From the perspective of the NHL's image, this was a great move. Most importantly, action was taken quickly, so as not to let questions linger. Instead of a story that festers and grows, it becomes one that is bandied about for a week and then mentioned trivially in TSN's year-end review. Sunrise, sunset. Brett Hull's skate was in the crease. Yawn. Anybody want to talk about headshots?
We don't usually like to swear here at the HCP (mainly, for all of the beautiful ladies who read the blog and might become offended) but we'd like to offer a hearty "fuck you" to all of the broadcasters who criticized Burrows without looking at the big picture. Usually, we don't take the confusing ramblings about hockey by The Bullriding Network seriously (gold star for trying fellas!), but I've come to respect the opinions of Keith Jones quite a bit during my years as a fan, and his reaction to this issue was irresponsible. By blindly bashing Burrows for his decision to use the media to vent his frustration, he missed the point of the whole debate. He refused to even consider the idea that Burrows' accusations were true. While more veteran writers like McKenzie of TSN, Ken Campbell of THN, and Greg Wyshnyski of Yahoo! Sports questioned Auger's side of the story and wanted to know what was said in Burrows and Auger's pregame chat, knee-jerk analysts like Burnside and Damien Cox spent their energy bashing Burrows, without considering the possibility of truth. They blamed Burrows, Canucks fans, and the media for blowing the incident out of proportion, without considering its real severity. If Auger really did tell Burrows he would get him back, and really did call those late penalties as retribution, there are far-reaching consequences. If the Canucks were to miss the playoffs by a single point (happened in 2006), Aquelini and the City of Vancouver stand to lose millions of dollars in economic benefit, not to mention the hundreds of dollars fans paid for tickets to watch a fixed game. Without hearing or even considering Auger's side of the story, Burnside and Cox do their readers and the game of hockey a severe disservice by pronouncing Burrows' guilt.
The real reason to believe Burrows' version it that the "third Sedin" was supposed to be a career ECHL-er, an undersized and underskilled player who'd never make it on the NHL stage. Burrows rose past the Salmon Kings and the Manitoba Moose to the NHL on pure hard work and tenacity. Although he is known to exaggerate and dive, there is no indication that he is a dishonest person. Burnside insinuates he's disliked by his own teammates; Shane O'Brien said "every guy in the locker room would go through a wall" for Burrows. Burr had nothing to gain and everything to lose by making his claims, and it is inconceivable to anyone who knows his story that he would put his reputation and his NHL career on the line over a borderline call without some basis in fact.
So here we are. The ref who dishonestly slung Shane Doan's name through the mud and incredulously disallowed this goal earlier this year won't miss a game or a paycheck. The fact remains that even if Burrows' accusations were complete fabrications, the game in question was terribly refereed, with dubious penalties called on either team, and given his reputation Auger should face some sort of retribution, either with a reduction in games or relegation to the AHL. The NHL, even with characters like Auger, is still is one of the hardest yet best refereed major professional sport (I'm talking to you, basketball). However, by glossing over this issue, the NHL has created a dangerous precedent by blindly protecting its referees and ignoring these issues.
The one positive for the Canucks? There likely won't be any more repeats of that debacle of a game Monday. There's no way the NHL can put Auger back in charge of a Canucks game with Burrows in the lineup, and that means better refereeing and better games for Canucks fans.
Posts
