GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

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

Moderator: Referees

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:40 pm

Per wrote:sociopaths...

sociopaths ...

Sociopathic behaviour.


Relax per, not everyone who tends to bully here or there is a "sociopath".

Just as not everyone who enjoys the occasional reefer is a "drug addict". :mex:

In the playoffs, NHL refs have always tended to "put away the whistle" and "let the players play".

One is not necessarily a sociopath if one adjusts one's game plan accordingly.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Lancer » Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:39 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
Lancer wrote:
Except the league will no doubt move the yardsticks to suit whatever market and owner has the ear of Buttman. The better option given the current circumstances is to compromise the league leadership in order for Vancouver to get a smidgen of leverage, or Aquaman parts with some more cash to buy the appropriate influence with said leadership.

The only way to get ahead in this league, it seems.


Maybe our only chance Lance is to have Dan Brown write a book to expose the illuminati within the NHL.

I wonder if the Cigarette Smoking Man is behind all of this, has an office marked Unknown in the NHL Headquarters in New York, and Tony Mulder Gallagher and Scully Botchford are chasing him down.

Come on dude, lose the conspiracy theories, Vancouver in a recent study is considered the 4th Best Hockey Market in the NHL. If there is such a thing as an owner having Bettman's ear, most certainly Aquaman would be one of them.


Really? and which owners dictated the labour struggle and were Buttman's closest allies? Aquaman was nowhere to be found, so where does your '4th best hockey market' argument stand?

Perception is 9/10 of reality and there's enough out there to perceive a league rapidly losing integrity and increasingly looking like an cronyist oligopoly which is accountable to no one save Buttman's inner circle of owners - and Aquaman ain't one of them.

Tell you what - I'll give up my loony conspiracies when you give up the equally loony Gillis-is-the-root-of-all-evil-with-the-Canucks routine. :roll: Not holding my breath, though.
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.
User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Arnprior, Ontario

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ukcanuck » Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm

Lancer wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:
Lancer wrote:
Except the league will no doubt move the yardsticks to suit whatever market and owner has the ear of Buttman. The better option given the current circumstances is to compromise the league leadership in order for Vancouver to get a smidgen of leverage, or Aquaman parts with some more cash to buy the appropriate influence with said leadership.

The only way to get ahead in this league, it seems.


Maybe our only chance Lance is to have Dan Brown write a book to expose the illuminati within the NHL.

I wonder if the Cigarette Smoking Man is behind all of this, has an office marked Unknown in the NHL Headquarters in New York, and Tony Mulder Gallagher and Scully Botchford are chasing him down.

Come on dude, lose the conspiracy theories, Vancouver in a recent study is considered the 4th Best Hockey Market in the NHL. If there is such a thing as an owner having Bettman's ear, most certainly Aquaman would be one of them.


Really? and which owners dictated the labour struggle and were Buttman's closest allies? Aquaman was nowhere to be found, so where does your '4th best hockey market' argument stand?

Perception is 9/10 of reality and there's enough out there to perceive a league rapidly losing integrity and increasingly looking like an cronyist oligopoly which is accountable to no one save Buttman's inner circle of owners - and Aquaman ain't one of them.

Tell you what - I'll give up my loony conspiracies when you give up the equally loony Gillis-is-the-root-of-all-evil-with-the-Canucks routine. :roll: Not holding my breath, though.



Hmmmm.... Lockout run by Bettman, Jacobs and wirtz..... Stanley cup finals featuring Bettman Jacobs and wirtz....

We really oughta get a conspiracy page going again.

But not a word about any former GMs tho.
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby RoyalDude » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:33 pm

What's missing is Lee Harvey Oswald, the Grassy Knoll, Jack Ruby, Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro, The Chicago Mob, Robert Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa, Watergate, Nixon.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4457
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ukcanuck » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:49 pm

RoyalDude wrote:What's missing is Lee Harvey Oswald, the Grassy Knoll, Jack Ruby, Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro, The Chicago Mob, Robert Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa, Watergate, Nixon.

Yes! Love that shit
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:12 pm

Hmm... maybe Gillis should try to get Bert and SOB back. :D Resign LapDawg and Fat Alberts. Two guys I would luv to see here are Buffy and Ladd, I'd be willing to overypay for those 2. On the free agent market, Gillis should target Morrow, Horton, Clowe, Penner, Cooker, Torres, Fistric, Hannen and Bickell. :D With the playoff Bickell is having, he's probably going to hit the jackpot @ free agency.

As for goaltending, @ training camp, there should be a fight night on the ice, Lou vs Schneids, whoever wins get to stay in Vancouver. They'd probably sell a lot of tickets and make alot of money in this kind of an event. :lol:
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby okcanuck » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:18 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote:sociopaths...

sociopaths ...

Sociopathic behaviour.


Relax per, not everyone who tends to bully here or there is a "sociopath".

Just as not everyone who enjoys the occasional reefer is a "drug addict". :mex:

In the playoffs, NHL refs have always tended to "put away the whistle" and "let the players play".

One is not necessarily a sociopath if one adjusts one's game plan accordingly.



Actually I remember the 60's and the 70's ,when hockey was at its best, most play-off series started with half the players in the penalty-box for the first game, meaning the refs got control of the game, and the players adapted by the second game. The refs were consistent back then and the players knew what to expect. Now we have refs calling a different game from period to period. Its f----ing garbage to watch.
User avatar
okcanuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:11 am
Location: Bestwank,BC

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:33 pm

okcanuck wrote:meaning the refs got control of the game, and the players adapted by the second game.


Not to be scary but who really got control and... who adapted to whom? Image

:wink:

But seriously, true there was more consistency in how they called games back in the day, but

.... refs have always tended to let more stuff go in the playoffs. Image
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Hockey Widow » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:38 am

There no question that the playoffs have always been called differently. Always. In fact most of us scream in the playoffs if the refs do call everything, let em play is the refrain. And OT, we don't want to see anything called. Yes, the league had a couple of seasons where they tried to change it but I doubt many fans would be happy if they reverted to regular season call everything mentality. We mostly want the war.

What they do call more of is diving, interference and hooking. But the the trips and borderline hits and the general muggings on ice don't get called as much. I'm fine with that really. I never fully bought into this skill first crap. Teams need toughness and as Doc says a fair share of assholes crashing the net and making life difficult for star players.

You want two scoring lines, a tough to play against third line shut down type and a 4th line of assholes who can play 8-10 minuets a night. I don't want three offensive lines anymore. Give me grit and heart and determination and a little gooniery thrown in with a mix of assholeishness and thats hockey.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3879
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Lancer » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:04 am

I have no problem with battling out there and if, in the heat of competition, sticks and fists come up I'm all for it. By all means, let tempers flare and battle for every inch of ice. If they want to throw in some crease crashing and a little intimidation, okay.

The calculated thuggery going on, however, is making a mockery of the sport IMHO. It's no better than having two goons square off and skate around eachother after a face-off and making a spectacle of themselves. When a team deliberately engages in stuff that's against the rules because 'they can't call it all' that's just a team thumbing its nose at the league and laughing at the joke they've made of it.

If we're going to go down that route, take the instigator penalty out and let the brawling rule. Then you can put a lead-fisted caveman out with the Sedins and they'll get the protection Gretzky had. You can have some line-clearing brawls and put bets on who left more blood out on the ice. If that's the way they want to go, I've watched that hockey before and I'll watch it again cheering on my team.

Just don't put in rules and say you're making the game safer, better, and more entertaining to watch when you throw out the book at will when it suits the suits in New York. Even for the argument that the playoffs should play under different rules (know of any other major sport like that?), nobody can say those 'rules' have been consitently applied. How many questionable calls/non-calls have we already seen this spring?

Just set some rules, get the players to understand them, and follow them. Is that too hard?
Love the Sport. Love the Team.

Hate the League.
User avatar
Lancer
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:41 am
Location: Arnprior, Ontario

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Strangelove » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:35 am

Lancer wrote:Just set some rules, get the players to understand them, and follow them. Is that too hard?


Apparently is it. :drink:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:32 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:There no question that the playoffs have always been called differently. Always. In fact most of us scream in the playoffs if the refs do call everything, let em play is the refrain. And OT, we don't want to see anything called.


Unless it's on the Vancouver Canucks. :(
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ClamRussel » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:37 pm

Topper wrote:
ClamRussel wrote:I'd say that '82 team was tougher than the '94 team. Their toughest players could really play.

LOL, talk about revisionist history.

'82 was a team of low talent plumbers clutching and grabbing their way to success and without the LA upset of Edmonton, they would never have been in the finals.

Gradin was the only player on that team with any real talent. Fraser could hold his own until the ice capades road trip, but at that point fatigue and his undiagnosed diabetes would kick in.


Your LA theory is a moot point and irrelevant.
Sure Gradin was the best pure talent, but Smyl had solid skill for a grinder. They had three 30 goal scorers and would have had 4 had Rota not been injured plus Fraser had 28. I think Ivan Hlinka had a skill or two. Williams could score. They certainly weren't the most skilled group we've ever had, thats not what I said. No Canucks era since has had as many core players as tough as Smyl/Fraser/Williams/Rota who could all play. I stand by it.

We could use players with that kind of heart today.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ClamRussel » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:40 pm

Lancer wrote:Which is why I would rather have the refs paid by and accountable to only the IIHF. The IIHF can send the league the bill for officiating. The IIHF would then be able to review the officials' work, while working with both the league and the PA in terms of refining or evolving the rulebook. The league can submit the rulebook with recommendations for context and let the IIHF and the refs do their job. The IIHF has no stake in seeing certain markets prosper or suffer but just the betterment of the game so it would have at least the veneer of impartiality - which is not a claim anyone can make of the situation right now. It works in other pro leagues, why not the NHL?

As for supplementary discipline, they should have a PA rep, a league rep and either a mutually-acceptable independent arbitrator, or somebody from the IIHF. Decisions would be based on majority consensus. That way, nobody can bitch that the league is jobbing certain players or teams. The only downside could be a longer time between the infraction and the suspension.

Food for thought...


It would certainly clear up the bad optics this league continually inflicts upon itself.
Good ideas Lancer.
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: GALLAGHER ARTICLE ON BULLIES

Postby ClamRussel » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:43 pm

Strangelove wrote:
okcanuck wrote:meaning the refs got control of the game, and the players adapted by the second game.


Not to be scary but who really got control and... who adapted to whom? Image

:wink:

But seriously, true there was more consistency in how they called games back in the day, but

.... refs have always tended to let more stuff go in the playoffs. Image


well it helped that there was one ref
"Once a King, always a King"
-Mike Murphy
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ESQ, givemeda411, Google Adsense [Bot], herb, rats19 and 3 guests