Shawn Thornton cheapshot on B. Orpik - gets 15 games

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

Off topic, but I want to become a rocket surgeon....must be a lucrative career, don't know any rocket surgeons

Edit. Just saw the punch as well...that deserves a suspension, no question

its not Rocket Appliances

[Oling_Roachinen]

Dang wrong thread sorry.

[Slava]

The league is pathetic when it comes to enforcement, which is the real root cause of why these things happen on an ongoing basis. Neal gets less than five games? That's just ridiculous. As usual though the league punishes injuries, not acts. Its why we have netting behind the goal ends, (not a punishment, but a death forced action here) and its why Thornton is getting more than Neal.

We can't be far from guys faking to drive up suspensions, can we? Just pathetic.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Ped

I'm sorry, but that argument while may be correct, shows how asinine this whole thing is.

What really would have prevented the cheap shot was if guys were suitably punished for said cheap shots by the league, and if guys like Thornton didn't act like total ######s.

The argument may be asinine, but it is correct.

Look, I agree that the league should deal with cheap shots with stiff suspensions. However, some people, like tinordi, tried to turn this into another opportunity to rehash the debate about fighting, and the fact is the only way fighting relates in this incident is that it likely would have prevented it.

[Dogbert]

I still love the fact that the Canucks didn't win the Stanley Cup back in 2011, but more than ever, I hate that the Bruins were the ones to beat them. Boston essentially used the old Broad Street Bullies strategy - do so much dirty and illegal crap every shift that the refs will be forced to let 99% of it go so as not to appear biased - to win their Cup, and every year we're seeing more teams try to go that route. It only leads to more goons, more violence, and more injuries.

Of course, if the NHL had shown some balls and suspended Matt Cooke for the Savard hit, none of this happens.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The argument may be asinine, but it is correct.

Look, I agree that the league should deal with cheap shots with stiff suspensions. However, some people, like tinordi, tried to turn this into another opportunity to rehash the debate about fighting, and the fact is the only way fighting relates in this incident is that it likely would have prevented it.

Is this called "circular reasoning"?

Fighting is allowed because it prevents this kind of thing. Fighting didn't prevent this kind of thing. Only fighting could have prevented this kind of thing...

Me, I'm a Bruins fan. I wanted to see Thornton beat the #### out of Orpik in a fight just because. I like me some violence occasionally, I'll admit that. It's surprising to me how many hockey fans don't want to admit that's why they like fighting in hockey, and instead come up with all these elaborate justifications.

I also think what Neal did was worse. Thornton was stupid, but what he did went completely wrong and wasn't what he wanted to happen even though he should have known it might.

Neal aimed his knee at Marchand's head and connected perfectly. I couldn't have worked out better for what he was trying to do.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

I still love the fact that the Canucks didn't win the Stanley Cup back in 2011, but more than ever, I hate that the Bruins were the ones to beat them. Boston essentially used the old Broad Street Bullies strategy - do so much dirty and illegal crap every shift that the refs will be forced to let 99% of it go so as not to appear biased - to win their Cup, and every year we're seeing more teams try to go that route. It only leads to more goons, more violence, and more injuries.

Of course, if the NHL had shown some balls and suspended Matt Cooke for the Savard hit, none of this happens.

Agreed. Rivalries aside, the Bruins are probably the least likeable team in the NHL, and that's even with Iginla on the roster to make them about 50% less unlikeable than they'd otherwise be.

I can never root against Iginla, but I'd have some real mixed emotions if they were to win the Cup this year.

[Flamenspiel]

I would say that that Orpik got Bertuzzied by Thornton. It is going to be a long suspension.

[pylon]

What Neal did was worse, and FAR more dangerous. Could have broken his neck. They both should be suspended, but what Neal did was incredibly dangerous, and right up there with Mcsorely and Bertuzzi. He is damn lucky Marchand wasn't hurt worse. It is one of the cheapest things I have ever seen in a professional hockey game.

What Thornton did was more of a freak accident with intent if that makes sense. He gave the guy a couple light jabs, which was dirty, but Orpick must have a paper jaw to go out on a stretcher from those. I can guarantee you he wasn't trying to put the guy in the hospital.

I should also note that my minor hockey career was ended by pretty much exactly what Neal did. I ended up with a dislocated neck, and a bruised spinal cord.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I would say that that Orpik got Bertuzzied by Thornton. It is going to be a long suspension.

Oh come on. Orpik is travelling with the Penguins tonight. We are coming up on 10 years since Bertuzzi attacked Moore and the guy is still injured.

This is a case of something looking a hell of a lot worse than it was.

Not saying he shouldn't get a wicked suspension out of it, and he will, but let's not go overboard.

[doctajones428]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh come on. Orpik is travelling with the Penguins tonight. We are coming up on 10 years since Bertuzzi attacked Moore and the guy is still injured.

This is a case of something looking a hell of a lot worse than it was.

Not saying he shouldn't get a wicked suspension out of it, and he will, but let's not go overboard.

Extent of injury shouldn't reflect punishment.

This was a pretty similar incident, minus the career ending injury

[Mr.Coffee]

I agree that what Neal did was worse than what Thornton did (albeit marginally..). Neal looks like he maliciously tries to injure, I believe from the video that Thornton was trying to send a message but it kind of got out of control. Like an emotional response.

There's a difference and both are definitely suspension worthy. I'm a Bruins fan so maybe some bias, but what Neal did was crazy dangerous and dirty.

Man do I hate the Penguins. The only one on Pittsburgh a guy can respect is Crosby.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

But that wasnt fighting. That was an ambush.
If you banned fighting that could still happen.

But it would be much less likely to happen because most of the guys that do these sorts of things are only in the NHL because of their fighting ability.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is this called "circular reasoning"?

Fighting is allowed because it prevents this kind of thing. Fighting didn't prevent this kind of thing. Only fighting could have prevented this kind of thing...

If you're suggesting my reasoning was circular, I disagree. I've never claimed "Fighting is allowed because it prevents this kind of thing". I think fighting is allowed because it's part of the game (i.e. it's a legacy rule; since the league's inception, it's been "allowed" in the sense of being a penalty but not worthy of being expelled from the game.) and because, like you said, people like watching fights.

If your standard for judging whether something prevents cheap shots is that there are never any cheap shots, then nothing does or will work. You'll always get some because guys sometimes react without thinking, and preventative measures are only effective when people put in enough though before an act to consider the consequences.

I do believe fighting does, to some extent, reduce cheap shots, and would do a better job without the instigator. However, the down side on removing the instigator (i.e. guys getting jumped) may not justify the benefits. I also think stiffer suspensions would, to some extent, reduce cheap shots. Finally, I do think Orpik fighting Thornton when he was challenged would have prevented 100% of the Thornton or Orpik cheap shots tonight.

I also think what Neal did was worse. Thornton was stupid, but what he did went completely wrong and wasn't what he wanted to happen even though he should have known it might.

Neal aimed his knee at Marchand's head and connected perfectly. I couldn't have worked out better for what he was trying to do.

Agree 100%. If you showed people the Neal knee and the Thornton jabs in isolation, without the results, I think most people would view the Neal incident as much more likely to cause serious injury.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If you're suggesting my reasoning was circular, I disagree.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to call you on that, just more of a general observation on the "pro fighting" side of the argument.

[StrykerSteve]

Both are awful. 20 games for both of these morons.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Both are awful. 20 games for both of these morons.

Neal is having a phone hearing so he won't even get 6. Thornton's is in person ... but he's already trotting out the apology wagon so they'll probably go soft on him.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

But it would be much less likely to happen because most of the guys that do these sorts of things are only in the NHL because of their fighting ability.

Is Thornton that bad? I thought he was an adequate player and not a goon.

[gargamel]

I think both moves were dangerous and deserving of 10+ game suspensions, but the big difference for me is that Neal's was a crime of convenience while Thornton skated across the ice to cheapshot Orpik. A player needs to have enough self-control to do the right thing when he realizes that his knee will be coming within inches of another player's head, but it's slightly more forgivable for him to make the wrong (very dangerous) split second decision to take advantage of the opportunity to smoke one of the league's biggest punks. Skating up behind a guy, slew-footing him, then punching him multiple times while he's down gives a guy much more time to think about the risks of what he's doing.

Like I said, I'd give them both 10+ games, but I don't see how anyone can think that what Neal did was "worse."

[Fire]

Neal will get 3 games.
Thornton will get 25 games.