Moving On
Tom, your thoughts on the Coach’s refusal to let any players be interviewed by HNIC after the Hawks game? Does tis mean if the team doesn’t agree with a story they will deny acess to the offender? That’s why we have so many softball reporters and it ends up just propaganda for the league. Usually I find your blog enlightened and fair but it seems like you have developed a bit of a “Homer” syndrome on this story.
- Boxcar
Posting this gives me the impetus to write yet another piece – even though I don’t want to – on a story the Canucks clearly aren’t willing to let slide. I did not like the MacLean report, but I think denying access to HNiC was wrong for exactly the reasons Boxcar notes. The team has to take the good with the bad in terms of the media. If the Canucks really wants to “move on” from the story, this is a pretty stupid way to do it. Vigneault handled it perfectly when it came up and – except for continuing to go after Auger with the league – the team should have left it there. This made them look petty.
That they have not really moved on tells me that they think they are getting something more out of it. The best spin on that is that Gillis did it for internal reasons – to rally the team with an “us against the world” schtick. The second best spin is that they are not giving up on the real fight – which is with the league about Auger. It was MacLean and Campbell doing the hatchet job. To deny access to HNiC is probably against NHL rules and Gillis may be tweaking Campbell. The worst possible spin is on it is that the Canucks are keeping the story alive because they think they are getting the breaks from the officials in the wake of the Nashville game and they want it to continue. (There have been some awful calls mostly against Canuck opponents in recent games. We can only hope that the mistakes were honest and not the result of bending over backwards to assuage Vancouver fans. The problem with Auger’s actions, of course, is that this question gets raised no matter what happens. Bad calls against the good guys? The refs are protecting Auger. Bad calls against the Sabres? The refs are proving they aren’t protecting Auger.)
As far as Gillis is concerned, this is a no lose proposition. He doesn’t care about appearances, his team and his fanbase are lapping it up, HNiC is put on the defensive, and the league is going to keep making like a turtle. If the Canucks really want to move on, they’ll make nice on Hockey Day in Canada. If not, they won’t.
Tom when you were on HNIC you said that sometimes blogers like yourself are a more independent source of news because you do not have access to the team so you have nothing to lose. That thought has stuck with me when I read most articles now, and I look at the writers relationship with the team.
What do you think of Rangers Coach John Torterella and his incident with Larry Brooks of The New York Post?
“Moving On” s an excellent post, as a SK. Roughrider fan our former GM Roy Shivers and Coach Danny Barrett liked to use the “Us vs Them” Shtick with the press and believe me it grows tiresome.
What do you think of Rangers Coach John Torterella and his incident with Larry Brooks of The New York Post?
I’ve long considered Tortorella to be an idiot. Brooks is hard to get along with in that market, but it was not an unreasonable question that was asked. Tortorella did not want to answer it so he went off.
And the latest news is that it’ll be “business as usual” on Hockey Day in Canada, so it looks like the Canucks want to move on (after getting what they want in a meeting with CBC high-level management) and I think it’s unlikely that we’ll hear about it on CBC anymore.
There have been some awful calls mostly against Canuck opponents in recent games. We can only hope that the mistakes were honest and not the result of bending over backwards to assuage Vancouver fans.
I’m late to the party as usual.
Watching the Blues/Canucks game last week with an admittedly biased eye, there were 2 absolutely atrocious calls against the Blues in the 3rd. First, a “slashing” call on Kariya against one of the Sedins which included an Oscar-worthy embellishment inducing a ref 140 feet away from the play to blow his whistle while the official standing right there watching the play didn’t flinch. The Canucks tied the game on the ensuing power play. The second was a phantom high sticking on David Perron, whose stick never touched the Canuck player, but said player’s head snapped back hard enough to cause whiplash. *Tweet* Although that power play was killed so no harm no foul I guess. But all I could think of on those two calls were “they’re over-compensating for the Auger-Burrows incident”.
We all grouse about the refs, but I’ve never really thought that they were unfair. Now I’m not so sure.
The slashing call on Kariya was correct. He did slash Henrik’s wrist (two times actually) and it was indeed something that would cause quite a bit of pain. Plus the closest referee was in a bad position to see the slash, and I think that’s why you have two referees, so that one can catch what the other misses.
The high stick on Perron I have no recollection about. It wouldn’t surprise me if a player would snap back his head if he sees a stick right in front of his eyes.