Why Thornton was right.

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

    Why Thornton was right.

    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.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    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]

    Yes he was!!

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Orpik hit was a hockey play. Slew footing someone who is standing still then hitting them while they are on their back is not. Thornton is not right here. I think he's an honest hockey player whose emotions got the best of him.

    James Neal kneeing a plyer in the head while he was down is not a hockey play either.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 86redsox. Show 86redsox's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    ..non followers of the sport will be outraged(espn,etc). Orpik gets comeuppance. But no penalty.  Bring it shittsburg.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit was a hockey play. Slew footing someone who is standing still then hitting them while they are on their back is not. Thornton is not right here. I think he's an honest hockey player whose emotions got the best of him.

    James Neal kneeing a plyer in the head while he was down is not a hockey play either.

    [/QUOTE]

    At that point it's not about a hockey play. Orpik hit was NOT a clear cut hockey play. I'm sorry it just wasn't.  And while I see your point, it's not about honesty. It's about sending messages. If Orpik had fought, it would have been over. But refuse, you get worse. And he got worse. Much  like Scott should have.  People saying it was assault. I say, it's just what a dangerous sport like hockey needs. I'd rather that, than taking a run at someone or putting them head first into the boards. 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit was a hockey play. Slew footing someone who is standing still then hitting them while they are on their back is not. Thornton is not right here. I think he's an honest hockey player whose emotions got the best of him.

    James Neal kneeing a plyer in the head while he was down is not a hockey play either.

    [/QUOTE]

    At that point it's not about a hockey play. Orpik hit was NOT a clear cut hockey play. I'm sorry it just wasn't.  And while I see your point, it's not about honesty. It's about sending messages. If Orpik had fought, it would have been over. But refuse, you get worse. And he got worse. Much  like Scott should have.  People saying it was assault. I say, it's just what a dangerous sport like hockey needs. I'd rather that, than taking a run at someone or putting them head first into the boards. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

     
  7. 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]

    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.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? A body check? Eriksson had the puck go through his skates, not even touching the puck and Orpik went up high with his hands.. not his body. The guy wants to make a  play on the edge of, if not outright, dirty but doesn't want to stand up to the consequences of dropping the gloves. Cowardly.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    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.

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    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.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit was a hockey play. Slew footing someone who is standing still then hitting them while they are on their back is not. Thornton is not right here. I think he's an honest hockey player whose emotions got the best of him.

    James Neal kneeing a plyer in the head while he was down is not a hockey play either.



    At that point it's not about a hockey play. Orpik hit was NOT a clear cut hockey play. I'm sorry it just wasn't.  And while I see your point, it's not about honesty. It's about sending messages. If Orpik had fought, it would have been over. But refuse, you get worse. And he got worse. Much  like Scott should have.  People saying it was assault. I say, it's just what a dangerous sport like hockey needs. I'd rather that, than taking a run at someone or putting them head first into the boards. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/QUOTE]

    Watch the video. Orpik goes high to Louie's chin area. Dirty hit. He was looking the whole way, lining him up the guy who just had a concussion. He even lunges at the last second. Get out of here with your it was just a hockey play. I'm sorry, it clearly wasn't. And Orpik doesn't exactly have the cleanest record either when it comes to hits. He knew what he was doing. 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? A body check? Eriksson had the puck go through his skates, not even touching the puck and Orpik went up high with his hands.. not his body. The guy wants to make a  play on the edge of, if not outright, dirty but doesn't want to stand up to the consequences of dropping the gloves. Cowardly.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes a hockey play. The puck did not go through Erikssons legs. It is inches away from his stick. I dont think everytime a player throws a big check he should have to answer to the resident goon.

    Do you really think Orpik had intent to injure there?

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Watch the replay again. Orpik delivers the hit with elbows tucked in.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Orpik hit. 

    http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sbnation/SBNation_20131207_Loui_Eriksson_injury__Bruins_winger_exits_game_after_Brooks_Orpik_hit.html

    He lunges. Dirty. Intent. You Bet. 

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit. 

    http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sbnation/SBNation_20131207_Loui_Eriksson_injury__Bruins_winger_exits_game_after_Brooks_Orpik_hit.html

    He lunges. Dirty. Intent. You Bet. 

    [/QUOTE]

    If there is contact to the head, I don't think it was intentional. I think he is trying to make a hockey play.

    James Neal, intentional contact to the head. That is a dirty hit.

     
  16. 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]

    Orpik hit. 

    http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sbnation/SBNation_20131207_Loui_Eriksson_injury__Bruins_winger_exits_game_after_Brooks_Orpik_hit.html

    He lunges. Dirty. Intent. You Bet. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I've never heard of anyone getting a penalty for lunging.  That's called checking.

    His intent was to destroy Eriksson.  That's hockey. 

    He timed it poorly and made contact with the head.

    That's a penalty.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

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

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit. 

    http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sbnation/SBNation_20131207_Loui_Eriksson_injury__Bruins_winger_exits_game_after_Brooks_Orpik_hit.html

    He lunges. Dirty. Intent. You Bet. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I've never heard of anyone getting a penalty for lunging.  That's called checking.

    His intent was to destroy Eriksson.  That's hockey. 

    He timed it poorly and made contact with the head.

    That's a penalty.

    [/QUOTE]

    Theres one angle that shows hit shoulder clipped the head. I was wrong about that, I just don't think it was intentional. James Neal? All Day. Thats the play I have a problem with.

     
  19. 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]

    Watch the video. Orpik goes high to Louie's chin area. Dirty hit. He was looking the whole way, lining him up the guy who just had a concussion. He even lunges at the last second. Get out of here with your it was just a hockey play. I'm sorry, it clearly wasn't. And Orpik doesn't exactly have the cleanest record either when it comes to hits. He knew what he was doing. 

    [/QUOTE]

    He doesn't go high to the chin.

    Yes, he was looking the whole way.  What else would a guy about to deliver a check be doing?

    Yes, he had him lined up.  That's how your throw a check.

    It's Eriksson's issue that he just had a concussion, not Orpik's.

    He does lunge at the last second.  That's one way to throw a check.  He doesn't, however, leave his feet. 

    Is this your first hockey game?  Maybe you should go watch some replays of the the Red Sox pitchers cheat their way to another World Series and leave the NHL to us.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:[QUOTE]
    How is a body check not a hockey play?[/QUOTE]

    Really? A body check? Eriksson had the puck go through his skates, not even touching the puck and Orpik went up high with his hands.. not his body. The guy wants to make a  play on the edge of, if not outright, dirty but doesn't want to stand up to the consequences of dropping the gloves. Cowardly. [/QUOTE]


    Whether intentional or not the shoulder, not the elbow, hit Eriksson's head. I also agree that Orpik is a coward but he didn't deserve the two swats to the visor while he was on the ice. Shanahan is going too look at the slewfoot and the stretcher.

    In a perfect Shanahammer world Neal, Orpik and Thornton get suspended. But I think only Neal and Thornton gets suspended.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    It wasn't a dirty hit, but high and hard, that's hockey so..... Answer the bell!! Orpik didn't,  and he paid a price by a generally honest player in Thornton.  Whether you like him or not e as never been suspended!!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dbeach48. Show dbeach48's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Yep.

    Pigs burg. Started it

    Bs finished it.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit was a hockey play. Slew footing someone who is standing still then hitting them while they are on their back is not. Thornton is not right here. I think he's an honest hockey player whose emotions got the best of him.

    James Neal kneeing a plyer in the head while he was down is not a hockey play either.



    At that point it's not about a hockey play. Orpik hit was NOT a clear cut hockey play. I'm sorry it just wasn't.  And while I see your point, it's not about honesty. It's about sending messages. If Orpik had fought, it would have been over. But refuse, you get worse. And he got worse. Much  like Scott should have.  People saying it was assault. I say, it's just what a dangerous sport like hockey needs. I'd rather that, than taking a run at someone or putting them head first into the boards. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/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. Ericksson didn't have the puck.

    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.

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    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.

     

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

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Orpik hit was a hockey play. Slew footing someone who is standing still then hitting them while they are on their back is not. Thornton is not right here. I think he's an honest hockey player whose emotions got the best of him.

    James Neal kneeing a plyer in the head while he was down is not a hockey play either.



    At that point it's not about a hockey play. Orpik hit was NOT a clear cut hockey play. I'm sorry it just wasn't.  And while I see your point, it's not about honesty. It's about sending messages. If Orpik had fought, it would have been over. But refuse, you get worse. And he got worse. Much  like Scott should have.  People saying it was assault. I say, it's just what a dangerous sport like hockey needs. I'd rather that, than taking a run at someone or putting them head first into the boards. 

    [/QUOTE]

    How is a body check not a hockey play?

    [/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]

    I'm going to have to disagree with this interpretation.  In all the years I reffed if I called a penalty on a check that did not include trying to "win the puck" the entire games would have been 3 on 3.

    Remember Brad Park?  Al Arbour ? All the other defensemen that made a living making hip checks? There is no attempt towards the puck on any of these hits and never was all the years back.  Orpiks play was illegal because Loui did not have possession of the puck.  It was not illegal because Orpik did not attempt to play the puck-  there isnt an official at any level or from any era that would agree with that rule application.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share