Let’s Pretend Professionalism
According to ex-referee Paul Stewart, there is a long tradition of referees evening scores with players and Burrows was in the wrong for complaining about it when it happened to him. He goes on to relate a story that involves goading and then punishing Denis Savard for not showing Stewart what he considered an appropriate level of respect.
In other words Alex got what he deserved for showing up the referee in Nashville. In other words, it’s okay if Auger did exactly what Burrows claims he did. And it turns out that’s pretty much what he did. According to Colin Campbell, Auger denied telling Burrows he was going to get him, but pretty much confirmed everything else. The subject was the Nashville game and Auger was letting Burrows know he was pissed off about it:
“I assessed it based on the fact you were injured. I don’t need you to help me in that context. I was calling penalty. I didn’t need you to give a major. I wasn’t assessing a major, I was assessing a cross check. I don’t appreciate you embellishing plays like that in the future.”
I’m supposed to believe that this conversation is completely unrelated to the two phantom penalties on Burrows? (I’m assuming he deserved his misconduct.) I’m supposed to believe in that level of coincidence? Why should I care whether Auger threatened payback before paying back? The important facts are that Auger was embarrassed by Burrows, he was angry enough to talk to Burrows about it and that he paid Burrows back.
The conventional wisdom now is that the Canucks had better shut up and let this go away or else things will get really bad for them. Burrows is already a marked man and the Canucks could become a marked team. That’s the way it works in this league and the way it works is what Eric Duhatschek calls hockey’s dirty little secret. Psssst. When referees get in a snit, they will cheat the game and cheat the fan. Its a long tradition. Shhhh.
“The referees are all professional,” said Alain Vigneault “I’m sure they call the games professionally.”
I guess that’s the conspiracy I was talking about – “The conventional wisdom now is that the Canucks had better shut up and let this go away or else things will get really bad for them. Burrows is already a marked man and the Canucks could become a marked team.” Who is conventional wisdom? I doubt Colin Campbell has come out and said it. I don’t think the refs are saying it.
In fact, might it not be the other way? Every penalty that every referee now calls against Vancouver is going to by under the microscope. Baseball managers have been doing that for years, they come out, make a big stink about a “missed play” or a “bad call’ with the hope of getting the next one. Good call by Alain Vignault with his reference to the referees professionalism, that’s acting with class.
Isn’t it also selective memory to suggest that Auger alone is the bad guy when Burrows in a previous game “embellished” a play to try and draw a bigger penalty on an opponent? Isn’t that cheating? What about the Nashville fans, weren’t they cheated by Burrows? If he doesn’t act like an Italian soccer player in the previous game, then nothing happens.
I also think it is interesting how these penalties became “phantom” calls – the first one, he was holding the guy’s stick, it was not a phantom call, perhaps not diving, but certainly it was a penalty. I agree the second one was a bad call.
The referees work hard, they are the lowest paid and they do a pretty good job overall. Players like Burrows disrespecting them and trying to “trick” them into making bad calls is not right. If Auger says he didn’t say that he was “going to get him” and Burrows raised it after the game and not before, then its he said, she said.
Clearly the whole “don’t get on the refs’ bad side or they’ll screw you” thing is going too far. However, what I haven’t heard anyone say is that, absent the threat ahead of time, what Auger did in the first place is probably good for hockey.
It’s become obvious in the past few years that it’s very difficult to accurately call diving, embellishment, etc. in the heat of a game. Especially embellishment — how can a ref be expected to distinguish a guy lying on the ice who’s really hurt from one lying on the ice who isn’t?
So given that there’s essentially no check in place for this sort of behaviour during the game in which it happens, I think it’s a good thing if players know that if they show a ref up by play-acting in one game, they’ll pay a price for it once he’s had a chance to know what actually happened (based on replay, on whether the hurt guy comes out and plays the PP).
There has to be something in place to dissuade this sort of behaviour — if that thing is refs making make-up calls a few weeks later, I’m okay with that. Nothing else has seemed to work.
However, what I haven’t heard anyone say is that, absent the threat ahead of time, what Auger did in the first place is probably good for hockey…
There has to be something in place to dissuade this sort of behaviour — if that thing is refs making make-up calls a few weeks later, I’m okay with that. Nothing else has seemed to work.
I disagree. I think it is terrible for hockey. As I said, I’m okay with Auger looking at every foul on Burrows with a jaundiced eye. I would have no problem if Auger ignored a play when Burrows was tripped or held or hooked. “Burrows dives and it looked like it might be a dive.” That’s trying to make the correct call. I do have a problem if Auger is punishing Burrows by deliberately making the wrong call.
How many shitty calls are there in hockey? How many of them are honest errors and how many are deliberate revenge calls?
The referees work hard, they are the lowest paid and they do a pretty good job overall.
I think they do a shitty job. Awful. The only good thing about this story is that we have a good explanation for many bad calls. If Auger was flattened and the officials were told in no uncertain terms that this sort of nonsense was unacceptable, the officiating would apparently be a lot better.
Players like Burrows disrespecting them and trying to “trick” them into making bad calls is not right.
No, its not, but if referees can’t deal honestly with disrespect and cheating they are in the wrong business.
If Auger says he didn’t say that he was “going to get him” and Burrows raised it after the game and not before, then its he said, she said.
Do you honestly think the lousy calls were coincidence? You don’t think Auger did get Burrows? I’ve got a bridge you might want to buy.
Tom said, “I think they do a shitty job. Awful.”
Come on… I watched the Leafs and Nashville yesterday, I can’t even remember a single incident involving a referee. For the most part, the only time I think the refs do a shitty job is when my preferred team loses, very rarely when they win does it pop into my head.
I think this line of reasoning that, “Ah! It all becomes clear now, Bad calls are the result of something form the past, its payback time!” As I said when in the comments on this blog when this first erupted, it was all a big conspiracy theory and was disagreed with, the only thing missing now from your comments are Deep Throat and Smoking Man.
I do have a problem if Auger is punishing Burrows by deliberately making the wrong call.
The penalties on Burrows were terrible — for Auger’s own sake, you’d think he could have found some more justifiable calls. In any game, there must be dozens of plays that could probably be called, but aren’t — I’m surprised he couldn’t find some actual borderline penalties to call.
I’m surprised he couldn’t find some actual borderline penalties to call.
I’m not, considering that he put Burrows on notice. Alex knew if he looked sideways at somebody he was going to get whistled. I think Auger would have preferred to call something right away, but he couldn’t find anything remotely close to a penalty through the first two periods. By the third period he was out of patience and decided acts that were not remotely close to a penalty were close enough.
Wow, talk about the smoking gun. That Stewart shtick should be getting more play.
Pretty much admitting that refs make Sh!t up to fit their own petty agendas.
Every day that passes the NHL gets less and less credible as a nominal “professional” sports league.
“That’s the way it works in this league”
Anyone who has ever played a competitive sport in their entire life can, and will, say that “that’s the way it work” in EVERY league, since the beginning of time.
Here is another mind-blower: if an official misses a call and realizes it, and there is no opportunity to change the call, he will issue a make-up call at some future point. OMG!!!!
Anyone who has ever played a competitive sport in their entire life can, and will, say that “that’s the way it work” in EVERY league, since the beginning of time.
This is a really good reason to do nothing, eh? Auger should get away with it because clowns like him have been getting away with it since the beginning of time. Maybe, just maybe, if the league made an example of Auger, it would not work this way in the NHL. It does not have to work this way.
Here is another mind-blower: if an official misses a call and realizes it, and there is no opportunity to change the call, he will issue a make-up call at some future point. OMG!!!!
And isn’t this great! This kind of crap has ruined more games than I can count. Maybe the refs should face the media after every game. They could explain which calls were real penalties, which ones were revenge calls and which ones were makeup calls.
Firstly, your post stated that this is the way it works in THIS league, presumably as part of your ongoing and never-ending recriminations against “Gary Bettman’s NHL”. The clear assertion is that NHL officiating is different than the officiating in every other sport since the beginning of time. Of course, it is not. To suggest otherwise is a non-starter, and if pressed, I doubt you would seriously argue otherwise.
Secondly, you are acting as if this is some sort of new phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that officials have their biases (like, oh, everyone else in the world, including yourself, as you have amply displayed in your NHL writings for years) is new to you? You, possessor of a bottomless supply of cynicism for all things NHL-business-related, had some sort of idealized theory that officials were emotionless automatons? I don’t believe it.
it would not work this way in the NHL. It does not have to work this way.
It WOULD work this way, so long as sports are officiated by people. People are people. Having surveyed your own writings on this topic, you yourself acknowledge this by implying that, for example, noted divers can get an extra level of scrutiny by officials. Surely you understand the complexity of human thought and interaction well enough to know by now that no one ever comes into a particular situation without having been impacted by everything that has gone on before.
This kind of crap has ruined more games than I can count.
It is a shame that your enjoyment of hockey is so fragile that it can be affected by officiating. I follow all sports, and while it is true that officials get ragged on by all sports fans (me included), I am of the view that hockey fans are in a class by themselves in terms of finding excuses for their team’s performance in officiating. It is funny that a sport which prides itself on “character” has so many fans who play the victim and search for excuses for losses in officiating. God forbid a ref missing a call for/against a given team, as the recriminations are plentiful and vicious among a fanbase that expects perfection. Oh well.
Curiously, the NHL is uniquely positioned among NHL sports to mitigate the effects of the humanity of officials, by having two referees.
To be frank, my suspicion is that you understand all this, and are simply displaying partisanship for your team, and you probably fear that other commentators who suggest that Burrows and perhaps VAN will be made to suffer for it by the officiating community. There is nothing wrong with supporting one’s team, of course, but dressing it up as something else in order to disguise one’s partisanship is not quite as laudable. My suspicion is bolstered by your casual dismissal of the validity of the penalties called on Burrows in this instance. The first penalty was thoroughly warranted, as Burrows was flopping repeatedly in a single sequence to try to draw a penalty, and the second was certainly extremely marginal at best and shouldn’t have been called but was hardly the worst call ever, and might have been justified as a make-up call (I didn’t watch the game live).
The media is guilty of making a meal of this, but that is what they do, especially in the dog days of the season when they need something new about which to write. I would expect more from an astute blogger than patent homerism.
The first penalty was thoroughly warranted, as Burrows was flopping repeatedly in a single sequence to try to draw a penalty
You are a complete fool. I doubt you even like or watch hockey. I literally cannot believe the silliness of your series of posts and am leaning towards believing you’re just trying to have a little fun and taking the piss out of us.
Suffice to say I will put up my hockey understanding up against yours, kiddo. Based on your posts, it is pretty clear to me that you have never laced up a pair of skates.
I won’t insult you further by letting you know what I think of you, particularly in light of your first sentence.
Suffice to say I will put up my hockey understanding up against yours, kiddo.
You are the Darcy Verot of hockey blog commenting.
Based on your posts, it is pretty clear to me that you have never laced up a pair of skates.
3 times a week, homeboy. While I have very little respect for your normative views and opinions on hockey and/or the business of hockey — which is not to say I don’t respect the clarity and lucidity of your writing, or your analytical abilities, particularly with respect to financial/legal issues (I’ll admit that I found your stuff on the Phoenix issues interesting, thoughtful, and helpful) — I am nevertheless certain that you could skate circles around me, primarily given your geographical and cultural upbringing advantages. Advantages with respect to skating, that is.
I won’t insult you further by letting you know what I think of you, particularly in light of your first sentence.
Thank you!
I won’t do you the same honor, though. I think you’re an intelligent person that essentially parrots the position of the NHL (or whatever other institution of concentrated capital). Intellectuals were flatterers of the court historically, and they remains so today. They serve to justify the actions of those in power aimed at maintaining or enhancing that power. You are especially skilled at it. I find it absurd that you think the diving call was warranted – I think Burrows’ falling down was not even close to diving and that that play happens dozens of times in any NHL game – and I think that if it was in the NHL’s financial or other interests to have thrown the book at Auger (which it was not), you would be screaming from the rooftops at how that call was made up and that there was no scintilla of an infraction, or something like that. That apparent ideological commitment to whatever the NHL does or says is the source of much of my frustration, I think. I know accomplished lawyers who are less vigorous in defending their paying clients than you are with the NHL.
the second was certainly extremely marginal at best and shouldn’t have been called
You are smart enough to not go so far as to lose all credibility. Even the hardcore British commonwealth supporters don’t spend a lot of time justifying their colonial exploits in India. Without too much hyperbole, I’d say the interference call on Burrows was the single worst call in the history of professional sports.
It is a shame that your enjoyment of hockey is so fragile that it can be affected by officiating.
I see it the other way. My enjoyment of hockey is so intense that something like the officiating in question deeply offends and affects me. Canuck fan or not, if you watched that game and left feeling anything other than sick, I’m not sure you really like or respect the game of hockey.
My suspicion is bolstered by your casual dismissal of the validity of the penalties called on Burrows in this instance. The first penalty was thoroughly warranted, as Burrows was flopping repeatedly in a single sequence to try to draw a penalty,
What nonsense. Never mind the fact that diving in the NHL is only called when there is an offsetting penalty and I can’t remember the last time I saw a stand alone call. It defies common sense to believe Burrows dived on this play. After he does a couple of laps with Auger, Burrows knows he has zero chance of getting any calls under any circumstances. He thinks he can draw a penalty with a dive? That’s crazy. Auger believed Burrows took a dive after their conversation? That’s even crazier.
Do you really believe that? That’s what you are trying to sell? With a straight face? That’s funny. There is a simple explanation – Auger made it up as a revenge call – or there is this cockamamie tale of a warning, a dive despite the warning, and an honest – if virtually unprecedented – stand alone call in response. And you buy Auger’s story? I’m laughing at you. I’m laughing my ass off.
I am not the only one who has voiced that opinion, Tom. Save some of your apparent venom for Sean Kaye, who also thinks it was a penalty.
You (and your number one fan, in the post just above) are spouting nonsense in my view. As to the facts, they are on video and speak for themselves in my view.
What makes me laugh is the suggestion that burrows would not do it because it would be insane for anyone to think he would do it, knowing it to be wrong/ineffective. Why i am laughing about this is because you yourself shot down the idea of others that Auger would not do it because he knows it would not be tolerated. Yet, here, you dismiss my post because, well, burrows would never do it because he knows it would not be tolerated. As Tyler mentioned in one of these threads, lawyers get rich suing people over stupid things that people do.
That ignores the fact that there are two referees on the ice.
As to me buying Auger’s story? I think you need to read what i wrote. i don’t believe I said anything of the kind. I think one of the main tenets was that officials are biased, and have always been so, in every sport, forever, and that intelligent fans who are not naive beyond measure (and anyone who plays sports) knows this well and has come to terms with it. i have no doubt that Auger called it to make a point against a guy that he considers a flopper. What you seem to believe is that he made the call on the basis of nothing at all. The objective fact is that he called it on a flop (in fact, a series of flops as Burrows was performing a pas de deux with another player’s stick, trying to draw a penalty call) against a guy who he regards as a flopper and is predisposed not to give the benefit of the doubt that he might to a guy who doesn’t flop.
Laugh to your heart’s content. Given the ongoing fragility of your enjoyment of hockey, anything I can do to brighten your day. Laughter is the best medicine, after all. All i will say is that I am not the only reader who holds this view.
I’m not blaming Auger for being biased. I’m blaming him for acting on that bias and deliberately making two calls that he knew were bullshit. Either you don’t believe that’s what happened (and hilarity ensues) or you agree that’s what happened and you are okay with it. (Been vaccinated against scruples?)
Either way, I appreciate the laugh. I’m still chuckling.
If you want to maintain civility, please don’t deign to suggest that I don’t have scruples. I strongly suspect you know no more honest man than me, but you have only my word on that. Whatever, say I. You will never know that for sure because we will never get to know each other, I can at least guarantee you of that.
I have been more than polite to you, notwithstanding my suspicions as to your attempt to cover up your blatant homerism. I would think the same courtesy would be due me, but evidently I am wrong. Are we back to the old code where I peel the paint off the walls with withering critiques and you first respond with huffiness and then finally respond with ” “, or can we continue with at least a modicum of gentility? I have been preferring the latter of late.
In short, your comment about scruples is uncalled for.
Here is a third option: one agrees that Auger was biased against Burrows and felt that Burrows was owed one, found an opportunity to make a call on what was a legitimate but rarely called penalty when otherwise he would surely given the player the benefit of the doubt, and one is realistic about and forgiving of the imperfection of mankind in general (you and me included) and human officiating in particular, which is and always will be subject to bias, evening up and game management. If you want something else, take up needlepoint or wait until all officials are androids in a thousand years or so.
The third option is lawyerspeak for Auger acted on his biases and deliberately made up two bullshit calls. And you’re okay with it. Are you also okay with Paul Stewart’s treatment of Denis Savard?
Also, keep up the chuckling. That is free of charge.
Apparently you cannot reply to your own comment, so the placement of this is going to be a little off.
Without too much hyperbole, I’d say the interference call on Burrows was the single worst call in the history of professional sports.
I take that back. The worst call in the history of professional sports was the non-call on Dale Hawerchuk as he hooked the Soviet backchecker who would have caught Lemieux in OT in Canada Cup 87 Game 3 on the series deciding goal. Amazingly, that wasn’t even the most blatant call against the Soviets in that series, but given the timing and outcome, it was probably the worst.
Incidentally, I’d love to sit down with you, Gerald, and watch this series together and have you explain to me how the officiating was totally fair and well done. We can get Tom involved too. Seriously though, have you watched these games recently? It’s stunning. CANADA!!! CANADA!!!