Penguins place Orpik on IR

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to shuperman's comment:[QUOTE] You know exactly what I meant. Stop exaggerating Shup, you know that those two paddy cake swipes couldn't kill a Twinkie. Kelly's leg is broken, nothing is broken on Orpik's puzzy body!

    Orpik is a man, Kelly is a wuzz...got it!

    #typicalshupexaggeration![/QUOTE]

    guess who went down this road.  Yup.  #sameoldsanwillheeverlearn

    im sure you could take two on the button and skip rope after #youareallheartrock. [/QUOTE]


    I drink lots of milk so I can take a slash and a shot to the melon.

    Thanks for the advice!

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    This whole Thornton thing needs to be put in perspective.  It was nothing more than a routine thing...that turned out bad.  This kind of thing goes on all the time.  ST wasn't cranking the guy, it's different than somebody getting run over, or some defesless guy getting pummelled bad enough to cause serious injury.

    Like the Paccioeretti incident, it's not illogical to wonder if there wasn't/isn't a bit of gamesmanship going on.  Doesn't necessarily mean that's what's happening, it's just different enough to maybe consider.  We'll see when Orpik gets back.

    I don't see this as a big deal at all.  It's pretty much at the other end of the theoretical spectrum regarding the leagues crackdown on headshots.  People need to understand that.

    The spirit of all this headshot/suspension legislation is generally about excessive force within hockey plays.  It doesn't appear to me...like the NHL has a problem with scrums, scraps etc. The slewfoot thing is exagerated,(the term is meant to be an exageration) the whole incident is exagerated, simply because a guy gets hurt.  Players virtually never get hurt in scrums/fights(outside of pride and knuckles), and this was without question in any reasonable persons view, less ferocious than even the most average after the whisle scrum.  I've seen more violent blows thrown that didn't even result in a penalty.  Marchand on Sedin was even more flagrant.

    Why would Bruin fans be calling for the head of one of their own, because of something that 99 times out of 100 would be totally nothing?

    Fact is though, the guy went out on a stretcher, and that's what the league will be responding to.  I don't argue that mentality, just that of those who cement their position in one ditch or the other, and the league, who can steer this stuff in the right direction...quite easily, if they would only choose to do so, before the lawyers and lobbyists take that option away from them and mess up the game.

    5 more games, and an honest explanation is all that's necessary to appease the bleeding hearts, and this particular case is strictly about that.

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    Steve - There are 2 factors that go into the equation here. Intent and outcome. I haven't heard too many people say ST's intent was to knock Orpik out but that was the result. You can't ignore or discount the outcome simply because you believe (as I do) that the intent was something less.

    If the intent matched the result then ST should get slammed with 20 games. As it is it should be 10 imo. (which rarely ever aligns with the Shanny random wheel o' justice).

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Steve - There are 2 factors that go into the equation here. Intent and outcome. I haven't heard too many people say ST's intent was to knock Orpik out but that was the result. You can't ignore or discount the outcome simply because you believe (as I do) that the intent was something less.

    If the intent matched the result then ST should get slammed with 20 games. As it is it should be 10 imo. (which rarely ever aligns with the Shanny random wheel o' justice).

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you can't ignore the outcome Walk.  I've explained that above.  Without "outcome" it's a minor penalty.  This is an absolute "nothing", without "outcome".  A suspension would never be considered without that particular "outcome".  That's why I say 5 "more" games.   This really isn't part of the current headshot crusade which primarily deals with excessive force within hockey plays, but rather the "gratuitous violence" fighting, entertainment argument, that the league upholds as necessary.

    The Ericsson hit, Marchands, those are all really under a different philisophical umbrella, whether the league admits it or not.

    Simply put, the league is fine with players punching each other.  They refuse to ban that from the game.  They've drawn a line in the sand.  It's ok.

    They've also drawn another line.  One that deals with the potential of serious head injury at game speed.  Regardless of injury, suspensions can and do occur.

    Since "outcome' is the only consideration in the Thorton case, and since targetting the head with a well placed punch isn't much of a league concern anyway.....coupled with the fact these weren't punches anyway, more like slaps....I have a really tough time figuring out why anyone would think this is deserving of an incredibly harsh....10 games.  

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrr. Show NeelyOrr's posts

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=23679&navid=nhl:topheads

     

    Before I react I will wait too see how long Orpik is on LTIR after the Thornton ruling comes down.

    Shero being clever ?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think so

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Steve - There are 2 factors that go into the equation here. Intent and outcome. I haven't heard too many people say ST's intent was to knock Orpik out but that was the result. You can't ignore or discount the outcome simply because you believe (as I do) that the intent was something less.

    If the intent matched the result then ST should get slammed with 20 games. As it is it should be 10 imo. (which rarely ever aligns with the Shanny random wheel o' justice).

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you can't ignore the outcome Walk.  I've explained that above.  Without "outcome" it's a minor penalty.  This is an absolute "nothing", without "outcome".  A suspension would never be considered without that particular "outcome".  That's why I say 5 "more" games.   This really isn't part of the current headshot crusade which primarily deals with excessive force within hockey plays, but rather the "gratuitous violence" fighting, entertainment argument, that the league upholds as necessary.

    The Ericsson hit, Marchands, those are all really under a different philisophical umbrella, whether the league admits it or not.

    Simply put, the league is fine with players punching each other.  They refuse to ban that from the game.  They've drawn a line in the sand.  It's ok.

    They've also drawn another line.  One that deals with the potential of serious head injury at game speed.  Regardless of injury, suspensions can and do occur.

    Since "outcome' is the only consideration in the Thorton case, and since targetting the head with a well placed punch isn't much of a league concern anyway.....coupled with the fact these weren't punches anyway, more like slaps....I have a really tough time figuring out why anyone would think this is deserving of an incredibly harsh....10 games.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the distinction you're making and I get it. I even agree with it to a point. But the league isn't going to necessarily agree that the incident was without a different kind of malice that happens in a normal fight, which the league is just fine with. Even if it wasn't SJ's intent to give Orpik an involuntary nap, it's pretty clear he was crossing the line of what is a normal fight. PLus they can't be assured there was no intent to really harm Orpik. SJ's reaction and history tell me there wasn't but who knows if sheriff shanny will think so.

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:[QUOTE] You know exactly what I meant. Stop exaggerating Shup, you know that those two paddy cake swipes couldn't kill a Twinkie. Kelly's leg is broken, nothing is broken on Orpik's puzzy body!

    Orpik is a man, Kelly is a wuzz...got it!

    #typicalshupexaggeration![/QUOTE]

    guess who went down this road.  Yup.  #sameoldsanwillheeverlearn

    im sure you could take two on the button and skip rope after #youareallheartrock. [/QUOTE]


    I drink lots of milk so I can take a slash and a shot to the melon.

    Thanks for the advice!

    [/QUOTE]

    Thats good.  Wouldnt want your osteoporosis acting up.  #gotmilk

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Madhouse27. Show Madhouse27's posts

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    Could it be that Orpik was actually concussed earlier on the hit he delivered to Loui, and that even a moth landing on his head would have finished him off? 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Crowls2424's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Answer the question.

    "That said, can you recall a hockey player being down for 10 minutes and going out on a stretcher with such little contact?  Any comparable examles that you could share?"

    Absent a direct response, I guess we have to fill in the blanks.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes.

    Brooks Orpik.

    If you have no examples of anyone faking being knocked out in hockey, there is no reason to think this is one.

    No one else in the hockey world is saying this but a few absurd people here.

    Now that Orpik is on IR, you're trying to save your arguement by getting more absurd.

    Give it up.

    [/QUOTE]

    Give what up?  My opinion?  You don't get to make that call. 

    We all saw what happened to Orpik.  You asked me a question that I answered.  I asked you a question and either cannot or refuse.

    Thanks for the suggestion, but I will continue to own my opinion.

     

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Steve - There are 2 factors that go into the equation here. Intent and outcome. I haven't heard too many people say ST's intent was to knock Orpik out but that was the result. You can't ignore or discount the outcome simply because you believe (as I do) that the intent was something less.

    If the intent matched the result then ST should get slammed with 20 games. As it is it should be 10 imo. (which rarely ever aligns with the Shanny random wheel o' justice).

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course you can't ignore the outcome Walk.  I've explained that above.  Without "outcome" it's a minor penalty.  This is an absolute "nothing", without "outcome".  A suspension would never be considered without that particular "outcome".  That's why I say 5 "more" games.   This really isn't part of the current headshot crusade which primarily deals with excessive force within hockey plays, but rather the "gratuitous violence" fighting, entertainment argument, that the league upholds as necessary.

    The Ericsson hit, Marchands, those are all really under a different philisophical umbrella, whether the league admits it or not.

    Simply put, the league is fine with players punching each other.  They refuse to ban that from the game.  They've drawn a line in the sand.  It's ok.

    They've also drawn another line.  One that deals with the potential of serious head injury at game speed.  Regardless of injury, suspensions can and do occur.

    Since "outcome' is the only consideration in the Thorton case, and since targetting the head with a well placed punch isn't much of a league concern anyway.....coupled with the fact these weren't punches anyway, more like slaps....I have a really tough time figuring out why anyone would think this is deserving of an incredibly harsh....10 games.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the distinction you're making and I get it. I even agree with it to a point. But the league isn't going to necessarily agree that the incident was without a different kind of malice that happens in a normal fight, which the league is just fine with. Even if it wasn't SJ's intent to give Orpik an involuntary nap, it's pretty clear he was crossing the line of what is a normal fight. PLus they can't be assured there was no intent to really harm Orpik. SJ's reaction and history tell me there wasn't but who knows if sheriff shanny will think so.

    [/QUOTE]

    fair enough 

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

    Re: Penguins place Orpik on IR

    In response to WalkTheLine's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the distinction you're making and I get it. I even agree with it to a point. But the league isn't going to necessarily agree that the incident was without a different kind of malice that happens in a normal fight, which the league is just fine with. Even if it wasn't SJ's intent to give Orpik an involuntary nap, it's pretty clear he was crossing the line of what is a normal fight. PLus they can't be assured there was no intent to really harm Orpik. SJ's reaction and history tell me there wasn't but who knows if sheriff shanny will think so.

    [/QUOTE]

    Very well said Walk.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share