catomatic said:
This morning's Herald piece:
Julien doesn't think Orpik hit was legal
He's entitled to his opinion, but the video clearly shows he's wrong.
catomatic said:
This morning's Herald piece:
Julien doesn't think Orpik hit was legal
riveraulwick said:(As an aside, how amazing is it that no one from Pittsburgh ever stepped in to protect Orpik, especially after Thornton challenged him the first time? Odd that isn't getting more commentary).
MoGator71 said:Wait, Orpik has zero fights in 5 years?
I've never been real big on the whole "he needs to answer the bell" argument about guys delivering big hits. Just because you destroy a guy with a hit doesn't mean it was dirty, and I can't stand seeing guys challenged/jumped for delivering a clean check. But if you're going to dish out borderline dirty hits (and Orpik does - most guys who hit alot will eventually have some questionable ones at least) you kinda have to be willing to fight.
Even Matt Cooke was willing to fight...
No one says it is. Doesn't mean that it's not interesting to point out.Greg29fan said:
As someone else pointed out, Nik Kronwall has absolutely smoked several guys during his career, and he has zero career fights. It isn't limited to just Orpik.
I don't think anyone thinks he's a full-on cheap shot artist like his teammate James Neal, but he's a borderline guy. Lots of high hits that Pens fans could easily defend as legal and opponents could deride as dirty. I think the point is that if you're going to live on the edge like that, you're going to anger people.Greg29fan said:I think Brooks' reputation in the league is that he's a hard hitter, but a fair hitter, outside of the Cole hit (which was many years ago, but was still not the most kosher hit I've ever seen) and the Stepan hit, which he suffered no supplemental discipline for. He doesn't believe in fighting, other guys obviously do.
I don't think, and obviously he didn't think, he was under any obligation to fight for a hard, but legal, hit on Eriksson, especially an enforcer like Thornton.
You don't acknowledge there could be differing opinions on this? You think Eriksson had possession of the puck—or had legitimately touched it rather than having it haphazardly graze the toe of his blade on a carom? You don't think Orpik lined him up? Made no play whatsoever for an open puck? Because these are the things that players and coaches with decades in the league are appraising from a very, very experienced point of view. Does Thornton make a practice of forcing opponents to answer for clean hits? The reply I see shows the crown of his shoulder pad connecting with Loui's chin. I think a lot of people see that. That's an impressive level of conviction to have.Greg29fan said:
He's entitled to his opinion, but the video clearly shows he's wrong.
And the way it tends to work itself out if you don't answer the bell, rightly or wrongly, is that some one on your team gets crushed with an open ice hit that may be even more questionable. If you lay huge borderline hits, or any big hits that knock players out of the game, there is usually going to be some amount of retribution. If you aren't willing to pay the bill yourself then someone of your team inevitably will.The Four Peters said:And I'm not even saying he should "have" to fight for the legal hits, as MoGator mentioned. But when you run around destroying guys for years, including star players, you are going to be expected to answer the bell, rightly or wrongly.
catomatic said:You don't acknowledge there could be differing opinions on this?
The Four Peters said:But when you run around destroying guys for years, including star players, you are going to be expected to answer the bell, rightly or wrongly.
Well, others will disagree with that, myself included. You must have an additional camera angle that shows daylight between shoulder and head. To my knowledge, no such angle exists. But, faith is after all, a belief in things not seenGreg29fan said:
In the heat of the moment, yes. After re-watching the video, no.
catomatic said:Well, others will disagree with that, myself included. You must have an additional camera angle that shows daylight between shoulder and head. To my knowledge, no such angle exists. But, faith is after all, a belief in things not seen
ForceAtHome said:
If you're going to note Julien thinking it was a dirty hit, neither the refs (in the heat of the moment) nor the league (after watching video) thought it was dirty, did they? I'm guessing Bylsma thinks it was a clean hit, too. I know the classic answer of the refs missing things and the wheel of justice will come into play, but they're definitely not as biased as Julien when it comes to a hit on his star winger.
This talk is crazy. Orpik doesn't have to fight. Thornton is 100% to blame for causing the injury.
TheShynessClinic said:
For what it's worth, the Refs didn't give Phaneuf a penalty for his hit on Miller - and he was suspended by the league for 2 games today.
The refs are not infallible.
Obviously, Thornton is to blame for the injury, but I do think that if you're going to be the guy to jack someone up just for the sake of jacking someone up, on a questionably legal hit, you should be willing to answer the bell. You can argue that maybe Thornton isn't the guy he should do it against, but then again maybe don't run the guy who has (I believe) zero career fights. Orpik could have just as easily made a play on that puck, but decided instead to crush the player, and it's not at all unforeseeable that such a hit could have taken out Erikkson.ForceAtHome said:This talk is crazy. Orpik doesn't have to fight. Thornton is 100% to blame for causing the injury.
Truly. Bad litmus. Scott Walker received no suspension whatsoever for sucker-punching Aaron Ward—post whistle—in the playoffs a few years back, breaking a bone in his face and then scoring the series-winning goal in Game 7. Was Thornton's unprovoked attack 2X as bad? 3X? Had Aaron Ward taken out a Hurricane player with a borderline hit, or was it just that his team happened to be up 4-nil? Sorry, but the severity of league discipline is not a legitimate measure of the infraction. I'm in no way saying anyone but Thornton is responsible, I am in no way saying there is a place for this in the game, but everybody invoking Bertuzzi and saying unequivocally that Orpik's hit was whistle-clean merits some legitimate challenges to those types of assertions.cshea said:The league deeming a play not worthy of supplemental discipline doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a penalty.
"I see Thornton giving him a chance to respond numerous times before that. Should he have handled it differently? Probably. You don't want to see someone hurt, and obviously he made the decision in the moment, and maybe it wasn't the right one, but he did give Orpik a lot of chance to respond.
Orpik, who one NHL executive referred to Monday as one of the "dirtiest and phoniest players in the league" rarely drops the gloves even though he plays on the edge.
For example, lower bowl seats were being pushed for $95 each, including all fees and taxes. All upper bowl seats were available for $45.
Monbo Jumbo said:
"Obviously no class," Canucks starRyan Kesler said when asked about it. "I'm a firm believer you win with class and you lose with class, and it's all I got to say about that."
Man the Canucks NEVER stop whining. What an insufferable bunch of douchebags? Yeah, Marchand is an annoying little punk. That is why Bieksa left his feet to hit him int he head during a scrum with his forearm and why Kesler tried to eye gouge him in the scrum before Marchand kissed his ring. Isn't it over at that point? Not for Vancouver. It's not over until they cry to the media.FelixMantilla said:
Not only that, but when he becomes the center of the other teams' attention, it draws them away from covering the other players on his line and opens the ice up for them a bit. Bergeron is a top quality player yet when Marchand is at his best occupying the other team suddenly seams open up for him. As Marchand has gotten his game back on his whole line has improved.TheShynessClinic said:Marchand's game is at its' best when he is getting other players off of theirs. When he has players trying to run him, and are focused more on "getting him back," he's a better player. He seems to calm down, and play with more focus when he's the center of the other teams attention.
Now the league appears to be protecting predators like Orpik, opening the door for wanton hits on vulnerable skill players. That’s a scary message from the NHL, given that fans pay good money to see players like Eriksson, not Orpik.