Blog Entry

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

Posted on: June 4, 2011 11:53 pm
Edited on: June 5, 2011 12:19 am
 

That bites.

Perhaps louder than the celebration in Vancouver of the overtime win in Game 2 was the cursing and outcry coming from Boston. That's because of Alex Burrows -- who plenty of people felt should have been suspended for his (alleged) bite of Patrice Bergeron's finger in Game 1.

Not only did Burrows net the winner just 11 seconds into overtime -- the second fasted overtime goal in Stanley Cup Finals history -- he was crucial to Vancouver's first two goals, including netting the first and assisting on the second goal. There was no doubt he was the star on Saturday night and it's safe to say the Canucks don't win Game 2 without him.

"Well, I mean, anybody that follows our team knows he's a really important part of our team. He plays five-on-five, he plays power-play, and he kills penalties," Canucks coach Alain Vigneault said. "So, you know, he's overall one of our go-to guys. Again tonight he came up big in key moments."

The decision to not suspend Burrows was questioned plenty in the off days between Game 1 and Game 2. You better believe it will be questioned even more now. Not that it matters. But good luck convincing Bruins fans of that. This will sting.

Bruins coach Claude Julien wasn't interested in talking about the controversy and how it impacted Game 2.

"If we start using that as an excuse, we're a lame team," Bruins coach Claude Julien said. "It's not even a consideration."

He might not want to second-guess the decision nor will he blame the non-punishment, which is understandable, but it has to burn him and the Bruins a little, even if they won't let it on.

We know the Canucks were aware of the controversy surrounding the Game 1 play. That's because Maxim Lapierre was taunting Bergeron in Game 2 by sticking his finger up to Bergeron's mouth.

You will remember that Colin Campbell, the man who would usually be in charge of handing out disciplinary measures in such cases, is now out as dean of discipline. This was to be his last series in the role, but because his son Gregory plays for the Bruins, he recused himself. So the decision was made by Mike Murphy, who cited the lack of evidence in not suspending Burrows for Game 2. In case you somehow missed it, here it is again. And his worst nightmare just came true. This will no doubt be his defining moment of his very short time as interim dean.

It's funny how it works this way sometimes. The worst-case scenario for NHL executives happened. Perhaps the controversy would have gone away, never to be heard from again, if Burrows had a quiet game. Not now. Instead it will remain at the forefront of the off day discussion.

Now Vancouver heads to Boston up 2-0. Just to put that into proper context, teams up 2-0 in the Stanley Cup Finals win 95 percent of the time.

In Boston they cursed Bill Buckner and Aaron F***** Boone until the Red Sox ended their massive World Series drought. Now there's a new goat for them to bite into.

-- Brian Stubits

Photo: US Presswire
Comments
kkjyywlpo
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 16, 2011 11:53 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: June 5, 2011 10:13 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

If you wanted a suspension for shoving your finger in someone elses mouth (what was he supposed to do suck on it)
Chara should have gotten 10 games for the hit on Max Patches that was pure goonery, Montreal was up 4-0 in the game and what doe the Bawston Goons do but they went out and Broke a players neck.

before you go bitching about no suspension for fingering someone elses mouth how about you look at your own track record of no calls




While I can say that Horton could have been suspended by the letter of the law the fact tha Chara was not suspended was 100% correct by the NHL. One of the few times they got it right. Fact is Chara gave the guy a small push albeit a little late worthy of a 2 minute call. It was bad luck on Pacioretty's part as it took him off guard and into a bad spot. No intent to injure. What orhter non-calls would you be referring to einstein? You are obviously just a hater without a coherent argument in this since you state that the finger was should in Burrows mouth, was this before or after Burrows tilted his head downwards to make the bite?  Just another idiot who likes to annoy people and knows jack shyte about the game.




Since: Jan 9, 2007
Posted on: June 5, 2011 7:36 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

Fotolabman, You are a Moron!



Since: Jan 11, 2008
Posted on: June 5, 2011 6:19 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

I have to say, Chara was the wrong guy to be in that situation in OT. Not like they knoew what the play was going to be and sent him in there, it's just the way it developed. Chara is huge with a lot of upside and I would like him on my team, but his length makes him not the quickest, most nimble guy. The guy on tv said Chara should have taken Burrows down. Well, Chara would have if he could have caught him. Burrows got a fortunate bounce off the boards and it's over. As for lcuky bounces, I've never counted, but I bet a third to half of goals have some kind of luck involved. The Bs got a "lucky" bounce of the puck off the ice for a goal. A lot of shots are taken with the hopes there will be a "lucky" bounce or deflection.



Since: Jan 11, 2008
Posted on: June 5, 2011 6:09 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

It's easy to say the Bruins would have won the game if Burrows hadn't played, since he was involved in all three Vancouver goals. But it's simply not possible to claim that is absolutely true. If he wasn't on the ice, the lineups would have been different. Who knows what would have happened then? Maybe the Bruins wouldn't have scored at all. Mabe Burrow's replacement would have scored 3. Maybe the Canoucks would have been even more fired up. Just move on and hope the league does different next time.



Since: Aug 13, 2006
Posted on: June 5, 2011 5:48 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

Biting is a suspendable offense, and it is ridiculous that he didn't get a game, not because I think it is suspendable, but because it is written right in the rules.  Saying that, it is also written right in the rules about squirting water and throwing water bottles at fans, regardless of what happened leading up to that action.  In both cases, it seemed like a cut and dry case, and in both cases the league did what it has done over and over again (make head scratching decisions).  In this case, the ruling went against Boston, the majority of the time the Bruins got the benefit of the questionable decision making.  The Bruins, and their fans, should be saying nothing about the Burrows decision based on previous rulings involving the Bruins team and players this year.  At the end of the day, Vancouver has been the better team up to this point and deserve to be up 2 games to none.  If Boston deserves to win the cup, they will show it by coming back from a 2-0 deficit.  The Bruins
have had a great year up to this point, but I don't think it will happen.  
For those people who don't understand people comparing biting to spraying water and throwing bottles, understand the reasoning behind it.  No matter what your personal feelings are these types of discretions, both are specifically covered in the rule book, and the league in both instances ignored what was written in the rule book, that is why these 2 incidents are comparable.  Don't minimize the impact of interacting with fans in regards to water bottles either, it has the potential to cause a lot more problems than someone taking a bite on someone else's padded finger.  Just ask the basketball Pistons and Pacers from a few years ago what happens with players and fans get into it.    



Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: June 5, 2011 4:53 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

I am not sticking up for Bettman as I do not like the guy but this was not his fault. It was the fault of Mike Murphy. The blind guy who said there was not enough conclusive evidence to penalize Burrows (despite a plain as day video). Like I said in my previous post though. The Bruins should have won and the lapse by Thmoas and Chara cost them the game. I just hope the Bruins come back in the next couple of games and take what they deserve, a couple of wins and even this thing back up.



Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posted on: June 5, 2011 4:24 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

Another horrific display by the NHL discipline department.   It was clear on National TV that he bit the finger.   Others have gotten suspended for the same thing.   He should have been suspended.   That said, the B's had every opportunity to win that game in spite of Burrows.  They didn't get it done.

And for the clueless that said that he put his finger in Burrows' mouth....he was grasping at Burrows from behind the official...he couldn't see Burrows or where his mouth/face were.  And even if he intentionally put it there (which he didn't), that doesn't give the player to bite down.  You lean out of the way if someone's fingers are in your face.  The rules are crystal clear on biting.


Hate Boston&LA
Since: May 4, 2011
Posted on: June 5, 2011 3:47 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Jun 5, 2011
Posted on: June 5, 2011 1:54 pm
 

Decision not to suspend Burrows bites Bruins

If you wanted a suspension for shoving your finger in someone elses mouth (what was he supposed to do suck on it)
Chara should have gotten 10 games for the hit on Max Patches that was pure goonery, Montreal was up 4-0 in the game and what doe the Bawston Goons do but they went out and Broke a players neck.

before you go bitching about no suspension for fingering someone elses mouth how about you look at your own track record of no calls


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com