Colin Campbell controversy

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
jchockey
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Colin Campbell controversy

Post by jchockey » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:00 pm

If you haven't noticed yet, there's a big controversy (potentially) brewing between the blogging world, journalists, and Colin Campbell.

This may really snowball into something bigger and I suggest everyone to follow the story closely. If you're on Twitter, following @mc79hockey (owner of site) and @DamoSpin (Damien Cox of The Toronto Star).

For a quick rundown of the story, here it is:

Tyler Dellow is a blogger on mc79hockey's site and recently made a post about a series of e-mails concerning the NHL's wrongful dismissal of former official Dean Warren in a BC court case. Involved is NHL disciplinarian Colin Campbell and official Stephen Walkom.

Warren's dismissal was covered by the Star's Robert Cribb last year but in the documents specific names and cities were blacked out. However, a little quick research by Dellow produced two names: Marc Savard and Greg Campbell, Colin's son. Anyway, to make a long story short, Campbell calls Marc Savard a "little fake artist" and is unimpressed with the calls Warren made against Greg Campbell, Colin's son who was on the Panthers at the time and currently a Bruin. It is believed that because of Colin's bias against Savard that he refused to suspend Matt Cooke for his hit on Savard last year.

Cox is unhappy that Dellow that didn't credit Cribb for the find even though the two people have focused on different topics: Cribb on Warren's wrongful termination and Dellow on Colin's bias. It has sparked a bunch of conversation of Twitter about the merits of the blogosphere and journalists. mc79hockey has since been on radio and has credited Cribb on covering the original lawsuit but has not taken too kindly to Cox's "attacks" on bloggers, and neither have I.

Arbour
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:54 pm

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by Arbour » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:30 pm

Here's a copy of Ontario Labour Relations Board decision: Warren v. National Hockey League, 2010 CanLII 58123 (ON L.R.B.) which deals with Warren's allegations that he was released as an NHL Official because of the League's anti union bias, and not because of his competence as an official. Of note are the findings of the presiding member as to the credibility of the various witnesses which include Kerry Fraser, Dan Marouelli and Dave Newell whom he described as scripted and Brian Murphy and Terry Gregson whom he found credible.

Reference to Gregson's testimony starts at line 135. Of note to hockey fans are the comments about a referee's discretion and the use of judgement in calling infractions.

Campbell's comments re Savard, and Greg Campbell weren't relevant to the issues before the Board and he was not called as a witness, nor were there any allegations made against him by the Applicant Warren, whose complaints were against the league and the role of Stephen Walkom and the alleged violations of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
Last edited by Arbour on Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:07 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
jchockey
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by jchockey » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:53 pm

I should add that the e-mails in question between Walkom and Campbell are three years old. I can't find the source right now but there's differing opinions on Warren and his dismissal. In 22 performance reports on Warren only one stated that Warren did not meet expectations. Doug MacLean, former coach and GM, however, has made it known that he doesn't think he's a good official.

There are also many journalists and insiders that believe Colin Campbell's integrity and bias should not be questioned. The argument is that although he has made many curious decisions he does not have rose-coloured glasses on.

Arbour
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:54 pm

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by Arbour » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:08 pm

jchockey wrote:I should add that the e-mails in question between Walkom and Campbell are three years old.
The e mails are quoted in the context of the decision with names deleted.

User avatar
the toucan kid
CC Legend
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:50 am

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by the toucan kid » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:47 am

Oh lord, Clam and co. the stage is yours... :lol:

NOT doing that same debate we (I) had to suffer through with regards to last spring.

User avatar
nucklehead_88
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Maple Ridge B.C.

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by nucklehead_88 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:03 pm

:-|


Could be reallllllllllllly bad, could be nothing at all. Ive never been a fan of Campbell and his erratic punishments
"HE WILL PLAY, YOU KNOW HE'LL PLAY, HE'LL PLAY ON CRUTCHES...."

Jim Robson

User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by Linden Is God » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:58 pm

A few things that get me in this whole situation.

1. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including Campbell. What bugs me about these emails is the lack of professionalism. In this day and age of emails, social networking, etc., why would you write emails like this that you know could come back and haunt you.

2. The other thing that bothers me are the people who are defending Campbell. Doug MacLean (even though his opinion doesn't matter), on the Fan590 today had the balls to say that Campbell was right in being concerned about his son. Campbell was being a good hockey father. MacLean even said that he would do the same thing if he was in that position. Jeff Marek from HNIC radio was also pretty vocal towards defending Campbell. It bugs me to no end when media types defend the heads of the NHL when there's blatant fault in their doings.
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:

User avatar
jchockey
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by jchockey » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:04 pm

Linden Is God wrote: 2. The other thing that bothers me are the people who are defending Campbell. Doug MacLean (even though his opinion doesn't matter), on the Fan590 today had the balls to say that Campbell was right in being concerned about his son. Campbell was being a good hockey father. MacLean even said that he would do the same thing if he was in that position. Jeff Marek from HNIC radio was also pretty vocal towards defending Campbell. It bugs me to no end when media types defend the heads of the NHL when there's blatant fault in their doings.
What's problematic about this whole issue is that it's pretty clear Colin has a hard time being an impartial judge in games that involve Greg. Coin can't separate the job from the game.

A lot of media people have really pissed me off too, especially the ones that continue to discredit the social media/blogging world.

User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by ClamRussel » Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:14 pm

The same people discredit the opinions on these message boards as well. I've heard Taylor and his buddies rip the people on the forums as to discredit all of them. I know stupid things get said here....and on blogs....and on social media....but ALSO in the media. If I had a quarter for everytime Pratt or Taylor said something questionable... sheesh

Just today Pratt & Taylor were going on about how this has been blown out of proportion...hardly, if anything it hasn't received the attention it should. Think back to Mike Murphy and the "distinct" kicking motion from last spring...this cuts to the very integrity of the league and how the officials deal w/ fairness v their personal bias. Tie it in w/ the Burrows incident and at the very least its worth discussing and rather important.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by dr.dork » Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:40 pm

Linden Is God wrote:A few things that get me in this whole situation.

1. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including Campbell. What bugs me about these emails is the lack of professionalism. In this day and age of emails, social networking, etc., why would you write emails like this that you know could come back and haunt you.
I agree and concluded Campbell must be an idiot or extremely naive. Almost any email could end up as evidence in court and ultimately public. Anyone in any sort of executive position knows that.
Linden Is God wrote: 2. The other thing that bothers me are the people who are defending Campbell. Doug MacLean (even though his opinion doesn't matter), on the Fan590 today had the balls to say that Campbell was right in being concerned about his son. Campbell was being a good hockey father. MacLean even said that he would do the same thing if he was in that position. Jeff Marek from HNIC radio was also pretty vocal towards defending Campbell. It bugs me to no end when media types defend the heads of the NHL when there's blatant fault in their doings.
MacLean is a proven idiot. So what he says means nothing. I can't even believe he has a job with the media, and Kipreos -- not a rocket scientist himself -- is eventually going to lay him out. But Campbell, OBVIOUSLY, cannot criticize or make any comments publicly or privately to NHL officials about anything relating to his son. It is so far over the line of "perception of conflict of interest" that he should have been fired three year ago.

And for the record, I think that Campbell has done an OK job as league disciplinarian. Not suspending Cooke for the Savard hit wasn't unreasonable, and all his decisions were reasonable (given what his masters were no doubt telling him). But he crossed the line here, and his excuses of "I am just a hockey dad" don't work when his complaints are coming from Colie_Campbell@nhl.com.

User avatar
LotusBlossom
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 2448
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: Metro Vancouver
Contact:

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by LotusBlossom » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:58 am

Another black eye to the NHL's public image. I understand we are all human, but conduct like this should never even occur in any job, but let alone one that calls for fairness and impartiality.

Tsk tsk Colie.

As far as the media goes. I was on twitter and said I refuse to listen to the TEAM 1040 when Tony Gallagher was on because his negativity was enough to have to glance at in the paper that I wouldn't want to listen to the idiot and asked why the TEAM continues to have him contribute.

I get a direct message from @TEAM1040 saying:(word for word)

"Because he's covered the NHL since 1972 and has seen more of the game than you or any of our hosts have."

I guess because I am a fan of only 30 years, and actually strapped on a pair of skates and played the game, Tony still knows more than I or any other fan.

:lol: :|

The Vancouver Media is pretty bad, sometimes worse than any in the nation.
parfois, je veux juste laisser tinber un coude volant sur le monde

User avatar
Madcombinepilot
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3063
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:54 am
Location: Saskatoon, Sk.

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by Madcombinepilot » Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:58 am

The Vancouver Media is pretty bad, sometimes worse than any in the nation.
amen sista!!
The 'Chain of Command' is the chain I am going to beat you with until you understand I am in charge.

Farhan Lalji

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by Farhan Lalji » Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:17 pm

LotusBlossom wrote: Tony Gallagher was on because his negativity was enough to have to glance at in the paper that I wouldn't want to listen to the idiot and asked why the TEAM continues to have him contribute.
In defense of Gallagher, I actually don't think he's THAT bad. He can be a bit negative at times, but I also find him to be fairly realistic. If you want negativity, Dan Russel is your man. :o

Last year, Gallagher was asked as to who he thought would win between the Canucks and Hawks in round 2 (i.e. the rematch). Gallagher actually predicted things fairly accurately. Gallagher actually predicted that the Canucks would start the series strong due to their pent up emotions, but felt that their emotions would get the better of them...in the form of lack of discipline, dumb penalties, and Chicago successfully goading them in. Gallagher also predicted that the Canucks would be way too susceptible to the breakout pass, and that the depth of Chicago's 'D' (combined with their checking line) would be too much for the twins. Gallagher predicted the Hawks to win in 7 games.

User avatar
jchockey
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by jchockey » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:44 pm

LotusBlossom wrote:
I get a direct message from @TEAM1040 saying:(word for word)

"Because he's covered the NHL since 1972 and has seen more of the game than you or any of our hosts have."
The thing about Twitter is that it really exposes how bad and snooty the media can be. They're all stuck up.

User avatar
Puck
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Colin Campbell controversy

Post by Puck » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:54 am

Farhan Lalji wrote:
LotusBlossom wrote: Tony Gallagher was on because his negativity was enough to have to glance at in the paper that I wouldn't want to listen to the idiot and asked why the TEAM continues to have him contribute.
In defense of Gallagher, I actually don't think he's THAT bad. He can be a bit negative at times, but I also find him to be fairly realistic. If you want negativity, Dan Russel is your man. :o

Last year, Gallagher was asked as to who he thought would win between the Canucks and Hawks in round 2 (i.e. the rematch). Gallagher actually predicted things fairly accurately. Gallagher actually predicted that the Canucks would start the series strong due to their pent up emotions, but felt that their emotions would get the better of them...in the form of lack of discipline, dumb penalties, and Chicago successfully goading them in. Gallagher also predicted that the Canucks would be way too susceptible to the breakout pass, and that the depth of Chicago's 'D' (combined with their checking line) would be too much for the twins. Gallagher predicted the Hawks to win in 7 games.
Agreed, Farhan. I like Gallagher from time to time. He actually has technical insight to offer and I appreciate that. I don't see why we hear people complain about lack of content and homerism (like, say, Pratt) on the one hand then they turn around and complain that Gallagher is too negative. They are all essentially editorialists. If they get people talking, whether in agreement or opposition, they've done their job. We're wasting way too much energy around here worrying about what the media do.

Post Reply