Neal and Thornton incidents

[Chev-boyar-sky]

You're saying it's not a big deal? Well obviously it was to the guys in black and yellow on the ice. Chara and whoever is in left corner both see Eriksson not touch the puck, get interfered with, hit hard and injured.

Can you see how, to the guys on his team, that might be a big deal?

Sure. Just like I understand, though disagree with, the thought process that said that Steve Moore shouldn't have hit Markus Naslund because Naslund is a better player than Moore. It still doesn't excuse the follow-up.

You mean the one where Shawn Thornton broke the neck of Brooks Orpik?

 

[Kin]

You mean the one where Shawn Thornton broke the neck of Brooks Orpik?

No, just the one where he sent him to the hospital after being taken off via stretcher.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

You mean the one where Shawn Thornton broke the neck of Brooks Orpik?

No, just the one where he sent him to the hospital after being taken off via stretcher.

I'm looking forward to the Orpik vs. Thornton lawsuit.

I wonder when we can expect the case to come to trial?

Wait that won't happen because they're completely different, barely comparable situations.

 

[Kin]

I'm looking forward to the Orpik vs. Thornton lawsuit.

I wonder when we can expect the case to come to trial?

Wait that won't happen because they're completely different, barely comparable situations.

Good point. In one case a player challenged another one to fight after a hit he perceived as dirty on his team's star player, was turned down and then attacked the perceived offender with his back turned and in the other case a player challenged another one to fight after a hit he perceived as dirty on his team's star player, was turned down, and attacked the perceived offender with his back turned and it resulted in a more serious injury.

It's apples and oranges.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I'm looking forward to the Orpik vs. Thornton lawsuit.

I wonder when we can expect the case to come to trial?

Wait that won't happen because they're completely different, barely comparable situations.

Good point. In one case a player challenged another one to fight after a hit he perceived as dirty on his team's star player, was turned down and then attacked the perceived offender with his back turned and in the other case a player challenged another one to fight after a hit he perceived as dirty on his team's star player, was turned down, and attacked the perceived offender with his back turned and it resulted in a more serious injury.

It's apples and oranges.

One guy was attacked from behind and broke 4 vertebrae and never played hockey again.

One guy was pulled to the ice from behind and had 2 punches thrown at his face. He'll likely be in the line-up in not too long.

Any of these are as bad or a lot worse than what Thornton did and I wouldn't put them in the same league as what Bertuzzi did (maybe, maybe the one on Spacek, or the Nolan one).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1063759-10-of-the-worst-sucker-punches-in-nhl-history-video/page/2

You compared one of the worst incidents in NHL history to something pretty tame by comparison.

The comparison, for me, is actually apples and oranges.

 

[Kin]

The comparison, for me, is actually apples and oranges.

Sure, if the only relevant factor for you is the resulting injury. Outside of that, the underlying motive that leads to the sort of attitude that says that Orpik is fair game if he refuses to fight Thornton in particular, it's basically the same. What Thornton did to Orpik could have easily resulted in a more serious injury and Thornton gets no credit because that luckily didn't happen.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So Neal will have a phone hearing and Thornton gets an in-person hearing. Means Neal will get 5 or less and Thornton 6 or more.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

The comparison, for me, is actually apples and oranges.

Sure, if the only relevant factor for you is the resulting injury. Outside of that, the underlying motive that leads to the sort of attitude that says that Orpik is fair game if he refuses to fight Thornton in particular, it's basically the same. What Thornton did to Orpik could have easily resulted in a more serious injury and Thornton gets no credit because that luckily didn't happen.

Even Brendan Shanahan uses a resulting injury (or lack thereof) in considering a suspension or the severity of an incident. The only person who will end up with a lasting injury out of this is likely to be Eriksson.

How many times do we see suspensions on plays where a guy doesn't, at the very least, lay on the ice for a bit with a temporary injury? I'm pretty sure the answer is close to never. So for me, outside of two guys going after a player, the 2 situations are very different. If they're considered the same then there's a much longer list of players than Shawn Thornton and Todd Bertuzzi who are guilty of similar intent (although without a resulting injury) for retribution.

If Shawn Thornton had wanted to really hurt Orpik badly I think he would've done so. Orpik is already out of the hospital and heading back to Pittsburgh with the team.

 

[Kin]

Even Brendan Shanahan uses a resulting injury (or lack thereof) in considering a suspension or the severity of an incident. The only person who will end up with a lasting injury out of this is likely to be Eriksson.

How many times do we see suspensions on plays where a guy doesn't, at the very least, lay on the ice for a bit with a temporary injury? I'm pretty sure the answer is close to never. So for me, outside of two guys going after a player, the 2 situations are very different. If they're considered the same then there's a much longer list of players than Shawn Thornton and Todd Bertuzzi who are guilty of similar intent (although without a resulting injury) for retribution.

If Shawn Thornton had wanted to really hurt Orpik badly I think he would've done so. Orpik is already out of the hospital and heading back to Pittsburgh with the team.

Saying that two incidents came from the same place, were inspired by the same line of thinking and resulted in something very dangerous happening doesn't mean that they need to have the same results to be comparable. The reason to compare two things aren't to point out how they're exactly the same, they're to highlight what they have in common even if the obvious differences, like the fact that Orpik isn't as badly hurt as Moore, exist.

What did Thornton do to insure that, as he yanked Orpik down from behind, that Orpik didn't hit his head on the ice? What Thornton did could have easily resulted in a very serious injury for Orpik and the fact that it didn't has nothing to do with Thornton regardless of whether or not the NHL factors it into their suspensions.

(and, to call it back to a point you made earlier, just because the NHL uses a particular standard for determining suspensions doesn't make it right, especially given that most people see the NHL's system of discipline as being pretty ineffective)

Players can be horribly injured on legal plays, they can get up from vicious slashes with nothing more than a bump and a bruise. The injury is not the determining factor here when it comes to whether or not what Thornton did was acceptable.

 

[Strangelove]

Honestly that Neal play was about as dirty as a play can be. Kneeing somebody in the head at near full speed could do some serious damage to person, and is worth far more than than <5 he's going to get.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Even Brendan Shanahan uses a resulting injury (or lack thereof) in considering a suspension or the severity of an incident. The only person who will end up with a lasting injury out of this is likely to be Eriksson.

How many times do we see suspensions on plays where a guy doesn't, at the very least, lay on the ice for a bit with a temporary injury? I'm pretty sure the answer is close to never. So for me, outside of two guys going after a player, the 2 situations are very different. If they're considered the same then there's a much longer list of players than Shawn Thornton and Todd Bertuzzi who are guilty of similar intent (although without a resulting injury) for retribution.

If Shawn Thornton had wanted to really hurt Orpik badly I think he would've done so. Orpik is already out of the hospital and heading back to Pittsburgh with the team.

Saying that two incidents came from the same place, were inspired by the same line of thinking and resulted in something very dangerous happening doesn't mean that they need to have the same results to be comparable. The reason to compare two things aren't to point out how they're exactly the same, they're to highlight what they have in common even if the obvious differences, like the fact that Orpik isn't as badly hurt as Moore, exist.

What did Thornton do to insure that, as he yanked Orpik down from behind, that Orpik didn't hit his head on the ice? What Thornton did could have easily resulted in a very serious injury for Orpik and the fact that it didn't has nothing to do with Thornton regardless of whether or not the NHL factors it into their suspensions.

(and, to call it back to a point you made earlier, just because the NHL uses a particular standard for determining suspensions doesn't make it right, especially given that most people see the NHL's system of discipline as being pretty ineffective)

Players can be horribly injured on legal plays, they can get up from vicious slashes with nothing more than a bump and a bruise. The injury is not the determining factor here when it comes to whether or not what Thornton did was acceptable.

I guess we can agree to disagree. For me comparing what happened with Bertuzzi, who hit Moore from behind and drove his face into the ice is a lot different than what happened tonight (the players sizes aside).

I'm not saying what Thornton did should be encouraged, but I can definitely see why it happened. I also don't think it's necessarily more dangerous than the Neal knee to the head, or an elbow that went unpunished a couple weeks ago (my memory is failing me who it was).

 

[Kin]

I guess we can agree to disagree. For me comparing what happened with Bertuzzi, who hit Moore from behind and drove his face into the ice is a lot different than what happened tonight (the players sizes aside).

Again, I'm not equating the resulting injuries or saying that Thornton and Bertuzzi did the exact same things. I'm saying that the attitude behind the plays are the same and come from the same place of bad rationalization.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I guess we can agree to disagree. For me comparing what happened with Bertuzzi, who hit Moore from behind and drove his face into the ice is a lot different than what happened tonight (the players sizes aside).

Again, I'm not equating the resulting injuries or saying that Thornton and Bertuzzi did the exact same things. I'm saying that the attitude behind the plays are the same and come from the same place of bad rationalization.

Well ok, sure, but then so too does the Neal play and countless plays throughout the whole season. Some for retribution of treatment of a fellow player or for something that happened between 2 players (Neal/Marchand?) on the ice.

 

[Kin]

Well ok, sure, but then so too does the Neal play and countless plays throughout the whole season.

Regardless of whether or not that's true, and I don't think it is, one bad act doesn't excuse another. There's nothing justifiable about what Thornton did.

 

[bustaheims]

The Neal hit, to me, seems more like a lack of awareness more than anything particularly malicious. He needs to know better, but, I don't think there was any intention there to make a dirty hit. Much more unfortunate that anything else. 3 games will probably do there.

The Thornton incident also reminded me a little of the Bertuzzi incident. The way he horse-collared Orpik makes the plays comparable. The biggest difference is that Orpik fell backwards because he was standing after a whistle whereas Moore stayed on his feet because he was leaning forward to skate because the play was still going, so Bertuzzi jumped him and forced his head into the ice. Thornton won't be punished as harshly as Bertuzzi because of that and because he was responding to an incident from the same game rather than from an earlier game, but, he should still receive a lengthy suspension. Things like this have no place in professional sports. I'd give him 20 games, at least.

 

[oldman]

If Neal's head shot wasn't intentional don't you think he would look back to see what he hit? There is no doubt he knew what he was doing. He lines him up then turns his head like doesn't know the rat is there.

different angle

https://vine.co/v/hQmUUnDgEnx

 

[Strangelove]

It was blatantly obvious that the knee was intentional. He adjusted his trajectory and everything.

 

[hockeyfan1]

What a crazed thing the game of hockey still is.  Just when many thought that head shots or more aptly put, hits to the head, were on the decline, comes another brand of head shot -- a la James Neal and Scott Thornton.

Neal was purely stupid for hitting Marchand like that, no matter how much Marchand is hated.  While I can't stand some of Boston's players antics, it's better to get the appropriate revenge through a fight or a hard but clean check.

As for Thornton, beats anyone why he'd even go after Orpik.  Out of line, so to speak, doesn't make much sense.  Oh yeah, Thornton's sorry, was emotional, and would have taken it all back if he could have.  But what's done is done.  Orpik had better be okay or else this has the makings of another black & blue mark on the NHL's game.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Cherry upset about the Thornton/Orpik incident...

Don Cherry said on his Coach's Corner segment of "Hockey Night in Canada" Saturday that he is really upset with an incident that occurred between Bruins' forward Shawn Thornton and Pittsburgh Penguins' defenceman Brooks Orpik in Boston.

Thornton challenged an unwilling Orpik after the Pittsburgh defenceman gave what Cherry described as "a good licking" to Loui Eriksson.

Cherry noted that the incident wasn't a fight, adding "let's get that straight."

According to a Pittsburgh media release on Orpik's condition...

He was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, and he was alert and conscious.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/cherry-won-39-t-even-think-happen-thornton-020938136--nhl.htm

 

[maplesyrup]

Honestly that Neal play was about as dirty as a play can be. Kneeing somebody in the head at near full speed could do some serious damage to person, and is worth far more than than <5 he's going to get.

I'm of this belief too. Neal's actions were just as douchey. - He knew EXACTLY where he was and what he was doing.

Both idiots should be gone 10+ IMO.