Why Thornton was right.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It was not a hockey play because he made no attempt to play the puck.

    Let's all remember folks, in hockey body checking is permitted if it is used to take the puck away from your opponent.

    Too many hits for many years now have nothing to do with trying to win the puck.

    The hitting in hockey has become total horse manure.

    Brooks Orpik left the game on a stretcher - he was lucky - he should have left in a body bag.

    [/QUOTE]

    You have two choices:  Play the body or play the puck.  You can't do both.

    A body bag?  He should have been killed?  Some of the comments tonight make me sick.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Brooks Orpik is attempting to throw a check. The puck is inches away from Erikssons stick. Does Orpiks shoulder hit Eriksson head? I don't think so, but if you see it that way fine....But do you think Orpik is trying to throw a check or intentionally injure Eriksson? I don't think there was any malicious intent there at all.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have to agree with this.  It was a timing play. If someone wants to break it down frame by frame and decide Loui didnt have possession and contol, and say Orpik should have received an interference call, Id agree. I cant decide if the head was the principal point of contact, it was close.  I cant call it an intentionally dirty hit.

    And to be 100% consistent, I'll repeat what I always say without regard to jersey color: I do not believe a player who makes a big hit needs to fight after every check.  When did the NHL become such an oversensitive league where every big check must be followed up by a a fight challenge?

    Re: Thornton- I hated what he did, but like others, the more I look at the play, he barely cuffed him in the visor twice and Orpik's head did not bang onto the ice. Thornton deserves a suspension for how it looks, but I think Orpik milks it.

    I still think the dirtiest move of the night was Neal and that he needs supplemental discipline too.  I was getting ill with a couple minutes left when it looked like the guy who injured Boychuk would score the winning goal for Montreal, and then the guy who attempted to injure Marchand would score the winning goal tonight, aided by leaving the box at the right time.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's exactly what I saw. I was very surprised he stayed down.

    The toe of Letang's skate hit him in the face, that may have done it.

    But I think it was the fear of God. I figure he figured that if he got up and played some more, someone would get him good before the game ended.

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

     

     

     



    That's exactly what I saw. I was very surprised he stayed down.

     

    The toe of Letang's skate hit him in the face, that may have done it.

    But I think it was the fear of God. I figure he figured that if he got up and played some more, someone would get him good before the game ended.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Pehaps that would happen if he had the puck in the corner and Lucic, for example, is steaming in on him.  There might be added gusto to the check.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It was not a hockey play because he made no attempt to play the puck.

    Let's all remember folks, in hockey body checking is permitted if it is used to take the puck away from your opponent.

    Too many hits for many years now have nothing to do with trying to win the puck.

    The hitting in hockey has become total horse manure.

    Brooks Orpik left the game on a stretcher - he was lucky - he should have left in a body bag.

    [/QUOTE]

    You have two choices:  Play the body or play the puck.  You can't do both.

    A body bag?  He should have been killed?  Some of the comments tonight make me sick.

    [/QUOTE]


    Your comments also make me sick tonight.

    Play the puck or play the body? Why didn't he get a penalty for interference? Eriksson didn't have the puck and was in a vulnerable position. He wasn't trying to go for the puck.

    Some other guy knees your teammate in the head while he's down and vulnerable. And we are supposed to be nice and thank them?

    NAS, if you were on my team and someone did these things to you, I would do something about it.

    Now you're telling me that if things like this happen to your teammate, you would do nothing?

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

     

    Maybe the bong is between your legs and you're high?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ad hominem Nas, go be clever with someone you have any right to condescend. The puck went BY his back legs and Eriksson didnt touch it AT ALL. You're right, he intended to destroy him, instead it was main point of contact to the head.. that is NOT a check, thats a suspension.

    [/QUOTE]

    He doesn't go high to the chin.

    [/QUOTE]

    Watch the video four-eyes, thats EXACTLY where and with what, the main point of contact is.

     

    [Edit: I think Thornton, Neil and Orpik should all be suspended. But Thornton did what Semenko cashed paychecks for.]

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Play the puck or play the body? Why didn't he get a penalty for interference? Eriksson didn't have the puck and was in a vulnerable position. He wasn't trying to go for the puck.

    Some other guy knees your teammate in the head while he's down and vulnerable. And we are supposed to be nice and thank them?

    NAS, if you were on my team and someone did these things to you, I would do something about it.

    Now you're telling me that if things like this happen to your teammate, you would do nothing?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think he should have gotten a penalty for interference.

    Orpik wasn't involved in the Neal to Marchand's head incident.

    Yes, I would do something about it.  I would drop the gloves and fight.  I wouldn't slew foot the guy and punch him repeatedly.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Play the puck or play the body? Why didn't he get a penalty for interference? Eriksson didn't have the puck and was in a vulnerable position. He wasn't trying to go for the puck.

    Some other guy knees your teammate in the head while he's down and vulnerable. And we are supposed to be nice and thank them?

    NAS, if you were on my team and someone did these things to you, I would do something about it.

    Now you're telling me that if things like this happen to your teammate, you would do nothing?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think he should have gotten a penalty for interference.

    Orpik wasn't involved in the Neal to Marchand's head incident.

    Yes, I would do something about it.  I would drop the gloves and fight.  I wouldn't slew foot the guy and punch him repeatedly.

    [/QUOTE]

    He hit him twice to be precise.

    If Orpik plans on doing this stuff again, he knows now that he better fight.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [Edit: I think Thornton, Neil and Orpik should all be suspended. But Thornton did what Semenko cashed paychecks for.]

    [/QUOTE]

    And Orpik did what Stevens cashed paychecks for.

    And I used to smoke cigars in the mall.

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course it was a hockey play.  The timing was bad as was the contact to the head.  It was all set up for an explosive clean check.  If the head contact didn't happen and the puck had hit Eriksson's stick, it was just another big NHL check and everyone is complaining about the suicide pass.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Instead of going for the puck, he goes high on the hit. How is that not a penalty? How is that a clean hockey play? 

    No tears for Orpik here.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    I saw what Thorton saw, Loui laying on the ice (again) and staggering around after a hit from Orpik. He injured him...whether it was a shoulder, elbow or a karate chop doesn't matter. Thorton more than gave him an opportunity for an honorable outcome. Now, I don't think Shawn wanted to kill him with a couple of pokes to the helmet, but he wanted at least some form of payback against a guy unwilling to allow any. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course it was a hockey play.  The timing was bad as was the contact to the head.  It was all set up for an explosive clean check.  If the head contact didn't happen and the puck had hit Eriksson's stick, it was just another big NHL check and everyone is complaining about the suicide pass.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Instead of going for the puck, he goes high on the hit. How is that not a penalty? How is that a clean hockey play? 

    No tears for Orpik here.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not, and the real NHL guys aren't even that pissed about it. They know. They know they'd want Thornton on their side. They can rationalize it like they want, but you know what? I'm tired and over tired of the p***ification of our society in all aspects. Neal's knee to Marchies head? Over the wall, and instant beat down, whether he "wants" it or not. You notice he was heading off ice for a change? He didn't need to get anywhere soon.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Games and society today need more events like this. I'm dead serious too. To often people do things without any repercussion.  Especially in hockey. Scott got what? 10 games for concussing Louie?  Really? That vicious of a hit. Then Orpik levels him with a shot to the head and nothing? No game? Guy just had a concussion and you hit him like that? Then be a big p***y and decline to fight? Big man can make the big hit, then run away? Then you have Neal on Marchand. Whatever, I saw it and good on Thornton. You want to run around, put massive hits on people and then not back it up? Fine. You'll get the message soon enough. Not like it came out of nowhere. Maybe Orpik will remember that next time he wants to do something like that. And guess what, the door goes both ways. I'd want to see the same to happen to a Bruin if he did what Orpik did.

    [/QUOTE]


    1.  Scott's hit on Eriksson was late and a clear shot to the head.  I had to watch this play on the big screen in slow motion before I realized that there was head contact.  Also, Scott's suspension didn't come immediately.  It happened later.  I'm not sure why you even bring this up.

    2.  That he's just back from a concussion isn't relevant.  Guys can't be expected to play softer or differently based on an opponent's injury history.

    3.  I agree that Orpik should have fought when challenged, but why didn't he start punching then?  Why did he wait to slew foot him and crank him while he's down on his back?

    4.  Neal on Marchand isn't relevant.

    5.  Yes, players should be able to throw big checks without having to fight.  That players answer checks with fists is dumb.

    6.  Do you want to see Antoine Roussel chase down Paille, slew foot him to the ice and knock him out? Paille's elbow against Unnamed Dallas Rookie was a heck of a lot worse than Orpik's hit on Eriksson.

    [/QUOTE]

    what are you talking about with Paille? i hope you're not talking about the hit years ago that was entirely clean until that very season when they changed some rules and even then it was still defensible. plus the fact that Paille is among the cleanest, most hard-nosed hockey players in the game.

    and as for #4, these are two teams battling with individual players who take it as their job to defend their teammates. at a certain point it becomes a question of who's on the ice at a given time. the neal knee to marchand's head needed a response and since neal runs to the bench whenever he makes a dirty play, he left it to orpik to fight his battle.

    neal should have been destroyed later in that game and it's a shame he wasn't. it's also a shame that orpik apparently got hurt, although he did fly with the team which means that it wasn't as serious as it first appeared.

    in thornton's case, the injury seemed worse than the incident, whereas with marchand, the incident was worse than the injury. we'll see if that's still the case in a few days.

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Instead of going for the puck, he goes high on the hit. How is that not a penalty? How is that a clean hockey play? 

    No tears for Orpik here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Quote me where I said it was clean and then quote me where I said it wasn't a penalty and I'll address your statements.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Instead of going for the puck, he goes high on the hit. How is that not a penalty? How is that a clean hockey play? 

    No tears for Orpik here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Quote me where I said it was clean and then quote me where I said it wasn't a penalty and I'll address your statements.

    [/QUOTE]

    You've been defending Orpik all night and I get dizzy when you talk in circles. 

    You don't like that Thort went after him, nor do I. I'm not going to give Orpik a pass and make him look like a victim because he didn't intend to concuss him.

    If I make a mistake, even if it's not intentional, I own up to it and take ownership of it. Orpik should have done the same and dropped them when Thort asked him the first time. 

    Remember Boychuk's hit a couple games back? He lays a clean but hard hit and immediately ischallenged. He answers the bell, it's over with. Orpik's hit was not clean, it was not called and when he was taken to task, he turtled. Orpik is not a victim, karma is a beatch.

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You've been defending Orpik all night and I get dizzy when you talk in circles. 

    You don't like that Thort went after him, nor do I. I'm not going to give Orpik a pass and make him look like a victim because he didn't intend to concuss him.

    If I make a mistake, even if it's not intentional, I own up to it and take ownership of it. Orpik should have done the same and dropped them when Thort asked him the first time. 

    Remember Boychuk's hit a couple games back? He lays a clean but hard hit and immediately ischallenged. He answers the bell, it's over with. Orpik's hit was not clean, it was not called and when he was taken to task, he turtled. Orpik is not a victim, karma is a beatch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, we agree.

    Before I saw the reply for the 100th time, I didn't see the head contact.  As soon as I did, I posted it.  I have defended Orpik by saying that the play was reasonable.  If the puck had hit Eriksson's stick (it missed by a bit) and the (from what I see) unintentional head contact didn't happen, it's a beautiful check.  People are going bananas with their claims of what is and isn't dirty.  Someone is writing about the fact that it's dirty because he lunged.  It's dirty because he didn't try to play the puck.  It's dirty because he tried to this and that.

    It's a bad play because the puck didn't hit his stick and because of the head contact.  And for it, he should have gotten an interference call immediately.  If a ref saw the head contact, he should have gotten the gate.

    And he should have fought Thornton.

    He didn't, however, deserve to be slew footed and knocked out while on his back on the ice.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You've been defending Orpik all night and I get dizzy when you talk in circles. 

    You don't like that Thort went after him, nor do I. I'm not going to give Orpik a pass and make him look like a victim because he didn't intend to concuss him.

    If I make a mistake, even if it's not intentional, I own up to it and take ownership of it. Orpik should have done the same and dropped them when Thort asked him the first time. 

    Remember Boychuk's hit a couple games back? He lays a clean but hard hit and immediately ischallenged. He answers the bell, it's over with. Orpik's hit was not clean, it was not called and when he was taken to task, he turtled. Orpik is not a victim, karma is a beatch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, we agree.

    Before I saw the reply for the 100th time, I didn't see the head contact.  As soon as I did, I posted it.  I have defended Orpik by saying that the play was reasonable.  If the puck had hit Eriksson's stick (it missed by a bit) and the (from what I see) unintentional head contact didn't happen, it's a beautiful check.  People are going bananas with their claims of what is and isn't dirty.  Someone is writing about the fact that it's dirty because he lunged.  It's dirty because he didn't try to play the puck.  It's dirty because he tried to this and that.

    It's a bad play because the puck didn't hit his stick and because of the head contact.  And for it, he should have gotten an interference call immediately.  If a ref saw the head contact, he should have gotten the gate.

    And he should have fought Thornton.

    He didn't, however, deserve to be slew footed and knocked out while on his back on the ice.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree 100%. Sorry just fired up man

    Neely, Bergeron, savard, now Erickson (sp) all have their careers altered by bad hits and somehow the Bruins are the dirty team to the entire league. 

     

    I'm just sick seeing 2 Bs players out after losing Boychuk on Thurs.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    In response to nrguy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You've been defending Orpik all night and I get dizzy when you talk in circles. 

    You don't like that Thort went after him, nor do I. I'm not going to give Orpik a pass and make him look like a victim because he didn't intend to concuss him.

    If I make a mistake, even if it's not intentional, I own up to it and take ownership of it. Orpik should have done the same and dropped them when Thort asked him the first time. 

    Remember Boychuk's hit a couple games back? He lays a clean but hard hit and immediately ischallenged. He answers the bell, it's over with. Orpik's hit was not clean, it was not called and when he was taken to task, he turtled. Orpik is not a victim, karma is a beatch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, we agree.

    Before I saw the reply for the 100th time, I didn't see the head contact.  As soon as I did, I posted it.  I have defended Orpik by saying that the play was reasonable.  If the puck had hit Eriksson's stick (it missed by a bit) and the (from what I see) unintentional head contact didn't happen, it's a beautiful check.  People are going bananas with their claims of what is and isn't dirty.  Someone is writing about the fact that it's dirty because he lunged.  It's dirty because he didn't try to play the puck.  It's dirty because he tried to this and that.

    It's a bad play because the puck didn't hit his stick and because of the head contact.  And for it, he should have gotten an interference call immediately.  If a ref saw the head contact, he should have gotten the gate.

    And he should have fought Thornton.

    He didn't, however, deserve to be slew footed and knocked out while on his back on the ice.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree 100%. Sorry just fired up man

    Neely, Bergeron, savard, now Erickson (sp) all have their careers altered by bad hits and somehow the Bruins are the dirty team to the entire league. 

     

    I'm just sick seeing 2 Bs players out after losing Boychuk on Thurs.

    [/QUOTE]

    It IS dirty because he left his freaking skates man! How can you not see that? Watch it for the 200th time and maybe you will see it. Apparently either you need glasses or you a new prescription. He went all in on a check to injure. Saw his chance, and took it. Much like Neal. Took his chance when he had it. The fact that  Erikssons had a recent concussion made it an easy choice. And voila, Louie isn't traveling with team due to concussion. Hmmmm.  Again, this wasn't a Crosby. Or Malkin. It was Orpik, who has a somewhat checkered past. 

    Heres one.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/hockey/post/_/id/8210/torts-rips-pens-orpik

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It IS dirty because he left his freaking skates man! How can you not see that? Watch it for the 200th time and maybe you will see it. Apparently either you need glasses or you a new prescription. He went all in on a check to injure. Saw his chance, and took it. Much like Neal. Took his chance when he had it. The fact that  Erikssons had a recent concussion made it an easy choice. And voila, Louie isn't traveling with team due to concussion. Hmmmm.  Again, this wasn't a Crosby. Or Malkin. It was Orpik, who has a somewhat checkered past. 

    Heres one.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/hockey/post/_/id/8210/torts-rips-pens-orpik

    [/QUOTE]

    He didn't leave his skates to make the hit.  He may have come off the ice due to impact.  "He went all in on a check to injure."  What does that even mean?  Are you saying that, because his intent was to throw a full body check, it's bad? 

    Many checks are intended to injure the opponent.  I threw some checks in my life to separate the player and the puck, but more often than not, it was to hurt the guy with the puck.  That's called "hockey".

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [Edit: I think Thornton, Neil and Orpik should all be suspended. But Thornton did what Semenko cashed paychecks for.]

    [/QUOTE]

    And Orpik did what Stevens cashed paychecks for.

    And I used to smoke cigars in the mall.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong as usuall Stevens used to hit players that had the puck on their stick.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Orrthebest's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [Edit: I think Thornton, Neil and Orpik should all be suspended. But Thornton did what Semenko cashed paychecks for.]

    [/QUOTE]

    And Orpik did what Stevens cashed paychecks for.

    And I used to smoke cigars in the mall.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong as usuall Stevens used to hit players that had the puck on their stick.

    [/QUOTE]


    Headshots, you dope.  Pay attention.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Make no mistake, Orpik was trying to hurt Eriksson, but I don't think he intended to make contact with his head. Orpik is always looking to blow someone up. Lots of guys in th NHL do this but he's one of the best at it. It's one of the few things I hate about hockey. (it's worse in the NFL) .The culture of trying to inflict the maximum amount of physical damage to opposing players is relatively recent. Go watch an old B's game from 1970 and you'll see what I mean.

    Orpik's hit, while dirty probably was not intentionally so, but it he did make contact with the head and he should have answered the challenge to fight. His cowardly response to that challenge does not however mean he deserved what he got later. Thornton went waaaay over the line and deserves a huge suspension.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Hey just don't poke the Bear!!

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Thornton did what the Bruins pay him for, police the game and discourage dirty plays by the opposition.....after the incident I did not see any other cheap stuff from Pitt...he calmed down Pitt who came out playing chippy hockey from puck drop..... The way it turned out with Orpik being knocked out was not his intention...I was verry surprised to see that two gloved blows to the visor knocked Orpik out....I bet that Thorton and everyone else on the ice was also very surprised of the outcome.....his intention was some sort of payback for the hit on Erikson (borderline hit but legal in my book) and adress the chippy hockey Pitt were dishing out....and from what i saw, he suceeded because afterwards it was a pretty clean hockey game....

    Thonthon did what the bruins pay him over 1mil/year for......

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share