On the other hand, in all fairness, if what he says is a fabrication, there ought to be a fairly severe punishment against Burrows. I hope for both Burrow’s sake and Auger’s that Burrows is being truthful.

We still haven’t heard Auger’s side of the story. Why did Auger pull Burrows in and talk to him before the game? How about, “hey you dove last game, don’t try that again”

Maybe Auger’s perception was merely colored, or maybe he really did have it out for him, I don’t know, but a lot of folks seem to just be taking was Burrows says as the absolute truth

surprised he didn’t pull auger to the ground by his hair. he has a history of that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bzdA3db5ak

Was there anything remotely resembling any kind of long term damage from Andy Van Hellemond’s shenanigans?

And that happened back when the NHL was actually popular.

I’d bet most people don’t even remember what was going on with him, and the story around that situation was quite a bit worse than Auger being a dumbass and saying out loud what every hockey fan with an ounce of realism has known to be true for decades now.

Resolute, I’d call you out for being biased Flames fan who simply doesn’t care for Burrows but, then, I’m a Canucks fan so I could easily be coloured with the same brush.

Putting biases aside, let’s consider the situation here.

Auger and Burrows have a history; one that includes Burrows being dubiously thrown out of a game against Montreal for a cross check on Patrice Brisebois and another that involved Burrows making the most of a hit that resulted in Jerred Smithson being ejected from the game even though Burrows was able to get right back in the game.

Auger clearly (not to mention stupidly) went up to Burrows before the anthem and said something to him. Obviously this will end up in a he said-he said situation if Auger challenges Burrows’ accusation. But we might further consider that there are myriad incidents of refs and players showing each other up – and these don’t result in refs going up to a player before the game and saying anything. It stands to reason that if Auger was going to this length, he must have had a point to make. Whether there was a veiled or explicit threat, the evidence certainly seems to suggest a threat was made (and executed by Auger during the game).

As for the game, I watched it and was utterly disgusted by the refereeing. Listen, I know that it’s easy to blame the refs and the refereeing when your team loses after a few (perceived) bad calls. But even the most anti-Canucks viewer would have to admit that last night was not even questionable in terms of dubious officiating. The Canucks had five penalties in the third to the Predators’ one, with Burrows getting two of them. This, don’t forget, in a 2-2 game. I watch every Canucks game and many others and I must say, I struggle to recall a game where the penalties were that one-sided in a tie game in the third period. The second call against Burrows, in particular, with the Canucks just starting their lone power play of the period, was a phantom call if I’ve ever witnessed one. Then, after Burrows started making a show of his displeasure, Henrik was called for another dubious penalty immediately after. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t add up for me.

Moreover, we should consider another point: despite all of the incidents where a player perceives that he has been picked on by a ref, you never hear of the player making a detailed claim about a vendetta. In other words, it’s not something players typically say to account for dubious calls against them. I find it almost unfathomable that a player like Burrows (especially one with his own questionable reputation who might feel as though he’s been unfairly targeted by refs in the past) would all of the sudden make an erroneous claim to account for penalties against him.

Something doesn’t smell right in all of this. Frankly, I think that’s the conclusion to draw whether you care for Burrows or not.

Duhatshek’s comments are way over the top. There is a big difference between the alleged vendetta against a player and officials taking money to influence games for gambling.

If what Burrows says is true, Auger ought to be fired, but there is also a lesson to be learned here for Burrows. Officials are only human and if you play like a tool (as the NHL conclusively ruled, or at least as conclusively as we can get, Burrows faked it on the Smithson hit) it will come back and bite you.

I will also echo the comments that every one who has ever played hockey will have a story about a ref treating them at least more strictly because they chirped at him or made a dirty play earlier in the game or another game.

I have to disagree with a bunch of people here. Yes, it is human nature for referees to be biased, and such things are always going to be a part of the game. To say that they are inevitable, though, is not to say that they are right. Officials shouldn’t treat players differently, even if they don’t like them for perfectly justifiable reasons. That’s a part of the job. So, I disagree with those who say that Burrows brought this on himself and is just going to have to live with it.

Even aside from making any comments before the game, if Auger is clearly punishing a player on the ice, that calls for serious discipline by the NHL. While those biases will always be there, it is also essential for the league to do what it can to minimize their effects. If it becomes obvious that is ref is exercising his biases, that has to be a cause for discipline. Like a lot of things in life that inappropriate but inevitable, it has to be kept to a level at which it isn’t egregious. I haven’t seen the plays, so I can’t make a judgment in this particular instance. However, given that the best spin that anyone seems able to put on them is that they were grossly incompetent, it’s pretty suspicious.

At a minimum, I think that Auger’s crew shouldn’t be assigned any more Canucks games for a long time.