HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Ron MacLean Attempts to Justify his Baseless Attacks on Burrows and Fails

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2011, 02:15 AM
  #51
CallMeJerry
Registered User
 
CallMeJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Ironically the reason we find Ron unlikeable is the same reason the Canucks are "the most hated team in the NHL":

Ron gets criticism and he finds the need to explain himself (always incredibly awkwardly and lamely). He wants to be liked and respected but is too yappy to let his actions do the talking.

CallMeJerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 02:20 AM
  #52
VanJaysFan*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,803
vCash: 500
Forgive my ignorance but when was this aired?

VanJaysFan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 02:23 AM
  #53
Dirkph
Mancrush = Malhotra
 
Dirkph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanJaysFan View Post
Forgive my ignorance but when was this aired?
I believe it aired sometime during the Leafs/Canucks game on Dec. 17th.

Dirkph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 02:33 AM
  #54
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,749
vCash: 500
Ron has been terrible ever since the CBC fired him and there was public outcry to bring him back. On return he changed from a baby sitter/ host to someone who thought his opinion mattered... Thats not why we wanted him back.

He's a good host but a terrible analyst and like a fighter who thinks he's a scorer, Ron needs to be put in his place.

DJOpus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 03:09 AM
  #55
Hal 9000*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
hes only trying to make it clear that he

A: didnt think burrows tried to injure someone by opening the door (because he didnt feel it was intentional) So, why was it even worth mentioning? It's called power of suggestion - sorta like saying "you don't think Mel Gibson is a racist, do you Don".
B: he has talked to burrows and canucks management and they've come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding his "expose" The "satisfactory conclusion" is that the Canucks know exactly what happened and think Maclean has his own agenda and Maclean sticks by his actions.
C: he doesn't want to be vilified for something that he didn't do because his reputation preceding him made people misinterpret his intentions. He is villified because he arranged and used an entire segment on HNIC to for a complete hatchet job on Burrows - even including an obviously uncomfortable Colin Campbell. And, continues to throw thinly veiled insults toward Burrows and the Canucks for seemingly no good reason.
he's not apologizing for his statements regarding burrows' relationship with the referees because he still likely holds that opinion - that said, why do people give a **** that he holds that opinion? He is not apologizing at all! At best, he is telling us to just get over it. He all but said, that being a "high level referee", he'll continue to call out players - meaning Burrows.
i like that he did that. i made it clear in the gdt that i appreciated it - i still feel that way. Did what exactly? Justified his actions by clearly lying about Gillis and the good fun they were having during that episode?

i think he just wants people to stop misinterpreting his opinions. people actually thought he was trying to defame burrows because they're oversensitive manchildren. After all the crap that happened during that Ottawa game, he decides to rag on Burrows for a perceived dive - what else was his intention? Why doesn't Maclean (a referee) have any input on the obvious Neil elbow to Burrows' head.



ummmmm, he did one thing that was offensive???????? therefore he's hitler. get your facts straight!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The hyperbole in this post is just silly - again.

Hal 9000* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 03:38 AM
  #56
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,776
vCash: 500
Actually Verviticus summed it up quite eloquently.

Bougieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 03:49 AM
  #57
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,721
vCash: 883
I think there's the one thing that really comes to mind here.

The Canuck fanbase and Team is big and significant enough that if they feel offended by something, it will have an impact on the media world.

Nice to see.

I believe we're #7 on Forbes now.

I'm still laughing at his "Go back to having the same mindset as the Olympics when you were a great city!" LOL

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 03:52 AM
  #58
Bougieman
Registered User
 
Bougieman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,776
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
I'm still laughing at his "Go back to having the same mindset as the Olympics when you were a great city!" LOL

hahaha ^_^ yeah that part was amazing

Bougieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 06:49 AM
  #59
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timw33 View Post
I question the sincerity.
Why? He never really apologized. Just passed it off as him joking around with Cherry. Then went on and on about great a ref he is.

newsflash Ron. Cherry is an actual former coach. You are a tv host. No one gives a crap about you being a level 5 ref and you stance on burrows is quite frankly just an embarrassment at this point. let it go.

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 08:35 AM
  #60
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,383
vCash: 500
The sad part to me is that Burrows is absolutely a player that should be lauded as an inspirational success story. Nobody comes from where he did (ball hockey and the ECHL) to become not only an NHL player but one of the top producing RW in all of hockey. He plays on the line but rarely crosses it (look at his suspension history), has a ton of passion for the game, and is a max effort player. But do we hear about any of this on our national broadcaster? No, because he deigned to take a run at a terrible, unprofessional official.

MacLean's reaction to Burrows expressing his opinion of the events that transpired is a bit rich considering he has to defend the occasionally bigoted opinions of Don Cherry every Saturday night.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 08:36 AM
  #61
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bougieman View Post
Actually Verviticus summed it up quite eloquently.
Sorry but when you start mentioning "the corporal" in the discussion, your point is lost.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 08:53 AM
  #62
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by serge2k View Post
Why? He never really apologized. Just passed it off as him joking around with Cherry. Then went on and on about great a ref he is.

newsflash Ron. Cherry is an actual former coach. You are a tv host. No one gives a crap about you being a level 5 ref and you stance on burrows is quite frankly just an embarrassment at this point. let it go.
So... you think Don Cherry's opinion is valid because he's a former coach, even though his opinion is quite often off in the logic wilderness? Interesting. I'd take Pierre LeBrun or Bob McKenzie over Don Cherry any day.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 09:07 AM
  #63
berto14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
Flames fan coming in peace here, but I think you guys are creating your own controversy on this one. You guys are the ones who called it an apology – not Maclean – and then criticized him for not actually apologizing. But it was ever intended as an apology - in light of his past criticisms of Burrows, all he was doing was clarifying his stance on this latest issue. Despite the fact that he was actually defending Burrows on this one, it seems the Vancouver media misconstrued, either intentionally or unintentionally, what he was saying, to make it seem like Maclean was criticizing Burrows yet again, which wasn’t the case at all. Although it seems he stands by his past criticisms of Burrows, he wasn’t criticizing him (or didn't intend to) THIS TIME and simply wanted to clarify that.

EDIT:
It wasn't an "I'm sorry", but rather an "in case you misunderstood what I said..."

berto14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 09:11 AM
  #64
IComeInPeace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LA
Country: Canada
Posts: 919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
hes only trying to make it clear that he

A: didnt think burrows tried to injure someone by opening the door (because he didnt feel it was intentional)
B: he has talked to burrows and canucks management and they've come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding his "expose"
C: he doesn't want to be vilified for something that he didn't do because his reputation preceding him made people misinterpret his intentions

he's not apologizing for his statements regarding burrows' relationship with the referees because he still likely holds that opinion - that said, why do people give a **** that he holds that opinion?

i like that he did that. i made it clear in the gdt that i appreciated it - i still feel that way



i think he just wants people to stop misinterpreting his opinions. people actually thought he was trying to defame burrows because they're oversensitive manchildren



ummmmm, he did one thing that was offensive???????? therefore he's hitler. get your facts straight!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent post.

IComeInPeace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 10:22 AM
  #65
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
B: he has talked to burrows and canucks management and they've come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding his "expose"
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacemaker View Post
Excellent post.
Show me a link were someone in Canucks management (eg., Gillis) agrees with this (unless your interpretation of "satisifactory conclusion" is to just ignore what Ron MacLean says).

Quote:
“Gillis (on Wed Dec 14): With respect to Ron, I don’t know how you can be credible and continue with this. Everyone saw what happened with Alex [Burrows] and the official [Stephane Auger] that time. Ron’s maintained a position that’s untenable in my eyes. You look at the video and you look at what happened and how it played out – sometimes officials make mistakes … you cannot take the position that every official is infallible and above everybody else.”

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 10:44 AM
  #66
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackerJibbs View Post
He hasn't constantly done anything. He went over the line one time, IMO of course, everything else has been fine. I didn't like what he had to say a last week, but I had no real problem with it like I did with the Auger montage.

People are getting upset over nothing.
Thats why I like our little #embracethehate campaign.

He does CONSTANTLY speak about our team.

If you are going to call a "spade a spade" call ALL spades spades...dives, embellishment, yapping, adressing officials, etc... and its gotten to the point with him that it seriously appears that they (the CBC on air personalities) will continue.

The issue, bringing up gateGATE, when Chris Neil is attempting to injure, and Nick Foligno is hitting guys directly in the head. A much more reasonable topic to discuss since it happened on the game they had the air THAT NIGHT, not an issue that is all PURE SPECULATION that happened 3 weeks prior that had nothing to do with the game.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 10:46 AM
  #67
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Show me a link were someone in Canucks management (eg., Gillis) agrees with this (unless your interpretation of "satisifactory conclusion" is to just ignore what Ron MacLean says).
Im sure team1040 has a podcast of that Gillis interview.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 11:16 AM
  #68
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,468
vCash: 500
it just seemed that Ron is more worried about his image(overall) rather than what a fanbase thinks of him

when he makes a mistake,he rarely owns up ....... and in this ongoing saga he tries to please... but he cant let go of little digs or "humor attempts" to enforce his former postition ...... I guess he is still working on his self confidence

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 11:16 AM
  #69
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Im sure team1040 has a podcast of that Gillis interview.
http://www.teamradio.ca/podcast/1040...way_Honda~.mp3

Around 33 minutes of this podcast is where Gillis addresses the media hate by the CBC.

ON Milbury (paraphrase): Milbury is creating his own brand (my thoughts...he's pushing for Cherry's spot...acting like an a55hole should help).

On Mclean's stance on the Auger incident: "Untenable" - definition - incapable of being defended. Say its McLean's "perrogative" to blindly believe referees are infallible.

Blake and Sekeres brought up the issue of Bieksa approaching the official during the Ottawa game, and said "keep you eyes on Neil"...the referees retort, was something along the lines of "Chris Neil is my buddy, he'll be fine"....then he tries to take Burrows head of with an elbow. Gillis couldnt comment, because he hadnt talked to Bieksa (and Bieksa says a lot of things "tongue-in-cheek").

Definitely makes you wonder why opposition players (the Chris Neil's, CHara's, Lucic's of the world) get the benefit of the doubt in most cases...yet if you have a whale on your shirt (Burrows, Lapierre, Kesler as well as Rome and formerly Torres) you get the book thrown at you.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 11:23 AM
  #70
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,497
vCash: 500
As I said before, I didn't find this to be an apology so much as an explanation/justification for what he said before. Which is fine, in a sense; it doesn't make me forget the other times he's ran pieces villifying the Canucks and their players. If he stops doing that going forward, this may be remembered as a good starting point. But at the moment, it doesn't really do anything to lift him up in my eyes.

He's still a good host for HNIC, but like most of the HNIC crew, I find him to be "anti-Canuck" to the point where it effects my ability to enjoy the games they broadcast. Jim Hughson and, to a far lesser extent, Elliot Friedeman remain the only redeeming factors of that show in my eyes.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 11:52 AM
  #71
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,047
vCash: 500
I was at the Auger game, and it was the worst refereeing of a game I have ever seen. It cost the Canucks 2 pts, and I have never left more incensed at the refereeing after a game. I have reffed many games, for the most part I find the refereeing not to bad. I was little pissed at the Boston / Vcr reffing last year, but so it goes.

I truly believe Burrows was justified and accurate in calling Auger out. The league had little choice but to crucify Burrows, even though it was entirely unfair, or they would have had to throw Auger under the bus and never have him ref again.

Like many, I think McLeans hatchet job was crap. I suspect that the NHL loved him for backing up their stance, I wouldn't put it beyond Betman to have had a talk with Hockey NIght in Canada and suggest a show that helped defend the integrity of refs was needed.

billvanseattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 12:16 PM
  #72
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,457
vCash: 500
Lost in MacLean's personal attack against Burrows is the fact that the NHL considers Auger to be one of its poorer refs based on the fact that he does not ref in the playoffs. To me this is a rather strong indictment of Auger and may be as close as we ever get to an acknowledgement that Burrows was in the right.

On MacLean, I don't have an issue with him criticizing Canucks' players. However, the Burrows segment was a personal attack on a player's character where he tried to say that because Burrows sometimes embellishes therefore Auger must be telling the truth. Whether MacLean refs or not he is in no position to say who is telling the truth and he most certainly should not have questioned Burrows' integrity. I can see why the Canucks management called him out on this. The fact that MacLean just didn't apologize without conditions says a lot about his character, IMO.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 12:35 PM
  #73
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 500
I finally got a chance to catch this, and yes...it is awkward. Is it just me or is this the worst thing they could have done here? If I was at the CBC I would just told MacLean to STOP talking about Alex Burrows. There are many freaking other players on the roster, pick a few you like. This definitely isn't an apology...if anything it just seems to be MacLean admitting he does have a bias against Burrows.

And bringing a regional radio sports show into the mix? Just odd.

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 03:49 PM
  #74
bbud
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Mclean was pushed by CBC , after more Milbury trash talk pissed off enough Canuck fans even Cherry is on the Canuck side that tells us enough right there.

bbud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2011, 04:07 PM
  #75
Timmer44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Van City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,196
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbud View Post
Mclean was pushed by CBC , after more Milbury trash talk pissed off enough Canuck fans even Cherry is on the Canuck side that tells us enough right there.
I have a feeling some of you guys got the CRTC involved. I know how much of a pain in the ass (to the broadcaster) they can be when a complaint is filed. The offending company MUST respond to complaints to a segment or risk losing their CBSC membership. It is a real headache when a segment has a complaint raised through the CRTC.

Timmer44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.