You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
You guys seriously think that Calgary's 4th line would've started chasing around the Sedins and pummelling them?
Another way of looking at it is that Vancouver would've had an ideal matchup -- their top skill line against Calgary's least-skilled. Any way you shake it, the fact is that Torts made the decision to start his goon line against Calgary's, so blaming Hartley and Hartley alone for what happened is delusional.
You guys seriously think that Calgary's 4th line would've started chasing around the Sedins and pummelling them?
Another way of looking at it is that Vancouver would've had an ideal matchup -- their top skill line against Calgary's least-skilled. Any way you shake it, the fact is that Torts made the decision to start his goon line against Calgary's, so blaming Hartley and Hartley alone for what happened is delusional.
Yes
Yes I would. Why else would you start the game with your 4th line. The message is pretty clear right off the bat.
And let say you send the sedins and burrows, 2 of 3 are hurt. why risk it.
Brings you down to our thin as fuck 2nd and 3rd line. Would you risk Kesler or Kassian getting hurt? Yes they can protect themselves fine, but you wouldnt because you need them to play hockey.
Your only option afterwards is the 4th line.
Don't get me wrong, Torts has done this before, last season against Jersey, but he started that incident.
Torts doesn't seem to be in the business to do this nonsense anymore
He's been through it once.. heres him pulling the stunt against the devils
The irony in all this is that if you reverse the roles (throw the Sedins and Burr on and they get hurt), the same people bitching about Torts right now would be bitching about him not protecting his players and throwing the 4th line on
here's a good post by someone else
Quote:
I couldn't be more proud of our guys and our coach. Loved it.
Here's my take:
Vancouver has been labelled as a soft team for years. Every club in the NHL was gladly bullying this team and these guys, and the media, the league and nobody else from the outside had a problem with it. The expectation was that Vancouver will always back down from the confrontation, and the Canucks didn't disappoint. They turned the other cheek to the point where lots of fans questioned their honor as men. The Canucks naively trusted the league to serve justice, but the NHL never came through. Now, when the Canucks push back, when they don't back down and the players fight back nobody from the outside likes it. Now the league wants to step in and do what's right to "protect the integrity of the game." To everyone saying the Canucks should've turned the other cheek yet again and started someone other than the fourth line, I ask why? Why are we always the ones expected to have the cooler heads? Why are we the ones who always have to be rational? Let me remind you that Westgarth went after Bieksa right off the faceoff. Bieksa didn't even drop his gloves. I wonder if Westgarth had started throwing punches and Bieksa didn't reciprocate, would we have gotten a 7 minute powerplay?
If you take a look at the HF boards or NHL.com's comment section, you'd see all the assumptions made about Vancouver. Now all of a sudden this club is no longer a soft club, now the Canucks are goons.
This team will always, ALWAYS get the short end of the stick from the league. We will always have to kill penalties for things EVERY other team gets away with, and we will ALWAYS have to kill penalties for sticking up for one another. I'm finally starting to make my peace with it, slowly.
Yes he shouldn't have gone into the Flames hallway but if another coach had done I'm willing to bet that he'd probably get away with a fine. Hell if Torts had done that as a Rangers coach he'd probably merely get smacked with a fine. Let's see what the verdict will be as a Canucks coach.
I'd like to thank Torts for teaching this club not to take sh*t from anyone, and I'd like to apologize to him for most likely having to be at the brunt of all of this by the league and the media because he went into the other team's hallway.
I'm not denying Hartley was out to send a message, and to throw down the gauntlet. What I am disputing is that Hartley is the sole person at fault here.
Nobody sees a problem with the following
A) starting his goon line in response (along with a kid who is in his first NHL game ever)
B) screaming and yelling across the benches at the other team
C) rushing to the other team's locker room at the end of the period?
I mean, blame Hartley all you want, but if you think that he bears 100% of the responsibility for this, you have to stop drinking the kool-aid.
You guys seriously think that Calgary's 4th line would've started chasing around the Sedins and pummelling them?
Another way of looking at it is that Vancouver would've had an ideal matchup -- their top skill line against Calgary's least-skilled. Any way you shake it, the fact is that Torts made the decision to start his goon line against Calgary's, so blaming Hartley and Hartley alone for what happened is delusional.
Again, torts having his 4th line out against flames 4th line does mean flames had to drop their gloves. The fact that they did so first showed what their intentions were to begin with.
Clearly, torts plays a part in it, but this all starts with Hartley. If you want to play the "if he didn't do this, that wouldn't have happened", then it can just be said that if Hartley didn't start his 4th line, then nothing else would have ensued. If Hartley didn't coach that game, it wouldn't have happened. If flames didn't play Canucks last night, it wouldn't have happened. Posted via RS Mobile
The expectation was that Vancouver will always back down from the confrontation, and the Canucks didn't disappoint.
This is ONE of the reason why I will never ever miss AV. Telling our boys to play "whistle-to-whistle" only on Game 7 of the SCF finals is pretty much just telling our boys to fold the most important game of their lives - and probably the only opportunity they will get for most of our players.
Like someone said already a few games back, it's been 4 years now and that day still hurts and haunts to this day.
Despite the hate on the Bruins here, I have respect for what they did. The rose to the occasion and took the game to a whole other level the Canucks couldn't match. What Torts did last night is exactly what we could've done that fateful day we still ever so hang on to, to this day
Fuck the league.
We were losing with AV the last year or two. We may still be losing now still with Torts but I'd rather lose this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majestic12
I'm not denying Hartley was out to send a message, and to throw down the gauntlet. What I am disputing is that Hartley is the sole person at fault here.
Nobody sees a problem with the following
A) starting his goon line in response (along with a kid who is in his first NHL game ever)
B) screaming and yelling across the benches at the other team
C) rushing to the other team's locker room at the end of the period?
I mean, blame Hartley all you want, but if you think that he bears 100% of the responsibility for this, you have to stop drinking the kool-aid.
He bears 100% of the fault since anything less than sending out our 4th line is playing exactly into Hartley's hands. It's you who needs to stop drinking the "best case scenario is what would've happened" kool-aid.
Right, so the plan was to have Calgary's 4th line beat down whichever line showed up to play? So hypothetically, if the Sedins had started, Calgary would've just beat the shit out of them? Of course, Hartley would never consider that if that were to happen, Vancouver would do the exact same thing next time Monahan or Hudler was out, right?
Hartley never forced Torts to go ballistic and yell and scream and chase after people in the hallways. There's a reason why Torts was the one to get summoned to NY for a hearing instead of Hartley, or both of them together.
Right, so the plan was to have Calgary's 4th line beat down whichever line showed up to play? So hypothetically, if the Sedins had started, Calgary would've just beat the shit out of them? Of course, Hartley would never consider that if that were to happen, Vancouver would do the exact same thing next time Monahan or Hudler was out, right?
Hartley never forced Torts to go ballistic and yell and scream and chase after people in the hallways. There's a reason why Torts was the one to get summoned to NY for a hearing instead of Hartley, or both of them together.
Who cares. The point here is Calgary tried to intimidate the Canucks, Canucks didn't take any of their shit and gave them a f-u. Sends a big message to other opponents that the Canucks aren't taking any shit from any team.
Right, so the plan was to have Calgary's 4th line beat down whichever line showed up to play? So hypothetically, if the Sedins had started, Calgary would've just beat the shit out of them? Of course, Hartley would never consider that if that were to happen, Vancouver would do the exact same thing next time Monahan or Hudler was out, right?
Hartley never forced Torts to go ballistic and yell and scream and chase after people in the hallways. There's a reason why Torts was the one to get summoned to NY for a hearing instead of Hartley, or both of them together.
Yes. I expect the 4th line to shit all over the sedins, how else do you explain why other teams in the league make it their agenda to play as physical as they can against them? So with the goons out there, their goal would have been the same. Make life miserable for the twins
Its why Gretzky had Semenko in the 80s. Its why Burrows plays off the twins so well. Its why whenever your plug hits your top guy, that someone goes after them.
You respond by accepting the challenge. Something AV will back down from. Its not a healthy way to lead a team.
Torts accepts what he did after the intermission to be wrong, but im sure as hell it got the message across to the team. If it didn't, well, then this team is doomed
but overall, Torts will get criticized either way, at least I'm happy with his decision. Yes that was a bad move for him to enter the other team's space off the ice was uncalled for and should be disciplined, but his choice not to put the top line at risk was the most ideal call in this case.
no matter what line you put out the 4th of Calgary will either fight or hit the crap out of them, so to fight fire with fire shows we're not the pushovers of previous years.
I'm not denying Hartley was out to send a message, and to throw down the gauntlet. What I am disputing is that Hartley is the sole person at fault here.
Nobody sees a problem with the following
A) starting his goon line in response (along with a kid who is in his first NHL game ever)
B) screaming and yelling across the benches at the other team
C) rushing to the other team's locker room at the end of the period?
I mean, blame Hartley all you want, but if you think that he bears 100% of the responsibility for this, you have to stop drinking the kool-aid.
you realize 99.99% of all coaches would do the first 2. hell even during intermission friedman brought out the fact a gm already sent him a msg saying what hartley did was pathetic. hartley is known for this stupid shit, he did it in the ahl, atlanta, colorado, and calgary. his players have chased after stars, they have injured people unwilling to fight. even scott parker, his former goon talks shit about him/how he uses goons. your 3rd point is the only thing torts did wrong, besides ruining a kids first game which he has also apologized nationally for
Hey Kerry, big fan of yours, just finished reading your book.
I think that we all saw the Canucks/Flames line brawl just after puck drop. It was obvious that something was about to happen, even to the referees because the fourth lines were on to start. My question is, is there anything that the refs could've done to prevent this from happening?
Secondly, Canucks coach John Tortorella confronted the Flames after the end of the second period. He was pretty wound up after the brawl and there were the two refs and a linesman beside him trying to calm him down. The confrontation would not have most likely happened if he received a penalty of some sort after the brawl. He was pretty worked up, and yelling at the Calgary bench, so why not penalize him for his actions or just toss him altogether?
Thanks
Patrick
Patrick,
The referee is expected to execute his duties as a 'reactionary' arbitrator. He must determine when a violation of the rules has been committed and then raise his arm to assess the appropriate penalty. There is nothing within the playing rules that prevents either coach from placing their fourth liners on the ice to start the game. As the visiting team, Flames coach Bob Hartley must provide his starting lineup to the Official Scorer first. This generally takes place following the pre-game warm-up.
As the home team coach, John Tortorella had the option to counter with a starting lineup selection of his choice. 'Torts' accepted the challenge from Hartley and chose to match "beef for beef"! Both coaches must accept the consequences of their players' actions, premeditated or otherwise.
All hands of the officiating crew were on deck as they observed the tell-tale signs as to what was about to occur the instant the puck was dropped. Players extended menacing looks, 'chatted' each other up as they assumed their positions, gloves shook on hands to make sure they came off quickly and Canuck defenceman Kevin Bieksa offered a word with Flames starting centre Kevin Westgarth before switching positions with Canucks starting center, 6'6' rookie Kellan Lain. Referee Dave Jackson was privy to all of this and delayed the puck drop after providing some instructions of his own.
At this point in the posturing that took place, I am going to step well outside of the expected referee protocol. I suspect many will disagree with the proactive intervention that I am about to suggest. (Know that I have utilized something similar when situations called for it). While many of you might have even enjoyed watching the line brawl that took place, I personally didn't like the 'staged' event that forced players to initiate and others to defend themselves as a result of coaching decisions and perhaps even instructions.
Prior to even thinking about dropping the puck, I would bring the other officials to centre ice for a conference and ask the linesmen to escort both starting lineups to their respective players' bench. I would speak to Bob Hartley first (with my ref partner) and read him the riot act. I would promise (not threaten) that if a brawl erupted, we would identify the instigators from either team and eject them from the game.
Additionally, I would offer the coach a moment, before we started the game, to instruct his players to exhibit restraint once I dropped the puck and to just play! If they did not comply with this request and a brawl resulted, I would hold the coach responsible and eject him from the game as well! The final thing I would do is allow the coach to make a change in his starting lineup if he wished.
The very same discussion would be held with John Tortorella at the Canucks bench and if Hartley made a change in his starting lineup, 'Torts' could counter the move. These are pretty drastic measures, for sure. Would I do it in the best interest of the game? You're damn right! If a line brawl erupted following the discussion with both coaches and their players, I would make good on my "promise". The battle lines would have been drawn before the puck drop.
Following the brawl, Tortorella understandably lost his mind on Hartley, perhaps forgetting that he also had a hand in placing a starting lineup on the ice. This would have been a perfect time to eject both coaches from the game in addition to the players that got an early shower.
Once the period ended, assuming the referees observed what took place in the hallway outside of the Calgary dressing room that was captured on camera, Tortorella should have been ejected from the game for his conduct. The officials would be required to submit a full report to the commissioner immediately following the game with regard to the line brawl and their account of the incident in the hallway.
Hefty fines and even suspensions should result from this ugly incident.
Fathered more RS members than anybody else. Who's your daddy?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,923
Thanked 11,626 Times in 4,965 Posts
Failed 316 Times in 202 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
We may still be losing now still with Torts but I'd rather lose this way.
Yup........... as the other person quoted on here said, the league makes fun of how the Canucks are such pushovers. They take liberty with our top players. We always get the short end of the stick. It's time to grow a pair and fight back. Mike Gillis has to step up, too. Has he shown support for what Torts did? Not excuse it, but lay it out and tell everyone else how the Canucks have been given a raw deal time after time and that something had to give. Be on notice, people.........."We are not going to take it any more!" He probably wouldn't comment, but it sure would be nice.
The fans are sick of it and it was refreshing last night to see the coach take the bull by the horns.
Anyway, hope the league doesn't screw us over on Monday.
__________________
Quote:
"there but for the grace of god go I"
Quote:
Youth is, indeed, wasted on the young.
YODO = You Only Die Once.
Dirty look from MG1 can melt steel beams.
"There must be dissonance before resolution - MG1" a musical reference.
Originally posted by v.b. can we stop, my pussy hurts... Originally posted by asian_XL fliptuner, I am gonna grab ur dick and pee in your face, then rub shit all over my face...:lol Originally posted by Fei-Ji haha i can taste the cum in my mouth Originally posted by FastAnna when I was 13 I wanted to be a video hoe so bad
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
