Fraser ex ref opinion ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobruins. Show bobruins's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?




    A picture is worth 1000 words............. this should put an end to this debate......

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    Not a chance this ends the debate. Somehow posters will come in here saying that Orpik had direct orders from Shero to eliminate as many Bruins players as possible. Bettman also is in on it too obviously.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?




    NAS, can you GIF that one from the time the pass is made to the end of the hit?

    I can't tell from this fuzzy grey spot whether it is moving towards Eriksson or yet to carom off the boards or even if it is a puck.    Laughing

    But from this snapshot, I think Orpik knows exactly where the puck is...where it is heading...where Eriksson is heading and plotted the collision course of two bodies in motion.

    IMHO Orpik deserved a 2 minute Interference or Roughing penalty at that time.

    I don't think the hit was 'intent to injure' or targeting the head although Eriksson's head snapped back pretty good.

    Whether a penalty there would have changed anything afterward is difficult to say.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Davinator's comment:

    NAS, can you GIF that one from the time the pass is made to the end of the hit?

    I can't tell from this fuzzy grey spot whether it is moving towards Eriksson or yet to carom off the boards or even if it is a puck.    Laughing



    I've watched this stupid hit a million times.  I swear half the people posting about it haven't seen it twice.  It's not even a big hit.  Orpik is gliding the whole time. 

    OyBVGN

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

     

    How ridiculous.  Have you seen the play?  Orpik was going to play the puck but it came off the boards weird, forcing him to take the body instead.

    And if it's Thornton's job to stop people from hurting his teammates, he's terrible at it and needs to be fired immediately!

    [/QUOTE]

    Which is why I think he blew a gasket NAS. I think he got tired of reading your & Shupes stuff.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?




    Look at the line of his helmet it is turned more toward Eriksson than the puck, thank for proving my point.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?




    Look at the line of his helmet it is turned more toward Eriksson than the puck, thank for proving my point.



    Very weak.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    My word.

    The idiots are out to play these days.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    My word.

    The idiots are out to play these days.



     

    Yes you are.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pucman. Show pucman's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    Once the puck bounced off the boards at the wierd angle, Orpik was not even thinking about the puck as Ericsson was. It,s a greenlight hit for Orpik which is his MO. The player plays the puck Orpik plays the man with no regard to health, well being, prefering to leave the player in a heap & skating off to the protection of the bench. Its a interference penalty & total lack of respect. Man up, take on Thornton & move on. 6ft 2 220lbs  your going around looking for your spots to hurt people & wont fight a guy smaller then you thats sticking up for his teammate. Samuelsson, Lemiuex, Orpik,all from the same cloth. What would have happened if Orpik didnt get tripped down the 2nd time Thornton confronted him?                                 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to pucman's comment:

    Once the puck bounced off the boards at the wierd angle, Orpik was not even thinking about the puck as Ericsson was. It,s a greenlight hit for Orpik which is his MO. The player plays the puck Orpik plays the man with no regard to health, well being, prefering to leave the player in a heap & skating off to the protection of the bench. Its a interference penalty & total lack of respect. Man up, take on Thornton & move on. 6ft 2 220lbs  your going around looking for your spots to hurt people & wont fight a guy smaller then you thats sticking up for his teammate. Samuelsson, Lemiuex, Orpik,all from the same cloth. What would have happened if Orpik didnt get tripped down the 2nd time Thornton confronted him?                                 



    That's called "hockey".

    The women's bridge club meets on Tuesdays.  Be sure to stop by.  They're waiting for you.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pucman. Show pucman's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?


     

    In response to pucman's comment:

                     


    That's called "hockey".

    The women's bridge club meets on Tuesdays.  Be sure to stop by.  They're waiting for you.

    LOL your a funny guy  be there tuesday  hope to see you

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ergoetal. Show Ergoetal's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    Should have been an interference call.  Happens all the time -- player A thinks player B is going to get the puck, goes for the hit, or hold, or whatever, and player B doesn't get the puck.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    Textbook example of a thread going haywire because of a "look at me post" early on.  This wasn't about blaming the refs for what Neil and Thronton did.  That's someones stupid interpretation to stir the pot, so they can infer someone else is stupid.

    The first post is pretty much copying what an ex ref had to say.  The posters take on all of that is that the refs lost control of the game.  If anybody takes exception to that.. the only arguable/debateable point is,...."did they, or didn't they?  That's all there is.  Neither option suggests they are to blame for what Thornton and Neal did specifically, and it's actually either dumb, antagonistic, or both to suggest that.  That first post is pretty much hockey 101.  Players do take exception to violent hits, and tempers escalate when serious fouls are ignored by officials.  Does anyone want to areally argue that point?  Does anyone really think that's bogus? 

    These "police" examples are way out in left field and don't apply either.  Speed limits are concrete, and fouls in sport are more subjective(especially hockey).  Making the point that anyone would be stupid enough to blame the cops for going 100mph is just a juvenile attempt to call the OP an idiot.  Then everyone else jumps in, responding to what some dope wants the thread to be, not what it is.

    If we want to use a cop analogy...2 guys are caught drag racing down a street going 100 mph.  34 more have their cars parked nearby, and are ready to get in on the action.  The cop gives 1 guy a speeding ticket, a dangerous driving ticket, an undue care and attention ticket, which results in about a grand worth of fines, and a lost license.  The cop lets the other guy go.  S'pose that will result in a reasonable dispursement of the motorists and thwart the problem of street racing?

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Textbook example of a thread going haywire because of a "look at me post" early on.  This wasn't about blaming the refs for what Neil and Thronton did.  That's someones stupid interpretation to stir the pot, so they can infer someone else is stupid.

    The first post is pretty much copying what an ex ref had to say.  The posters take on all of that is that the refs lost control of the game.  If anybody takes exception to that.. the only arguable/debateable point is,...."did they, or didn't they?  That's all there is.  Neither option suggests they are to blame for what Thornton and Neal did specifically, and it's actually either dumb, antagonistic, or both to suggest that.  That first post is pretty much hockey 101.  Players do take exception to violent hits, and tempers escalate when serious fouls are ignored by officials.  Does anyone want to areally argue that point?  Does anyone really think that's bogus? 

    These "police" examples are way out in left field and don't apply either.  Speed limits are concrete, and fouls in sport are more subjective(especially hockey).  Making the point that anyone would be stupid enough to blame the cops for going 100mph is just a juvenile attempt to call the OP an idiot.  Then everyone else jumps in, responding to what some dope wants the thread to be, not what it is.

    If we want to use a cop analogy...2 guys are caught drag racing down a street going 100 mph.  34 more have their cars parked nearby, and are ready to get in on the action.  The cop gives 1 guy a speeding ticket, a dangerous driving ticket, an undue care and attention ticket, which results in about a grand worth of fines, and a lost license.  The cop lets the other guy go.  S'pose that will result in a reasonable dispursement of the motorists and thwart the problem of street racing?

     



    I think you make some decent points, but I totally disagree with the bolded line above.

    It's just not true.  The implication was that (a) the refs lost control of the game, and (b) that loss of control contributed to what happened.  There are two variables to there to debate.  Most people here argued with variable b.

    I'm not really convinced of either one.  I don't think the refs 'lost control of the game'.

    As for the second part, I definitely don't think that the actions of Neal or Thornton fed off of what the refs did or didn't do prior to that.  I think the refs had virtually no impact on the situation one way or the other.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to bobruins' comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?




    A picture is worth 1000 words............. this should put an end to this debate......



    Wheter Orpik was already 'comitted", or whether he was being "predatory" is silly.  Whether he was gliding or any of these other arguments can be turned around to support Thornton too, as his behavior wasn't as violent as most scrums, let alone fights.  That doesn't make Thortons action ok, it makes the above arguments dumb.  They both inflicted too much damage to another player.   Body checks that have enough force to threaten lives are either boarding or charging.  Common sense should suggest that.  Generally, those get suspensions if they result in head injury.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    In response to bobruins' comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:


    Please explain why Orpik was already committed to the hit before the puck bounced off the boards behind Eriksson then.  Orpik had no idea where the puck was he assumed the defenseman was going to rim the puck and was completely dedicated to the hit. 



    The truth tells a different story.  The puck is coming off the boards.  If Orpik has no idea where the puck is, why is he looking right at it?  If he's committed to the hit, why isn't he skating directly at Eriksson?




    A picture is worth 1000 words............. this should put an end to this debate......



    Wheter Orpik was already 'comitted", or whether he was being "predatory" is silly.  Whether he was gliding or any of these other arguments can be turned around to support Thornton too, as his behavior wasn't as violent as most scrums, let alone fights.  That doesn't make Thortons action ok, it makes the above arguments dumb.  They both inflicted too much damage to another player.   Body checks that have enough force to threaten lives are either boarding or charging.  Common sense should suggest that.  Generally, those get suspensions if they result in head injury.



    But some on here seem to think a good old "trainwreck" type hit or more to the point,greenlighting an opponent, is what playing hockey is all about. Its what some players that have played the game live for, or so they say. I thought Orpik's hit was bad from the start and it should have had at least a phone hearing, but that is just my opinion. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Textbook example of a thread going haywire because of a "look at me post" early on.  This wasn't about blaming the refs for what Neil and Thronton did.  That's someones stupid interpretation to stir the pot, so they can infer someone else is stupid.

    The first post is pretty much copying what an ex ref had to say.  The posters take on all of that is that the refs lost control of the game.  If anybody takes exception to that.. the only arguable/debateable point is,...."did they, or didn't they?  That's all there is.  Neither option suggests they are to blame for what Thornton and Neal did specifically, and it's actually either dumb, antagonistic, or both to suggest that.  That first post is pretty much hockey 101.  Players do take exception to violent hits, and tempers escalate when serious fouls are ignored by officials.  Does anyone want to areally argue that point?  Does anyone really think that's bogus? 

    These "police" examples are way out in left field and don't apply either.  Speed limits are concrete, and fouls in sport are more subjective(especially hockey).  Making the point that anyone would be stupid enough to blame the cops for going 100mph is just a juvenile attempt to call the OP an idiot.  Then everyone else jumps in, responding to what some dope wants the thread to be, not what it is.

    If we want to use a cop analogy...2 guys are caught drag racing down a street going 100 mph.  34 more have their cars parked nearby, and are ready to get in on the action.  The cop gives 1 guy a speeding ticket, a dangerous driving ticket, an undue care and attention ticket, which results in about a grand worth of fines, and a lost license.  The cop lets the other guy go.  S'pose that will result in a reasonable dispursement of the motorists and thwart the problem of street racing?

     



    I think you make some decent points, but I totally disagree with the bolded line above.

    It's just not true.  The implication was that (a) the refs lost control of the game, and (b) that loss of control contributed to what happened.  There are two variables to there to debate.  Most people here argued with variable b.

    I'm not really convinced of either one.  I don't think the refs 'lost control of the game'.

    As for the second part, I definitely don't think that the actions of Neal or Thornton fed off of what the refs did or didn't do prior to that.  I think the refs had virtually no impact on the situation one way or the other.

     



    No.  without A, there is no B.  You must believe A,  before B could ever enter the conversation.  B puts the cart before the horse. 

    Incidentally, I agree with you Fletch.  I think it's an overstatemnt to suggest the refs lost control.  Actually the term is an overstatement.  Losing control trumps mere incompetence.  They did blow some calls though, and that always leads to increased frustration, which elevates anger and aggression.  What effect that had, who knows.  It probably had some.

    I'm not arguing opinions, just the practice of hijacking someones thought in an attempt to make them look stupid.  The ex referee is inferring the officiating contributed to heightened tempers.  The OP agreed, and decided to post it.  Again, hockey 101, happens regularly.  If opined by an ex NHL referee, it can certainly be wrong, but it hardly qualifies as hockey blasphemy unless it's turned around and overstated.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to stevegm's comment:

     


    No.  without A, there is no B.  You must believe A,  before B could ever enter the conversation.  B puts the cart before the horse. 

     



    Well maybe so, but I think the poster was arguing for both A and B, and I am saying that I think both are false.  A is at least debatable, while B seems pretty far-fetched, to me.

    I agree that to believe B, you must first believe A, so maybe I should have stopped at A being invalid.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Wheter Orpik was already 'comitted", or whether he was being "predatory" is silly.  Whether he was gliding or any of these other arguments can be turned around to support Thornton too, as his behavior wasn't as violent as most scrums, let alone fights.  That doesn't make Thortons action ok, it makes the above arguments dumb.  They both inflicted too much damage to another player.   Body checks that have enough force to threaten lives are either boarding or charging.  Common sense should suggest that.  Generally, those get suspensions if they result in head injury.



    This wasn't boarding (no boards involved) or charging (Orpik glided into the hit).

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    Wheter Orpik was already 'comitted", or whether he was being "predatory" is silly.  Whether he was gliding or any of these other arguments can be turned around to support Thornton too, as his behavior wasn't as violent as most scrums, let alone fights.  That doesn't make Thortons action ok, it makes the above arguments dumb.  They both inflicted too much damage to another player.   Body checks that have enough force to threaten lives are either boarding or charging.  Common sense should suggest that.  Generally, those get suspensions if they result in head injury.



    This wasn't boarding (no boards involved) or charging (Orpik glided into the hit).

     



    Yeah, in this particular case, boarding shouldn't be an option.  Gliding into a hit though can still be charging.  In fact in many instances the guilty party is gliding as it is a form of bracing and increasing balance.  If you only have weight on one leg(when skating hard your balance is always shifting from one side to the other)) you can be more susceptable to your own damage when delivering that big hit.

    Anyway, if you haven't, I think Frasers article is a pretty good read.  He certainly "should' have a fair idea what's going on.  For the record again...there is terrible inconsistency with the refs on this stuff, and I don't believe they're the problem...just part of it.  Missing calls isn't what I'm talking about.  That happens, isn't the problem.  Humans do that.  It's the stuff they do see.  The regularity of inconsistency from those making the rules to those enforcing them.  There's just serial indecision.

    You and I can argue all night about what an allowable body check is.  The PA, and the league, and the referees will too.  

    That's the problem.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Davinator's comment:

    NAS, can you GIF that one from the time the pass is made to the end of the hit?

    I can't tell from this fuzzy grey spot whether it is moving towards Eriksson or yet to carom off the boards or even if it is a puck.    Laughing



    I've watched this stupid hit a million times.  I swear half the people posting about it haven't seen it twice.  It's not even a big hit.  Orpik is gliding the whole time. 

    OyBVGN




    Thanks nas for vid i will agree that it is a legal hit shoulder to shoulder, orpik was watching the puck and lou could not see his blind side until it was too late

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to pucman's comment:

    Once the puck bounced off the boards at the wierd angle, Orpik was not even thinking about the puck as Ericsson was. It,s a greenlight hit for Orpik which is his MO. The player plays the puck Orpik plays the man with no regard to health, well being, prefering to leave the player in a heap & skating off to the protection of the bench. Its a interference penalty & total lack of respect. Man up, take on Thornton & move on. 6ft 2 220lbs  your going around looking for your spots to hurt people & wont fight a guy smaller then you thats sticking up for his teammate. Samuelsson, Lemiuex, Orpik,all from the same cloth. What would have happened if Orpik didnt get tripped down the 2nd time Thornton confronted him?                                 



    That's called "hockey".

    The women's bridge club meets on Tuesdays.  Be sure to stop by.  They're waiting for you.




    I will stick to cribbage and backgammon

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Fraser ex ref opinion ?

    In response to boborielly224's comment:



    Thanks nas for vid i will agree that it is a legal hit shoulder to shoulder, orpik was watching the puck and lou could not see his blind side until it was too late



    I've blown it up and watched it frame by frame.  Orpik's shoulder does make contact with Eriksson's head first, but to suggest it was intentional is to give Orpik waaaay too much credit.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share