Alright,
I’m not going to get into the details of the events between official, Stephane Auger and Vancouver Canucks forward, Alex Burrows. If you don’t know what happened, or what Burrows claims happened, or you’ve been living under a rock, read the following piece by Bob McKenzie (who sums up the events and how people should feel about them, exceptionally well):
Bob's Rant.
Last night Darren Dreger reported the league will not fine or discipline Stephane Auger, as there simply isn’t sufficient evidence to support Burrows’ claims. Burrows has been fined 2500$ for publicly questioning the integrity of an official.
Darren's Rant.
Now…
I didn’t expect the league to take any action without further evidence to justify Burrows’ claims, but I take issue with the fact that they weren’t able to find sufficient evidence to do something more than letting him clean off the hook:
-They have video of a pregame conversation between Auger and Burrows.
-They have the calls made on Burrows and Henrik Sedin late in the game—and if they aren’t evidence supporting Burrows’ claims-- they clearly speak to some pretty incompetent officiating.
-They have the history between Burrows and Auger.
-They have uber-specific claims from the player himself, and though no one else could (or was willing to) corroborate Burrows’ story, his teammates had no reservations about suggesting something smelled funny about the calls.
-Here’s Roberto Luongo on the situation: "I'm not the type of guy to make excuses - I mean, that's not who I am, but I've never seen anything like it in my whole career… That was the first time I've seen calls like that, especially when the game is on the line."
All this evidence is merely circumstantial, but begs the question as to why further investigation didn’t provoke the necessary evidence to support (even partially) Burrows’ claim.
Either Alex Burrows is an elaborate liar, or his allegations couldn’t be truer. Even if the reality of the situation lies somewhere between both extremes, the dynamic between officials and players has been exposed, and despite Damien Cox’s latest ravings
Damien's Rant about the Canucks and their fans being a bunch of whiners (rich, coming from Leafs Nation) it seems “case closed” without more probing is the NHL’s way of sweeping this under the rug.
Getting back to McKenzie’s piece, he’s bang on the money when he says the following:
“Is it conceivable that Auger was embarrassed and maybe even criticized for assessing a major penalty against Smithson on Dec. 8 because of Burrows' acting job? Referees are only human. If a player makes a monkey of a referee, there is going to be a price to be paid. It could come in the form of that player not getting a call when fouled or maybe getting whistled himself on a marginal call. Or both. And as long as the game of hockey has been played, there's been a give and take between the players and officials that goes beyond the “official” channels.”
The policy McKenzie speaks of is universal in sport. There’s a code between officials and players that extends beyond the rules of the game.
All of this is reasonable and understandable for anyone who’s ever played competitive sports or watched them with a passionate eye…With that in mind, here’s what really bothers me:
There’s an off-ice official at every game whose only responsibility is to evaluate the on-ice officials. He’s given specific criteria to evaluate the way the game was officiated, and a game-sheet to fill out at night’s end.
Even if this off-ice official had absolutely zero knowledge of the conversation or history between Auger and Burrows, you would think the obscure penalty calls might have raised red flags. And if they didn’t, do these evaluators (who are supposed to be a check/balance on the league’s officials) subscribe to the same code that we’re well aware exists between referees and players?
You would think if the NHL were conducting a thorough investigation, and were serious about reprimanding Auger if Burrows’ claims proved to be true, that it would involve a discussion with that off-ice official.
You would think that if that off-ice official were doing his job to the letter that he may have visited the referees’ room after the game for an explanation on those calls. Perhaps his job doesn’t permit him to speak with refs about his findings and evaluation. At the very least, you would expect that the report would indicate that Auger made three calls late in the game that were suspect and had major influence on the outcome; a 3-2 win for the Preds, with the winning tally coming off Shea Weber’s one-time roof job on a 5-on-3 powerplay.
Either way, fining Burrows and doing nothing to reprimand Auger is a weak attempt at swaying public opinion, regardless of how irrational it is to blindly believe Burrows’ claims. What was entirely conceivable before becomes likely after a player goes public with these kinds of claims; even if they can’t prove he was telling the truth. There doesn’t seem to be some major movement to disprove Burrows’ claims from the NHL. Just a fine, and a “cased closed”…
This incident lends credence to the many conspiracy theories that emanate from fans who are emotionally invested in their respective teams—and how they’re treated by the officials of the league.
Red Wings fans have felt the league’s been against them for years.
Canadiens fans have felt the officials have favored the Maple Leafs when the Habs play in Toronto.
Leafs fans likely feel the same way about playing the Canadiens, in Montreal.
This season, Habs fans are up in arms about the fact that their team (which can be classified as an easy team to push around, let alone being a violent team) has drawn the most minor penalties, and drawn the least amount of powerplay opportunities in the league. Given that the Canadiens play a style that has them on their heels more often than not, and given their lack of aggression, it only makes sense that they would draw a lot of penalties, and fail to draw a lot of powerplays. Is that enough to account for such a large discrepancy? Fans come on the post-game show I host at the Team990 and frequently ask what Jacques Martin or the Canadiens have done to piss off the league, or its officials?
Is all of it irrational? Perhaps, but who are we to judge? If it’s conceivable (and when a player comes out with such a specific story and the circumstantial evidence creates reasonable support for his accusations, at the very least, it’s conceivable) what makes it less rationale than arguing these suggestions are completely bogus?
Former player Ray Ferraro had this to say about the situation, on his blog
Ray's Rant :
“The referees are just guys like us - trying to do their job as best as they can. And if someone continually tells them that they suck, they won't forget.”
So, if you’re a Canadiens fan and you’re going to the Bell Centre, you might want to consider not starting a “ref you suck” chant, as is always the case when the ref blows a call, or misses it altogether. I’m not suggesting the fans have any influence on how the game’s officiated, but you can’t argue with what Ferraro has said about the situation.
Bottom line: People don’t like to be embarrassed, especially not in a public venue.
Montreal Canadiens Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»