The real villian- Brooks Orpik

[yave1964]

@ruxpin

 

  My problem with the whole thing Rux is it is not like Thornton is Mike Brown or Jordin Tootoo, he is a legitimate player, atough guy who has a good rep and has never faced disciplinary action before.

  Orpik has to assume some accountability, to just say poor innocent Orpik getting attacked for no reason by the big bad Shawn Thornton is ignorant. There is a history between these two teams, they are the frontrunners in the East and Orpik taking out Eriksson just brought the bad blood out. Trying to put all of this on the Bruins is ridiculous, Orpik is no babe in the woods on this one attacked for no reason. Orpik started it, whether his goal was to knock Loui into next week or not is irrelevant, he did and has to answer for it. By not doing so and Neal doing his thing it helped lead to getting out of hand.

[yave1964]

@nossagog

 

I hope you don't put this whole thing on the Bruins. It was a two way street started by the Orpik hit and ended with Thornton acting like an idiot. Poor officiating played a huge part as well.

[pilldoc]

ok just got through the thread on Orpik.  Have not looked at Neal yet....nor have seen Thornton's actions on Orpik so I can't comment on those yet.

 

IMO...in slow mo, it looks like a clean hit. shoulder to shoulder.  His head snaps back only because of the way he was hit.  Was it borderline, absolutely.  Suspension worthy...I don't think so.  However I agree with @ruxpin, due to Shanny's inconsistencies, I can see this going both ways.

 

Was it interference?  Who knows?  The play happened so fast, the officials have to make a snap judgement call.  We have the benefit of rewatching the play over and over dissecting every second.  The refs don't have that luxury.

[yave1964]

@pilldoc

  Again these two teams are the class of the East, rivals, maybe the best in the game today. I wish they played three or four more times this season. Orpik even if not breaking any rules and granted the hit is borderline, ignited the furor.  Orpik refusing to accept his comeuppance ignited a powderkeg.

[pilldoc]

@pilldoc

   Orpik refusing to accept his comeuppance ignited a powderkeg.

hence the heated debate we have here.  IMO, if Orpik think his was legit (regardless if it was or was not is inmaterial), then stand up to Thornton or whomever and say I think what I did was ok. I know personally if I am accused of something and I know I am right...I fight like a bear to prove I am right.  I get the view point that he should skate away and they he should not engage Thornton but this is sports and things need to addressed immediately.  It is in the beginning of the game, if I'm Orpik I stand up for myself and if I get 5 min...then I get 5 mins.  Of course this is just me.  I guess Orpik did not feel that way.

[aziz]

Thornton should get at least 10. Period.
 
Orpik did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

ok, that might be a bit much.  you're right, orpik did nothing wrong, it was reasonable for him to think eriksson would be in possession of the the puck at the time of the hit.  the fact that the puck hopped over his stick doesn't change that.  i agree.  but 10 games for a glove punch?  even with the target on his back, it was bad but not heinous.  as was said, it was a bad fluke that it caught him exactly right to cause damage, and a game or two is probably appropriate, but 10 games is way over the top.

 

neal, on the other hand, needs to sit the next couple weeks out.  that was inexcusable.  6 games is my guess.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

 

  My problem with the whole thing Rux is it is not like Thornton is Mike Brown or Jordin Tootoo, he is a legitimate player, atough guy who has a good rep and has never faced disciplinary action before.

  Orpik has to assume some accountability, to just say poor innocent Orpik getting attacked for no reason by the big bad Shawn Thornton is ignorant. There is a history between these two teams, they are the frontrunners in the East and Orpik taking out Eriksson just brought the bad blood out. Trying to put all of this on the Bruins is ridiculous, Orpik is no babe in the woods on this one attacked for no reason. Orpik started it, whether his goal was to knock Loui into next week or not is irrelevant, he did and has to answer for it. By not doing so and Neal doing his thing it helped lead to getting out of hand.

 

 

I think it's a bit more nuanced than you or the people responding to you are allowing for.   First, I agree about Thornton's history.

 

But there is a big difference between a player's actions being a contributing factor and those actions being the fault.   Cause and fault are different  things.

 

Was Orpik's hit on Ericksson a contributing factor/cause?  Yes. 

Was Orpik not fighting Thornton a contributing factor/cause?  Yes

Was Neal's kneeing Marchand a contributing factor/cause?  Yes.

 

But Is Orpik at FAULT for Thornton attacking him from behind and pummeling him while he lay on the ice?  No.  It's not Orpik's FAULT that Thornton is upset because of what was ruled a clean/legal hit.  It doesn't matter whether Ericksson was confused on the bench, puking his guts out, and having a full-blown conversation with a hamster wearing a camisole.  That's a reason for Thornton to be upset, but that's not Orpik's fault.

 

Cause vs. fault.

 

It's understandable that Thornton wanting to fight Orpik, but it's not Orpik's fault that he, a middle-weight at best, doesn't want to engage a heavyweight straight on.  You want retribution, you send a middleweight after Orpik.

 

Cause vs. fault.

 

It's understandable after watching Ericksson that Thornton is again enraged after the Neal nonsense with Marchand.  That's a bonafide cause.   But Orpik personally had nothing to do with that.  He's targeted by Thornton because of what was ruled a clean/legal hit and an unwillingness to fight above his weight class.  Targeted from behind while in a scrum and thrown on the ice and then pummeled.   I will agree with those that say this actually happens quite often and not with this result.  But that's not really a great defense for not only Thornton but for a plethora of other offenses where people use the "but everyone else was doing it" excuse.   But again, the Neal thing is a contributing factor/cause, but not Orpik's fault.

 

Cause vs. fault.

 

It's one thing to build a case that "X, Y, Z were all contributing factors and Orpik had a part in most of it."  It's another thing to claim he's to blame.   The blame lies solely on Thornton for his own actions.  It's a bit unfortunate for Thornton since this IS a fairly common occurrence (grabbing someone from behind in a scrum and throwing them down and taking a shot if you can).  But you always run the risk of what happened.  And, this time, it happened.

[ruxpin]

hence the heated debate we have here.  IMO, if Orpik think his was legit (regardless if it was or was not is inmaterial), then stand up to Thornton or whomever and say I think what I did was ok. I know personally if I am accused of something and I know I am right...I fight like a bear to prove I am right.  I get the view point that he should skate away and they he should not engage Thornton but this is sports and things need to addressed immediately.  It is in the beginning of the game, if I'm Orpik I stand up for myself and if I get 5 min...then I get 5 mins.  Of course this is just me.  I guess Orpik did not feel that way.

 

I don't know about this.  Grossman, for example, can hold his own if necessary in a spontaneous fight with a middle-weight.  I don't want him going toe-to-toe with Thornton or the like if he can avoid it.  The problem wasn't fighting to defend his honor (Orpik) it was who was being sent to fight.  It was using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

 

Someone like Lucic probably would have been more appropriate, although I would put money on Lucic in that exchange.

[aziz]

IMO, if Orpik think his was legit (regardless if it was or was not is inmaterial), then stand up to Thornton or whomever and say I think what I did was ok. I know personally if I am accused of something and I know I am right...I fight like a bear to prove I am right.

 

i'm late to the party on this one, but how do fists say "i think what i did was ok" better than actually saying, "i think what i did was ok, and i don't see the point to getting punched in the face for a clean hit"?

 

i mean, verdict by single combat?  the winner is right, the lose wrong.  i dunno.  i get why thornton wanted to fight him, i get why people think orpik should have stood in there and taken his beating, but it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the precipitating hit.

[pilldoc]

I think it's a bit more nuanced than you or the people responding to you are allowing for.   First, I agree about Thornton's history.

 

But there is a big difference between a player's actions being a contributing factor and those actions being the fault.   Cause and fault are different  things.

 

Was Orpik's hit on Ericksson a contributing factor/cause?  Yes. 

Was Orpik not fighting Thornton a contributing factor/cause?  Yes

Was Neal's kneeing Marchand a contributing factor/cause?  Yes.

 

But Is Orpik at FAULT for Thornton attacking him from behind and pummeling him while he lay on the ice?  No.  It's not Orpik's FAULT that Thornton is upset because of what was ruled a clean/legal hit.  It doesn't matter whether Ericksson was confused on the bench, puking his guts out, and having a full-blown conversation with a hamster wearing a camisole.  That's a reason for Thornton to be upset, but that's not Orpik's fault.

 

Cause vs. fault.

 

It's understandable that Thornton wanting to fight Orpik, but it's not Orpik's fault that he, a middle-weight at best, doesn't want to engage a heavyweight straight on.  You want retribution, you send a middleweight after Orpik.

 

Cause vs. fault.

 

It's understandable after watching Ericksson that Thornton is again enraged after the Neal nonsense with Marchand.  That's a bonafide cause.   But Orpik personally had nothing to do with that.  He's targeted by Thornton because of what was ruled a clean/legal hit and an unwillingness to fight above his weight class.  Targeted from behind while in a scrum and thrown on the ice and then pummeled.   I will agree with those that say this actually happens quite often and not with this result.  But that's not really a great defense for not only Thornton but for a plethora of other offenses where people use the "but everyone else was doing it" excuse.   But again, the Neal thing is a contributing factor/cause, but not Orpik's fault.

 

Cause vs. fault.

 

It's one thing to build a case that "X, Y, Z were all contributing factors and Orpik had a part in most of it."  It's another thing to claim he's to blame.   The blame lies solely on Thornton for his own actions.  It's a bit unfortunate for Thornton since this IS a fairly common occurrence (grabbing someone from behind in a scrum and throwing them down and taking a shot if you can).  But you always run the risk of what happened.  And, this time, it happened.

Although I feel Orpik should have stood up for himself, I can't disagree with anything you posted.  Some very good points and well said.

[pilldoc]

I don't know about this.  Grossman, for example, can hold his own if necessary in a spontaneous fight with a middle-weight.  I don't want him going toe-to-toe with Thornton or the like if he can avoid it.  The problem wasn't fighting to defend his honor (Orpik) it was who was being sent to fight.  It was using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

see my post above, I can't disagree with your logic.  And yes...except for Zac, I don't want anyone going toe-to toe with Thornton.  I like your sledgehammer to fly analogy.

[B21]

ok, that might be a bit much.  you're right, orpik did nothing wrong, it was reasonable for him to think eriksson would be in possession of the the puck at the time of the hit.  the fact that the puck hopped over his stick doesn't change that.  i agree.  but 10 games for a glove punch?  even with the target on his back, it was bad but not heinous.  as was said, it was a bad fluke that it caught him exactly right to cause damage, and a game or two is probably appropriate, but 10 games is way over the top.

 

neal, on the other hand, needs to sit the next couple weeks out.  that was inexcusable.  6 games is my guess.

 

I know. That was angry B21. I have since come to my senses on gone on record somewhere as being satisfied with 5. 

 

That's said, it's not just a gloved punch. It's coming at the guy with his back turned, pulling him down and then giving a gloved punch...a few actually. In an of itself, no...a gloved punch is not "that" bad.  But you need to look at the entire incident.

[pilldoc]

i'm late to the party on this one, but how do fists say "i think what i did was ok" better than actually saying, "i think what i did was ok, and i don't see the point to getting punched in the face for a clean hit"?

 

i mean, verdict by single combat?  the winner is right, the lose wrong.  i dunno.  i get why thornton wanted to fight him, i get why people think orpik should have stood in there and taken his beating, but it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the precipitating hit.

when I mean fight..I mean I argue tooth and nail that I am right.  SInce this being sports and hockey where fighting is acceptable I get your point.  Maybe I'm a sadist, but if I'm Orpik and I feel what I did was right...then I stand up to Thornton even if means I take a beating.  Again that is just me and that dosen't mean it is right.  I dunno.... :unsure:

[B21]

when I mean fight..I mean I argue tooth and nail that I am right.  SInce this being sports and hockey where fighting is acceptable I get your point.  Maybe I'm a sadist, but if I'm Orpik and I feel what I did was right...then I stand up to Thornton even if means I take a beating.  Again that is just me and that dosen't mean it is right.  I dunno.... :unsure:

 

I don't know what was said (by Orpik) when Thornton confronted him the first time but isn't not dropping the gloves there the same as telling Thornton that the hit was legal? 

[ruxpin]

I don't know what was said (by Orpik) when Thornton confronted him the first time but isn't not dropping the gloves there the same as telling Thornton that the hit was legal? 

 

Personally, that would be my interpretation of it.

 

Ultimately though, I don't think that accepting the fight or declining a fight there is a statement of clean vs. legal.  There was, in my opinion, very little benefit to Orpik (or his team, for that matter) in fighting there.

[pilldoc]

I don't know what was said (by Orpik) when Thornton confronted him the first time but isn't not dropping the gloves there the same as telling Thornton that the hit was legal? 

Maybe? I don't know?  I must have missed that part.  If there was a previous confrontation ( i have to go back and watch video again) and Orpik did not drop the gloves and is talking to Thornton then that shopuld be the end of it. Thornton needs to skate away.  Again I have to rewatch the video, I may have missed some sequence of events.

[pilldoc]

Personally, that would be my interpretation of it.

 

Ultimately though, I don't think that accepting the fight or declining a fight there is a statement of clean vs. legal.  There was, in my opinion, very little benefit to Orpik (or his team, for that matter) in fighting there.

and that is why I don't play hockey (though I would love too!) I would probably get my a$$ kicked!

[B21]

Maybe? I don't know?  I must have missed that part.  If there was a previous confrontation ( i have to go back and watch video again) and Orpik did not drop the gloves and is talking to Thornton then that shopuld be the end of it. Thornton needs to skate away.  Again I have to rewatch the video, I may have missed some sequence of events.

 

No problem. What you said is what happened in a nutshell. Thornton challenged. Orpik do not feel obliged to go. So Thornton took matters into his own gloves.

[yave1964]

@ruxpin

 

   Okay, well written, cause and effect defined.

 

Thornton absolutely committed a vile act upon Orpik and deserves his just desserts.

 

The escalation of the situation to that point, IMHO would have never gotten to that point if Orpik had stood up to the occasion with Thornton when challenged. I am firm on that, Orpik refusing to take his medicine led to it getting as bad as it did. It didn't excuse Thornton, just needs to be considered as one of the things that led to the nastiness.

[B21]

and that is why I don't play hockey (though I would love too!) I would probably get my a$$ kicked!

 

A wise policy.  That's what I stay out of the way when I do.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

 

   Okay, well written, cause and effect defined.

 

Thornton absolutely committed a vile act upon Orpik and deserves his just desserts.

 

The escalation of the situation to that point, IMHO would have never gotten to that point if Orpik had stood up to the occasion with Thornton when challenged. I am firm on that, Orpik refusing to take his medicine led to it getting as bad as it did. It didn't excuse Thornton, just needs to be considered as one of the things that led to the nastiness.

 

Okay, yeah.  I think we can safely agree on that.

[mojo1917]

Too bad James Neal skated directly to the bench after "skating his line" , Maybe he could have declined Thornton as well... I think blaming that business on Orpik is a little much, I don't see where that hit on Eriksson was dirty, maybe illegal because of the outcome , but truly I don't even think it's interference.

Since Jimmy Mousse was chillin' on the bench with some powerade there was no one for Thornton to engage Brooks gets it ?

The Orpik outcome was sad for all involved.

Pulling Rinaldo and Emery into this is typical , classic misdirection. And crap.

Neal is the villain from that contest, he will slide unpunished, Thornton will get what he deserves, and he'll take it without protest. I hope Shanny is fair, he's so inconsistent though it is tough to get a decent gauge of what is fair.

[Polaris922]

Orpik hit clean. Chest targeted. Puck bounces over Eriksson's stick. Open season.

Thornton goes after Orpik to get retribution for a legal clean check. Orpik has never been a fighter and never will be. He suffered a concussion in June after a Lucic hit and certainly has no responsibility to "answer" for a clean hit. He's a respected hitter in the game who never has taken cheap shots.

By the faulty thinking here, if Datsyuk or Giroux hits a guy clean and knocks him down, Engelland should immediately engage them and they're cowards for skating away. Clean is clean, and a goon is a goon.

Thornton horse collars Orpik in a cowardly assault that could easily earn criminal charges. As it is I expect 20 games. That kind of cowardly stuff... I don't care what uniform they're wearing... Is not welcome in this game. I don't care if you're punching with pillows on... Head hitting the ice... Helmets have ZERO defense against concussions according to the leading medical authorities on the subject... This wasn't much different than McSorely or Bortuzzi.

Neal sits 3-5 and deservedly so.

Chara needs to answer for his lack if discretion as well. If he won't fight he should be hit and hit and hit every chance we get.

Dupuis's slash on Kelly was an attempt to keep the puck in the zone. The puck is right at Kelly's feet. We see that how many times in a game? Skates are armored up these days for that reason and its an unfortunate injury, but doesn't ring of malice. Why no penalty? Because Kelly shows no sign of injury. He actually finished the shift and the game, not missing a shift. Want the officials to call a penalty every time a stick hits a skate or shin guard? Back to badminton...

Edited December 8, 2013 by Polaris922

[ruxpin]

Orpik hit clean. Chest targeted. Puck bounces over Eriksson's stick. Open season.

 

You keep saying this but I don't know how.  I see RIGHT IN THE HEAD with the shoulder.  I'm willing to accept the arguments of some that it's not suspension-worthy for other aspects, but I don't understand the "chest targeted" argument.

[Polaris922]

You keep saying this but I don't know how. I see RIGHT IN THE HEAD with the shoulder. I'm willing to accept the arguments of some that it's not suspension-worthy for other aspects, but I don't understand the "chest targeted" argument.

Orpik comes in with his knees bent and looks to hit Eriksson if not center chest just a hair into his right shoulder. Eriksson lowers his head some but I still don't see any chin contact. I honestly think the violence of the whiplash to his neck is the cause of the concussion.