Re: Why Thornton was right.
posted at 12/7/2013 11:45 PM EST
In response to nrguy's comment:
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.
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.