So I guess it's not okay to state facts anymore? It's not like Gillis attacked the officials personally, he stated exactly what everyone who watched the games (or read a box score) saw.
IMO an action like THIS makes me more suspicious of something going on behind the scenes. The NHL has a problem with someone pointing out the facts and statistics of how a series was officiated...fishy...
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
So I guess it's not okay to state facts anymore? It's not like Gillis attacked the officials personally, he stated exactly what everyone who watched the games (or read a box score) saw.
IMO an action like THIS makes me more suspicious of something going on behind the scenes. The NHL has a problem with someone pointing out the facts and statistics of how a series was officiated...fishy...
This. Mark my words - if we lost last night...there would be no fine.
"I stated facts," Gillis told The Dreger Report. "How can I get fined for stating facts?"
LOL. Love it.
Gillis is probably handing over every penny happily (I actually hope he hands it over in pennies, keep trolling the NHL head office) and Aquilini is bathing in all the money he made last night.
Whatever, Gillis did the right thing. For me the problem was not the calls on us, but rather the non-calls on them. Game 6 was absolutely ridiculous in that regard and I'm glad he came out and said something about it. Not much was called last night either but it was fine because the Hawks weren't getting away with murder.
He got fined for quoting stats? Were his stats wrong? Did he make them up?
Maybe the NHL is saying "We're crooked but how dare you bring it to anyone's attention".
As for the whole "stating facts" thing ... he DID keep saying that it "wasn't a level playing field" which is perhaps more than just stating facts.
How so? It objectively wasn't level because the Canucks were playing with fewer men for longer. He said nothing explicit about the refs calls being wrong.
He pointed out that there were many missed calls against the Hawks, but if you're going to fine for that then you'd have to fine coaches and players after every second game.
How so? It objectively wasn't level because the Canucks were playing with fewer men for longer. He said nothing explicit about the refs calls being wrong.
He pointed out that there were many missed calls against the Hawks, but if you're going to fine for that then you'd have to fine coaches and players after every second game.
Depends on how you interpret it .. a "level playing field" in this case could either mean both teams get an equal amount of powerplays, or it could mean that the referees aren't favouring one side. If the Canucks took legitimate penalties every shift and played the whole game 5on3, I'd say they're still playing on a level playing field because the disadvantage they have is self-inflicted.
Depends on how you interpret it .. a "level playing field" in this case could either mean both teams get an equal amount of powerplays, or it could mean that the referees aren't favouring one side. If the Canucks took legitimate penalties every shift and played the whole game 5on3, I'd say they're still playing on a level playing field because the disadvantage they have is self-inflicted.
So it was a potentially self-inflicted unlevel playing feel, he still said nothing explicit. It may be lawyer speak, but the NHL would lose in court.
How so? It objectively wasn't level because the Canucks were playing with fewer men for longer. He said nothing explicit about the refs calls being wrong.
He pointed out that there were many missed calls against the Hawks, but if you're going to fine for that then you'd have to fine coaches and players after every second game.
wasn't a level playing field implies bias. but really, fined or not, successful job by Gillis and TBH hockey was the winner, they was a better game of hockey for it.
So it was a potentially self-inflicted unlevel playing feel, he still said nothing explicit. It may be lawyer speak, but the NHL would lose in court.
Only an idiot to think "self-inflicted unlevel playing field" was what Gillis meant. Pretty much everyone knew what Gillis meant, he got his point across. Civil rules are much looser than criminal (beyond reasonable doubt).
By fining Gillis they are cracking down on all GMs for whining about officals which is good, it's not good for the credibility of the sport to have GMs calling the refs biased or incompetent.
Having said that the NHL should have just sucked it up and got on with it. They are just going to draw more attention to why Gillis was unhappy and encourage the media to run with it. More looking at Gillis's stats, some defending him, some defending the fine. Lot's of bad attention. More attention to other series and whether coaches/GMs criticise refs, more attention of the penalty stats. They put more pressure on the refs in the Van Nashville series.
