll be freewheeling with a "come what may" attitude tomorrow you'd be mistaken. I've been in similar situations before with sports, and I have felt pressure in that situation - I'm sure they do to. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 14:03:52
The "back to disagreeing" comment surely must be directed at nuxfan, cuz i'm 100% in agreement that the pressure is on Vancouver, COMPLETELY!!! In fact, i'm scared sh*ttless right now 
Chicago could come in here and get blown out 10-0 tomorrow (please, please, please ) and still get credit for what they've done to this point! They have nothing to lose, as Vancouver has everything to lose!!!
As much as home ice is supposed to be an advantage, in this case is could work against them! Imagine for a second what it will be like in that arena if they give up an early goal? And, what if it's a weak one, by Luongo??? Yikes.
I'm nervous as i could possibly be with the way things have gone here! Hope the cops are ready for some ugliness downtown should they lose as i'm sure the "idiot" fans will be out in full force! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 13:54:14
Ok, back to disagreeing!
I still see the pressure on the Canucks as they were supposed to win handily. We are talking about the President's Trophy winning team against a group that needed another team to lose on the last day of the season just to make the playoffs. We are talking about a team that had a 3-0 series lead.
If the Canucks lose, rightly or wrongly, they will be discussed as one of, if not the biggest choke artists in the history of the NHL. If Chicago loses, rightly or wrongly, they will be discussed as the team that put a scare into the Canucks. Coaches and players jobs are on the line in Vancouver but not in Chicago and the game is also in Vancouver.
The pressure is still on the Canucks. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 13:17:36
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ok, a number of things:
1 - Alex, I never said you were wearing any kind of glasses at all. My point was clearly and specifically to Nuxfan who still has not acknowledged the slough-foot or the slash on Toews. That is where the glasses come in. Some can see there were missed calls for both sides, not just the Canucks. I have cited two very clear and specific examples of calls that also could have or should have been called against the Canucks and not a single person has acknowledged those plays. No one. That is baised, is it not??
Beans, i hope you didn't take offense to my "orca glasses" comment, it was meant in jest, but at the same time, it was meant to point out that a "homer", or person wearing _____(insert type or colour) glasses, is often called biased but the guy arguing the other point isn't. I mean, you're an admitted NON fan of the Canucks, to the point where you've admitted you can't stand them, therefore, is it not fair to say you're a fan of ANY team playing them? I just compare your take on the Bieksa hit and compare it to your take on the Seabrook hit and it's clear that you're wearing "human" glasses (sorry, but as far as i know, the Orca's main enemy would be us humans).
As for the hits you mentioned, i too don't recall the slew foot by Edler, but there's a good chance if it was in the 2nd, that i was busy manning the BBQ (missed half that period). Agreed, the slash on Toews was missed, though it's a lot easier for a ref to call a slash when a stick is snapped in two, rather than just knocked out of someone's hand.
Still think the Bickell hit should have been a charge (clearly jumped into the hit) and there's no way the ref could claim he didn't see it (he was staring right at the play). Doesn't really matter, as i think i've made it clear that i don't think the refs cost the Canucks game 6.
Nice to see Burrows play likely his best game thus far, but he could have been the hero if he finished that chance he had into a yawning cage!!! Damn near started crying when he didn't finish that! 
Game 7, ouch. Not sure i can take it. Pretty sad when you're THIS into it and it's just the 1st round. Pretty sure my wife will wanna leave me if the Canucks go on to win this and carry on for a few more series!!!
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 12:46:29
well I must say, I'm a lot more confident going into game 7 given the way we played in game 6 vs 4/5. But by no means am I overly confident. The Canucks had that game, they just could not get one through - we'll see how he responds in game 7. Everyone keeps talking about how Luongo is playing the biggest game of his career tomorrow night...but so is Crawford, and the pressure is on both teams now.
With the last change, the Canucks will hopefully get more favourable matchups. Bolland did his job last night keeping the Sedin's in check, and Kesler was not on enough against the big line - but Quenville will have a harder time getting those matchups out in Vancouver. It should work in our favour, Bolland has been a factor in keeping the Sedin's in check.
And hey, lets hope for balanced and predictable reffing.  |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 11:47:10
Ahh, common ground. I knew you would appear.
Completely agree that the refs put the whistles in their pockets in the 3rd. There was also the puck being cleared into the bench by Chicago that was questionable in the 3rd and was ruled as not a penalty.
Personally, as a fan of the game and neither team involved, I like when the refs let the players decide (within reason) and allow a little more flex. Granted, I am an anit-Canuck guy so maybe I have a little more vested interest than I am letting on, but I thought the 3rd period and overtime of that game was possibly the most emotionally charged and exciting period of hockey I have watched all year.
Another thing I think we can agree on is that I hope for much of the same (better reffing but same intensity) in the game 7. However, I would suspect we are both hoping for a different winning team. I also think neither of us are incredibly confident going into game 7. Frankly, the Hawks were very lucky to win the game last night. The Canucks deserved the win. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 11:25:05
Beans, I am not looking for your credit. Truthfully, I don't remember the Edler slewfoot or the slash on Toews's stick you are referring to, although I'm sure they happened. There are other missed calls I can recall throughout the game vs the Canucks as well. So we had a lot of missed calls on both sides, ok I'll concede - perhaps the ref's decided to put the whistles away in the 3rd period unless it was a clear scoring chance (such as the penalty shot). The two missed calls I am really concerned about are the high stick to the head of Sedin and the blindside headshot by Bickell. I am surprised that neither of those were called. They should be automatic penalties these days, even when they occur in the mid-3rd period and OT of a critical game.
At no point in my commentary did I say the refs cost the Canucks the game. PP's can go a lot of different ways - maybe the Canucks score the GWG on a PP, maybe CHI scores SH, maybe nothing happens. Certainly the chance would have been there though. But the Canucks lost the game on their own, that much is for sure. |
| Oilearl |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 11:16:11
I thought the officiating was bad both ways as proven by the comments here. This is playoffs and this kind of adversity happens in 7 game series. That's what makes winning the cup so challenging!! Game 7 SB sweet.
Let's talk about finishing teams off and playing full 60 minute games every game. Games 4 & 5 were mail ins by the Canucks after getting down early IMO. They played a strong game in 6 to bounce back but lost.
Look at Detroit they didn't mess around and surprisingly neither did Washington. You have to finish the deal this series should have ended by now instead Chicago has the momentum?
On a lighter note I told one of my Canuck fan buddies after game 5 that NBC saw the last two games and wanted to add the Canucks to the spring lineup in a new series called Two and a half periods. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 11:15:26
I agree with Beans and Alex that you can't blame a loss on the referees. It doesn't mean that officials don't get in wrong sometimes, or that they call games in one team's favour (not purposely of course) from time to time. Most of the time, bad calls even out over the course of a game, but sometimes bad calls (like bad bounces, hitting the post, etc.) work out in one team's favour.
Officiating is just one part of the game. When a team loses, they have to look at what they didn't do right, or when they missed scoring chances, or did not defend properly. For every missed call, there are numerous missed scoring opportunities.
This doesn't mean that fans will overlook missed calls, or where they view inferior officiating. (Nor should they.) But at the same time, fans need to recognize the more significant reason a team loses, and it's not because of officiating.
My opinion remains the same though. The Canucks got the short end of the stick with calls in Game 6. (And I have no hesitation in making this point.)
Is this why they lost? Nope. The reason they lost was due to missed opportunities, and that their opponent is no slouch. I think the Canucks edged out the Hawks in overall play in Game 6, but in a close game, the decision can go either way.
And I agree with everyone that Game 7 will be a beauty! The defending champs vs. the President's Trophy winners in a game 7 matchup. I hope it goes to overtime!
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 10:24:41
Ok, a number of things:
1 - Alex, I never said you were wearing any kind of glasses at all. My point was clearly and specifically to Nuxfan who still has not acknowledged the slough-foot or the slash on Toews. That is where the glasses come in. Some can see there were missed calls for both sides, not just the Canucks. I have cited two very clear and specific examples of calls that also could have or should have been called against the Canucks and not a single person has acknowledged those plays. No one. That is baised, is it not??
2 -Firstly, sorry for getting the player wrong but we are still talking about the same hit. Charging?? Maybe. I don't see the Chicago player leaving his feet but ok. If it's anything, that MIGHT be it.
3 - There are slashes and there are SLASHES. So why are you complaining about the Sedin slash but not the Toews slash? Same things right?? By your words:
When a slash to the hands knocks the stick out of a players hand in the offensive zone, or breaks a stick in two, that has to be called - its been called all year, its like clockwork now.
Neither were called. But only the missed call that would benefit Vancouver is discussed. Biased???????? Who's Biased??????
I give credit to a fan like Alex(who can say something reasonable like the refs can't be blamed for the loss. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 09:38:26
quote:
Oh, so a slash and a hack are ok??? A penalty is a penalty is it not??? Again, you want to call the Bieska hit a shoulder to head hit, I would have a hard time arguing. But an elbow?? C'mon man. I get it, you are fan of the Canucks. You have to back them, but let's look at things as they really are. The frustrating part about that is I see that hit very close to the Torres hit. Difference being is that Bieksa had the but, Seabrook did not. So, as so many Canuck fans defended that rule, you live by the sword and you die by the sword. Torres got an interference penalty as Seabrook did not have the puck but the hit was deemed as 'legal.' I don't agree it is a good hit and I think the NHL should change the rule, however that is the rule today. You can't have Torres' hit defended and throw Bolland to the wolves.
a) It was Bickell, not Bolland, that hit Bieksa
b) I did not defend Torres's hit at any time, it was indefensible and IMO suspendable. However it was not, and based on the same rule, I do not believe that Bickell should be suspended. There is a difference between a 2 minute penalty and a suspension.
c) a hit to the head is a penalty in today's game. It does not matter what body part you hit it with (Alex's video shows it better, and perhaps it is more shoulder than elbow - whatever). You can rest assured that had it been Bieksa throwing a body part and catching Duncan Keith's head behind the net in OT last night, we would have seen a penalty.
And yeah Beans, there are slashes and then there are Slashes. The incidental slashing and hacking that goes on between players is part of the game - that little tap you give a guy on the shins to let him know you're there, the small hook as he goes by to slow him down, it happens a lot and thats fine. But when a stick gets into the face, there is really no excuse for not calling that play. When a slash to the hands knocks the stick out of a players hand in the offensive zone, or breaks a stick in two, that has to be called - its been called all year, its like clockwork now. |
| Guest4988 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 09:04:23
Bryan Bickell's hit was almost as bad as Raffi Torres'on Brent Seabrook and it probably deserved a two minute penalty, but certainly not a suspension. However, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. It looked good on Bieksa anyway for attacking Viktor Stalberg in Game 4. He went after him when Stalberg knocked him over with a clean check because I guess his feelings were hurt. Bieksa is the same guy who stated that John Scott only fights little guys-- which is ridiculous BTW-- yet Bieksa fights Stalberg. I will admit that in Game 6, the officiating was inconsistent, but for both sides. It should be a great game 7. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 08:54:08
I agree with Alex (and a few others) that the officiating was in Chicago's favour in Game 6. And this coming from someone who cheered for the Hawks in last year's playoffs.
I watched the game with two buddies, and they felt the same way about the officiating, and one of these guys picked Chicago players in his playoff pool. (And no, it isn't Beans.)
Bickel's hit on Bieksa is a penalty no matter whether it's regulation time or overtime. (And I do see it being close to the same to the Torres hit on Seabrook.)
If Bieksa was knocked out by the hit, the referees may have called things differently, but Bieksa got up fairly quickly after being knocked down. (And good for him.)
I'm not wearing any kind of coloured glasses either. I'm watching this series as a hockey fan, without any clear preference to either team winning. The only thing I have on the line is a very insignificant prediction I made in this thread that the Canucks would bounce back and win this series.
I'm no conspiracy theory nut, but I wonder if referees (probably subconsciously) call games in slight favour to the team facing elimination? And the comment about refs calling games in favour of home teams: there was a very good investigative research article on this very theme, and it showed some evidence that this does take place. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 04/25/2011 : 07:46:00
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I agree with Alex here.
C'mon guys! Do you really think that nuxfan and i are one person with two accounts or something? Wasn't that Brentrock's gig?
For Alex's real take, keep reeding!
The elbow/shoulder to Bieksa's head was as close to the Torres hit on Seabrook as you'll likely see. Was it a headshot? Yup. Is a headshot legal on that point of the ice, yup! The league clarified that with the Torres hit, therefore how can anyone think there'd be a suspension or other discipline (heard people talking about a suspension on the radio)? Now, should there have been a 2 min minor? Probably, but not for the headshot itself. The ref, who had as good a view as you could possibly get, could have easily called a charge. Don't believe me? Think i'm wearing Orca glasses (whatever they are?)? Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTAqvq_LE4&feature=related
Even with the poor quality of video, you can clearly see Bickell leaves his feet. Easiest call in the world! However, for a charge, not a headshot. Remember, Bieksa was lingering around in Area 51!
In defense of Bickell, the elbow was not raised in the slightest. Even after contact, it barely comes away from his body. Yeah, the shoulder gets Bikesa, but as i've argued before, with a dman leaning/looking down at the puck, it leaves little opportunity for a the hitter, unless he were to take out a couple of knees by going low?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
There were good and bad calls for both sides but no more for one than the other. I thought the reffing was neither good nor bad and also didn't favour either team more than the other.
Funny how a Canucks fan has "Orca coloured glasses" on but someone cheering for the Hawks simply sees things clearly?
I thought the reffing was below avg, but the slash that broke Sedin's stick was certainly worthy of a call at ANY point in ANY game. That's one of those no brainers like flipping the puck over the glass. When a guy is standing there with a busted stick, it's pretty obvious the slash was powerful enough to deserve 2mins. Did the reffing cost the Canucks the game? Tough to say. If they'd won, i don't think anyone would be sitting here saying the won in spite of the refs so while an extra pp here and there wouldn't have hurt, i'm not gonna say the refs cost them the game. That goal post that Higgins dented might have though?
|
|
|
