My perception is also that Eddie O. wanted Bergeron's goal called back. There was also the incident when Tim Thomas checked Henrik Sedin and Olczyk wanted a penalty on Thomas; the refs in fact called one on Sedin.
I dislike post-game cliches, but it seemed to me the Canucks were not content to play their game. Their arrogance wouldn't allow them to just be the faster, more skilled team; they had to show they were just as tough.
Which obviously they weren't.
Hamhuis isn't known as a physical defenseman, so why was he going for a game-changing hit on Milan Lucic of all people? Rome's hit essentially ended Horton's career, yet they
still argue it was legal? If Burrows bit Marchand's finger, perhaps the outcry wouldn't have been as much. But Bergeron's?
It's often said a dog is a reflection of its owner. I don't know which came first, but the arrogance, entitlement, and ass-hattery of that team and fan base matched.
As for the reffing, perhaps there was a little carryover from the Auger incident. But I think the refs were fed up with all the diving, embellishing, and lobbying for calls.
I can't recall who said it - Don Cherry maybe? When it was mentioned that Mason Raymond should have been taken off the ice on a stretcher instead of being helped, he said how would they know how serious the injury was, when they go down like that so often? (See the Auger incident.)
