NHL 2010-2011: Rick Rypien

Morro wrote:

Absolutely hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxu2-...

Holy sh*t I laughed my ass off.

LMAO, nice vid

Well, it took 59 minutes and 42 seconds, but it was well worth it.

“After reviewing the incident, including speaking with the on-ice officials, I can find no conclusive evidence that Alex Burrows intentionally bit the finger of Patrice Bergeron,”
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playof...

Ridiculous.
IMAGE(http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/files/2011/06/OMNOMNOM3.gif.pagespeed.ce_.H08Kg50IIo3.gif)

Trophy Husband wrote:

“After reviewing the incident, including speaking with the on-ice officials, I can find no conclusive evidence that Alex Burrows intentionally bit the finger of Patrice Bergeron,”
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playof...

Ridiculous.
IMAGE(http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/files/2011/06/OMNOMNOM3.gif.pagespeed.ce_.H08Kg50IIo3.gif)

Hockey play;Bergeron should have known where he was on the ice; Bergeron's glove should have had more padding on it; Bergeron jumped; Burrows didn't know what he was doing; Burrows isn't that type of player; You can't prove that Burrows intended to bite Bergeron's finger (I'm still bitter).

If Burrows really wanted to give the Canucks an advantage with some incredibly dirty play he'd be better off targeting the head of Bergeron, who has had concussion problems. With the concussion protocol, if actually enforced, providing greater incentive for knocking guys out I'm actually surprised teams didn't target the head of opposition stars.

Let me take off my Burrows jersey for a moment. 

Hello ladies. 

Look at Game 1. Now back to the Burrows/Bergeron GIF, now back to Game 1, now back to the GIF. 

Sadly, nothing else happened in Game 1, but if there had been some flow we'd have more to talk about. 

Look down, back up. Where are you? You're in Rogers Arena, watching the Game 1 your Game 1 could have played like. Look at the boxscore, back at me, I have it, it's empty of stupid penalty calls, now look again, the game is all exciting 5-on-5 hockey.

The analysts would have a lot more to talk about if something exciting had actually happened, and not get hung up on Bergeron. I'm on a zamboni.

Gravey wrote:

Let me take off my Burrows jersey for a moment. 

Hello ladies. 

Look at Game 1. Now back to the Burrows/Bergeron GIF, now back to Game 1, now back to the GIF. 

Sadly, nothing else happened in Game 1, but if there had been some flow we'd have more to talk about. 

Look down, back up. Where are you? You're in Rogers Arena, watching the Game 1 your Game 1 could have played like. Look at the boxscore, back at me, I have it, it's empty of stupid penalty calls, now look again, the game is all exciting 5-on-5 hockey.

The analysts would have a lot more to talk about if something exciting had actually happened, and not get hung up on Bergeron. I'm on a zamboni.

If the players would stop committing infractions (a big ask for some of the players in Boston, mind you), perhaps you might see more 5on5 play :wink:; most of the calls look to be obstruction-related or automatic (high-sticking) rather than clamping down on the physicality. I'm probably all alone on this, but I wish referees would call more penalties as they often miss or let go infractions that should be called (penalties are way down from 05-06). Mind you, that would require some kind of consistency from the league and the officials. Post lockout, penalties tend to be called things fairly tightly (though not as tightly the season before) in the first half of the season, the referees slip again in the second half, and slip again in the playoffs. The rules are written, they need to be enforced more.

That said, the even-strength scoring chance counts for the game weren't that low considering the penalties. It is amazing that Boston didn't generate a single scoring chance on the powerplay though.

If anything it looks like he's blowing his nose in the glove.

Don't stick your fingers in someone's mouth.

Shattering some poor kid's spine: Hockey play.

Biting a finger through an inch or two of padding: SUSPENSION

4xis.black wrote:

Shattering some poor kid's spine: Hockey play.

Biting a finger through an inch or two of padding: SUSPENSION

They should both be suspensions, as should Horton squirting water at a fan (if the NHL actually practiced what they preached in memos).

I think this is all rather silly. If there is virtually zero chance of a player (or a fan) being injured on the play, I'm not sure how it could result in anything other than a penalty and maybe a fine (especially during the Stanley Cup Final).

No suspension should be given. It's not like Burrows skated over to Bergeron on the bench, leaped over the wall, grabbed his hand and bit his pinkie off down to the first knuckle. Don't want your finger bit? Don't stick it in someone's mouth. I learned that pretty early.

Back to Horton, I'd have been fine with Horton getting a suspension so long as they chose someone with equal stats for the Bolts to sit out, too, to account for the fans' behavior. If we're holding the players accountable it seems the fans should be held accountable as well. Pro-tip: don't throw sh*t at the other team's players. I do find the hockey gods hilarious having Horton score the only goal in the deciding game.

Oh, Tim Thomas.

That was awesome/hilarious

-Lapierre is the new Ruutu and I couldn't be happier
-Burrows is now a folk hero
-2 more wins
-best game I've ever been to in my life. I've been to more exciting but I've never been to one that meant as much
-2 MORE WINS

4xis.black wrote:

Oh, Tim Thomas.

Throughout the game he was going way too far out for no apparent reason, you knew it would come back to bite him (again).

The hockey gods simply will not be appeased! It's fantastic! God forbid anyone else do something seemingly suspension-worthy in this series, because whoever it is will get an ovechtrick -- yes, I did spout advertising nonsense -- during the following game at this rate.

I just googled 'Ovechtrick', and now I can't decide whether I regret doing that.

Vector wrote:

-Lapierre is the new Ruutu and I couldn't be happier

Oh please. If a Bruins player behaved like that the nation of Canada would mount a federal investigation. You'd hear their whining all the way to south Texas.

imbiginjapan wrote:
Vector wrote:

-Lapierre is the new Ruutu and I couldn't be happier

Oh please. If a Bruins player behaved like that the nation of Canada would mount a federal investigation. You'd hear their whining all the way to south Texas.

lol

It's best not to listen to Canucks fans right now - this is not the time for unbiased opinions. Talk to them a month from now and they'll admit that Lapierre is, and always has been, an annoying little sh*t.

So was Ruutu. That's why you hate him and we love him. The roll of an instigator is to piss everyone off. He does that well. The only pests in the league I really don't like are Kaleta and Carcillo. Cheapshot artist and a sideshow. Right now Lapierre is an annoying little sh*t and it's perfect. Just like Ruutu was.

Win the Cup and I will never care again. It's not like the Bruins are squeaky clean. Horton should have been suspended for Game 7 against Tampa, and I didn't care. Savard wasn't suspended for biting someone in the playoffs a year or so ago.

Vector wrote:

Win the Cup and I will never care again.

Exactly. I definitely wouldn't care about anything else.

imbiginjapan wrote:
Vector wrote:

-Lapierre is the new Ruutu and I couldn't be happier

Oh please. If a Bruins player behaved like that the nation of Canada would mount a federal investigation. You'd hear their whining all the way to south Texas.

Sorry, but when was the last time Lapierre injured anyone, or insulted/got into altercations with fans?

He's a pest and an embellisher, but he keeps it on the ice and doesn't hurt anyone by doing so, which is more than you can say for a lot of Bruins.

Hell, even Burrows bite was totally and absolutely harmless. The impression I get from the Bruins is that the worthiness of a suspension is directly inversely proportional to the actual injury delivered.

Not a Bruins Fan.

I don't have a problem with the non-suspension. I don't think players in any sport should be suspended in the playoffs for anything short of the Bynum hit. Policy should revert to extremely high fines to keep players in line. What happened with Amare and the Suns in 2007, or with Charlie Ward, Patrick Ewing, John Starks, Larry Johnson, and Allan Houston with the Knicks in '97 is stupid.

I'm glad there wasn't a suspension, but to come out with a statement that essentially said "Burrows didn't bite him" is what I consider ridiculous.

Trophy Husband wrote:

Not a Bruins Fan.

I don't have a problem with the non-suspension. I don't think players in any sport should be suspended in the playoffs for anything short of the Bynum hit. Policy should revert to extremely high fines to keep players in line. What happened with Amare and the Suns in 2007, or with Charlie Ward, Patrick Ewing, John Starks, Larry Johnson, and Allan Houston with the Knicks in '97 is stupid.

I'm glad there wasn't a suspension, but to come out with a statement that essentially said "Burrows didn't bite him" is what I consider ridiculous.

Supplemental discipline in hockey is a mess. Campbell is out though, and Shanahan is in. Anybody have thoughts on this?

I'm kind of surprised Shanny took the job. Hard to see how it wouldn't be a death blow to any career. I wish him the best though, and hope he is able to lend some credibility back to the NHL disciplinarian's office. Word is that he's been given a mandate to be much more strict than in the past.

nihilo wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

Not a Bruins Fan.

I don't have a problem with the non-suspension. I don't think players in any sport should be suspended in the playoffs for anything short of the Bynum hit. Policy should revert to extremely high fines to keep players in line. What happened with Amare and the Suns in 2007, or with Charlie Ward, Patrick Ewing, John Starks, Larry Johnson, and Allan Houston with the Knicks in '97 is stupid.

I'm glad there wasn't a suspension, but to come out with a statement that essentially said "Burrows didn't bite him" is what I consider ridiculous.

Supplemental discipline in hockey is a mess. Campbell is out though, and Shanahan is in. Anybody have thoughts on this?

I'm kind of surprised Shanny took the job. Hard to see how it wouldn't be a death blow to any career. I wish him the best though, and hope he is able to lend some credibility back to the NHL disciplinarian's office. Word is that he's been given a mandate to be much more strict than in the past.

The change won't matter all that much on the suspension, officiating, rules enforcement, or conflict of interest fronts. Most of the owners don't want suspensions, the players don't want suspensions, and Campbell is still Director of Hockey Operations. The NHL needs to codify its supplemental discipline: If you do 'x' then you get suspend for 'y'. The second time you do 'x' you get suspended for '2y' etc. Until that happens the seat of the pants suspension decisions won't change much. It doesn't help that pre-season is different than early season, is different than the second half of the season, is different from the playoffs, is different from the Finals and everything is different if you're a star player or a plug. Setting out clear guidelines would help with that too.

On the subject of Lapierre, he's really turned things around since moving to Vancouver. His regular season play took a jump compared to MTL/ANA and he's done a very nice job defensively filling in for Malholtra in the playoffs playing almost as well in the Ültra-defensive role. He can be inconsistent and horrible during the season (he was for the 1.5 seasons before Vancouver) but come playoff time he somehow turns his play around. I don't understand how he does it, but somehow it works.

Roke wrote:

...It doesn't help that pre-season is different than early season, is different than the second half of the season, is different from the playoffs, is different from the Finals and everything is different if you're a star player or a plug. Setting out clear guidelines would help with that too...

This is my biggest issue with officiating in the NHL; how it changes throughout the season and infraction to infraction. You should be able to set up your guidelines, explain your policy, then strictly and consistently enforce your system. I'll give you a little leeway during the playoffs/finals when the top officiating staff are managing the games, but that's about it.

Dysplastic wrote:
imbiginjapan wrote:
Vector wrote:

-Lapierre is the new Ruutu and I couldn't be happier

Oh please. If a Bruins player behaved like that the nation of Canada would mount a federal investigation. You'd hear their whining all the way to south Texas.

Sorry, but when was the last time Lapierre injured anyone, or insulted/got into altercations with fans?

He's a pest and an embellisher, but he keeps it on the ice and doesn't hurt anyone by doing so, which is more than you can say for a lot of Bruins.

Hell, even Burrows bite was totally and absolutely harmless. The impression I get from the Bruins is that the worthiness of a suspension is directly inversely proportional to the actual injury delivered.

Man, you try to talk a little smack and all you get are a bunch of reasonable counterarguments. No wonder you guys still pledge allegience to a foreign monarchy.

We did consider revolting, but foresaw that it would one day cause a bunch of crazy people to wear funny hats and scream a lot.