HockeyQuestion of bias at root of 2 NHL incidents

Beginning of Story Content

Let’s do the Canucks story first:

Vancouver fans will hate to hear this, but the best thing Alex Burrows could do for himself and the organization is apologize. If Auger is guilty – and there’s certainly some circumstantial evidence – Burrows (and the Canucks) can’t win this kind of feud in the long run. You’ve got to have proof. The NBA suspended one of its best referees –Joey Crawford – for the 2007 playoffs because about 20 people heard him challenge Tim Duncan to a fight.

Burrows’ biggest mistake was not immediately going to one of the assistant captains (Ryan Kesler, Henrik Sedin, Willie Mitchell) or Alain Vigneault. So, even if it’s not heartfelt, he’s got to say sorry. Bob Knight – a notoriously harsh baiter of referees – talked once about realizing the hard way that, eventually, there will be payback.

Thirteen years ago, Mark Messier accused Don Van Massenhoven of having a “vendetta” against the Rangers. The referee was hurt by the accusation, and, before the next game involving him and New York, the captain skated up and apologized.

Having just officiated his 1,000th NHL game, Van Massenhoven can laugh about it now. “One guy came up to me and said, ‘Why is Messier so nice to you?’” Burrows should take notice. (If Jim Schoenfeld and Don Koharski could end up friendly, well, there’s hope for everyone.)

Van Massenhoven didn’t want to discuss what happened Monday night, so the best comment came from another referee: “This isn’t going to be good for anyone.”

Burrows was fined $2,500, but not suspended. Reportedly, nothing will happen to Auger. (Can’t help but wonder if the league’s current wrongful dismissal battle against ex-ref Dean Warren has anything to do with that.) The NHL considers this “case closed.”

Nice try. Not so easy.

The worst thing about all of this is that it might force the NHL to limit on-ice conversation between players and officials. A few years ago, a first-ballot Hall of Famer – captain of his team – went wild at a referee during a game (I can’t remember if he was ejected, but there was certainly a misconduct). When I spoke to him a few days later he said, “What made me so crazy was that he wouldn’t even talk to me.”

This is something all of North America’s sports leagues are pushing, and it’s a horrible idea. But, what happened Monday supports that philosophy.

The Canucks already operate in a fishbowl, and this is only going to make it worse. Everyone involved in their games – players, coaches, officials – are going to be heavily scrutinized. Every call (or non-call) will be picked apart for examples of payback or favouritism – since some referees may bend over backward to show there will be no unprofessional repercussions. That’s a difficult working environment, particularly when it comes to the fourth most-penalized team in the NHL.

==

Now to the Pittsburgh replay fiasco, which I actually think is worse. This is the second time in three seasons a hometown broadcast has hidden a replay damaging to its team. Vancouver fans will remember the first one very well: Chris Pronger’s 2008 stomp of Kesler, not shown on the Anaheim feed. (It was found a few days later in the truck.)

A few years ago, I had a beer with a friend who works on a team broadcast. I was jokingly ripping him about a complete puffball segment he did, a total promotion for the club. That led to a really interesting discussion about what it’s like to work for a team.

(Let me just say right away, I’m not proclaiming my work to be beyond reproach or better than anyone else’s. This is solely about receiving a paycheck that says CBC or TSN or another network instead of “Insert Team Name Here.”)

Most of the broadcasters who work for teams love it. There are only so many play-by-play, colour or hosting jobs out there, and they are coveted. If there is so much as a murmur that one of these spots is available, a stampede of resumes and phone calls can follow. Totally understandable, because they are great, great opportunities.

But, some of them really grind on their announcers. Years ago, I freelanced on a team-produced broadcast. There were reports that a player’s spot on the team was in jeopardy and he got upset when I asked about it. That didn’t go unnoticed.

The San Diego Padres once forbade their announcers from mentioning salaries. One current NHL play-by-play man was told to “stop talking so much about the other team.” I heard of another situation where a relevant replay never made air because it made a hometown player look bad. On-air people are expected to gloss over ugly losses or controversial plays. The smallest critiques become big issues.

And, if you’re not on-board, you can be replaced. Some organizations (not all) are ridiculously sensitive.
It’s a bad thing for two reasons. First, I don’t think it serves your fan base. People are pretty sophisticated. They know when a team is playing well and when it’s terrible. You don’t have to shred someone for screwing up, but you do have to be honest and fair. Viewers see through dishonesty.

Second reason: It leads to what happened in the Pittsburgh/Philly game. The producer in question must take responsibility; therefore the suspension. We’re not perfect; we make mistakes. But, they are not about bias. What happened in this broadcast (and the Anaheim/Vancouver one) is about bias. Hometown teams broadcast the first two rounds of the playoffs. Something like this cannot be allowed to happen then.

Hopefully, this forces all sports leagues to examine what’s expected of their team broadcasters. Because I do think the pressures on them to see no evil plays a role.

End of Story Content

Back to accessibility links