Thornton Suspension Upheld

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    I don't have the three hours it would take to dispute every single sentence in the above horse droppings, so I will go with general statements:

    1.  Mr. Trombone doesn't know what is meant by "the code".

    2.  Mr. Trombone doesn't understand what a slew foot is.

    3.  Mr. Trombone has never played a competitive game of hockey in his life.

    4.  Mr. Trombone should read and not write.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    My apoplogies.  I incorrectly stated above that slew-footing was not an NHL infraction.  It is, rule 52-1.

    Think the rest of the post applies though, and my interpretation was pretty much exactly as the league sees it.

    I do know that it's a more recent rule, but couldn't find out what year it was written in.

    Sorry.




    I agree Steve. I think the fact that Thornton made sure to keep Orpik from slamming onto the ice sort of negates the slew-foot. I don't believe his suspension included anything in regards to the slew-foot. In fact, Shanahan never uses the term slew foot in his video explanation. Instead, he says that Thornton "grabbed him by the collar, kicks his feet out and proceeds to throw 2 quick punches at Orpik.........". To me, the key to a slew foot being dirty is the act of slamming a player to the ice and that wasn't really the case here. Lastly, did anyone really expect the appeal to go differently?

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    I disagree.

    The term slew-foot is an exageration.  It's not in the league vernacular.  Slew-footing is a term players use, not referee's.  It's a trip officially, but it's something players see as being much dirtier.

    Nobody playing the game professionally would see Thortons actions that way.  The fact he caught him, negates that.  A slew- foot is an ultra dirty trip by player standards.  I don't think it applies here.

    I also don't think there's much doubt Thorntons been made a patsy here.  Unfortunate, but time to move on.



    Thornton was stupid to do this on many levels.

    Don Cherry actually made a pretty good point.  When Thornton challenged him the first time Oprik backed away like a school girl. A really woosy move.  He had already made his point, no need to go further there.  I think his further action made it impossible for the league to investigate Oprik. 

    Oprik has quite a reputation around the league for cheap and borderline shots. He broke a guys neck several years ago,along with many questionable hits. Eriksson never saw it coming, and Oprik does leave his feet. It looked like Eriksson never played the puck which is at least interference. He had a pretty good head of steam so charging is possible.  Even if it's technicaly legal this is the type of preditory hit the league wants to take out.  ...Only what Thronton did later was far worse.

    If the league didn't take action well then "Brooksie" is public enemy #1 and would have gotten his due in subsequent action.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to croc's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oprik has quite a reputation around the league for cheap and borderline shots. He broke a guys neck several years ago,along with many questionable hits. Eriksson never saw it coming, and Oprik does leave his feet. It looked like Eriksson never played the puck which is at least interference. He had a pretty good head of steam so charging is possible.  Even if it's technicaly legal this is the type of preditory hit the league wants to take out.  ...Only what Thronton did later was far worse.

    If the league didn't take action well then "Brooksie" is public enemy #1 and would have gotten his due in subsequent action.

    [/QUOTE]

    He comes off the ice upon impact, but 100% does not jump into the check.  I've watched the video so much it's showing up in my favorites on my browser.  If you believe I'm wrong, please feel free to provide a screen shot that show the point of impact and Orpik airborne. 

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

     

     

    A very good article on this hit and that game from SI, and "the code"

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nhl/news/20131209/nhl-fighting-shawn-thornton-brooks-orpik-attack/

     

    Oprik 100% launches into the check. Otherwise he'd be going straight down, not up into the hit and down.  


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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    Thorton and Orpik are really 2 seperate things here.  I don't know why there's confusion, or why the league would feel any pressure to lay off Orpik.

    For the record, of course what Thornton did was dumb.  Anytime a player takes a major penalty "alone"...it's dumb.  But that really has nothing to do with this.

    On my team..I want tough guys going after opposing players that put my guys in the hospital.  Especially after the fan shiit-fest after Thornton supposedly let Cooke so easily off the hook on the Savard aftermath.  I don't have a problem at all with what Thornton did.  I just dislike the outcome.  It wasn't overly violent, however, common sense dictates a suspension because of outcome.  It should have been a token suspension.

    Orpik on the other hand, is going about his business in a way the league is always harping about cracking down on.  Hits are all predatory, however, this one sits squarely within the "spirit" of the new code.  10 times out of 10, this should be either charging, or interference, and for exactly the same reason that Thorton was made a scapegoat......because a player was severly injured.  If Orpik hadn't been injured, Thornton might not have even got a penalty after the second bitch-slap.  No more than a minor.

    And of course, the refs hugely fu*!%d up.  A called penalty, and the situation is diffused without any neccessity of vigilantisim.

    It's over and done with.  I don't expect any changes in the length.

     

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    They are related. One happened as a result of the other. I'm not the only one connecting the dots on why Thornton's slew-foot idoicy overshadows the hit by Oprik.  

    Your point about the penalty is dead-on.  Call a penalty there and it's laregly diffused.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to croc's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    A very good article on this hit and that game from SI, and "the code"

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nhl/news/20131209/nhl-fighting-shawn-thornton-brooks-orpik-attack/

     

    Oprik 100% launches into the check. Otherwise he'd be going straight down, not up into the hit and down.  


    [/QUOTE]


    This is called "a check". 

    His doesn't jump into the check.  For more on this, review Raffi Torres.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to croc's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They are related. One happened as a result of the other. I'm not the only one connecting the dots on why Thornton's slew-foot idoicy overshadows the hit by Oprik.  

    Your point about the penalty is dead-on.  Call a penalty there and it's laregly diffused.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not trying to be argumentive, but....they're not.  Attempting to "connect the dots" that way flies in the face of objectivity, and that's what referee's are on the ice for.  Connecting the dots this way only punishes retribution, not the root infraction.  The most highly trained ice hockey referees in the world disagree with your notion.  They know it's refereeing 101 to get both.

    Calling multiple penalties in a related situation is as ordinary and mundane as it gets for these guys.  It happens many times, in every game, and there's no tolerence whatsoever for the mentality it's acceptable to only call the retaliation penalty.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    Well steve, that opinion has been expressed by "experts" on why Oprik was not assessed league discipline.  At the very least what Thornton did took attention away from Oprik's hit. 

    Not-A.  A. A player has to have played the puck to be checked, Erikkson had not.  B. A player can't leave his feet to check, Oprik did.  Ya it's a check, an illegal one. Please consult an optometrist.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to croc's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well steve, that opinion has been expressed by "experts" on why Oprik was not assessed league discipline.  At the very least what Thornton did took attention away from Oprik's hit. 

    Not-A.  A. A player has to have played the puck to be checked, Erikkson had not.  B. A player can't leave his feet to check, Oprik did.  Ya it's a check, an illegal one. Please consult an optometrist.

    [/QUOTE]


    Upon contact, Orpik's feet are on the ice.

    It should have been interference because the puck missed Eriksson's stick, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a check.  The contact with the head first could have earned a five and 10, but it was very difficult to see.  I had to watch the play many times in slow motion before seeing it.  No one could have seen it correctly at full speed with one look.

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

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

      


    [/QUOTE]


    This is called "a check". 

    His doesn't jump into the check.  For more on this, review Raffi Torres.

    [/QUOTE]

    I can understand someone interpreting it that way.  Without question, it certainly used to be.

    But.

    Your interpretation is almost exactly what the league's was, on the Cooke-Savard hit.  If you look closely, they have some similarities.  After that hit, the league decided they probably should revisit things in light of so many serious injuries.  If you look at the video a couple of frames before impact, Cooke wasn't tageting the head(a stupid term if there ever was one).  He was just going for the big hit.  

    Since the league deemed this sort of acceptable hit....was no longer acceptable, why is Orpiks? 

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

    Re: Thornton Suspension Upheld

    In response to croc's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well steve, that opinion has been expressed by "experts" on why Oprik was not assessed league discipline.  At the very least what Thornton did took attention away from Oprik's hit. 

    Not-A.  A. A player has to have played the puck to be checked, Erikkson had not.  B. A player can't leave his feet to check, Oprik did.  Ya it's a check, an illegal one. Please consult an optometrist.

    [/QUOTE]

    Croc, "experts' have also disagreed with your version as to why Orpik was not assessed league discipline.  In fact...these experts disagree all the time.  It's their job.  It's our job to look a little deeper to figure out which "expert" has their stuff together.  Since Orpiks hit was years ahead of what Thornton did(in hockey time), your thoughts there are illogical.  Had the referee(s) done his job correctly,  Orpik would have received a major penalty, which would have ensured at least a hearing.  In order for Thornton to have "realistically" taken away from the Orpik hit...he'd have had to mug Orpik before Orpik nailed Ericsson.

    Finally, I'm not the one you're arguing with about the legality of the Orpik hit. 

     

Share