The real villian- Brooks Orpik

[ruxpin]

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.

 

Not trying to be a prick, but I have no idea what you're looking at.  I see full shoulder into face, no chest at all.

[ruxpin]

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.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvteW6mvasA

 

At  0:51.  If that's not head I don't understand why I didn't fail anatomy.  It's certainly not chest.

[nossagog]

@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.

As I said somewhere else, probably not in this thread, there was enough chippyness on both sides of this. Both teams helped this escalate.

[Polaris922]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvteW6mvasA

 

At  0:51.  If that's not head I don't understand why I didn't fail anatomy.  It's certainly not chest.

 

I blew it up on my desktop screen and I change my opinion.  It's less shoulder to the chest than it is arms to the chest.  Orpik brings both his arms across in front of his body and hits Eriksson right on the pecs with them and some right shoulder.  Clean as can be.  The Bruins and every announcer in the game, as well as Kerry Fraser (whom I detest by the way) all seem to agree it was clean.  Even Julien said "it's unfortunate" but nothing more.  Bylsma said it was clear Eriksson touched the puck.  It seems the only place people feel it was an illegal hit is on forums.  

[ruxpin]

I blew it up on my desktop screen and I change my opinion.  It's less shoulder to the chest than it is arms to the chest.  Orpik brings both his arms across in front of his body and hits Eriksson right on the pecs with them and some right shoulder.  Clean as can be.  The Bruins and every announcer in the game, as well as Kerry Fraser (whom I detest by the way) all seem to agree it was clean.  Even Julien said "it's unfortunate" but nothing more.  Bylsma said it was clear Eriksson touched the puck.  It seems the only place people feel it was an illegal hit is on forums.  

 

 

It CAN be clean and still be head.  But it's to the head.  It's clear on the film at any magnification.  I understand being a Pens apologist, but there is room to argue no suspension while acknowledging head.

[nossagog]

I blew it up on my desktop screen and I change my opinion.  It's less shoulder to the chest than it is arms to the chest.  Orpik brings both his arms across in front of his body and hits Eriksson right on the pecs with them and some right shoulder.  Clean as can be.  The Bruins and every announcer in the game, as well as Kerry Fraser (whom I detest by the way) all seem to agree it was clean.  Even Julien said "it's unfortunate" but nothing more.  Bylsma said it was clear Eriksson touched the puck.  It seems the only place people feel it was an illegal hit is on forums.  

 

Polaris, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that some people in common forums are biased? But its on the Web so they must be telling the truth.

 

Sorry, was off making up a tray of Lasagna for diner, wife's out of town.

[B21]

I blew it up on my desktop screen and I change my opinion.  It's less shoulder to the chest than it is arms to the chest.  Orpik brings both his arms across in front of his body and hits Eriksson right on the pecs with them and some right shoulder.  Clean as can be.  The Bruins and every announcer in the game, as well as Kerry Fraser (whom I detest by the way) all seem to agree it was clean.  Even Julien said "it's unfortunate" but nothing more.  Bylsma said it was clear Eriksson touched the puck.  It seems the only place people feel it was an illegal hit is on forums.  

 

If Jack Edwards didn't think it was dirty...then no way was it dirty.

[Polaris922]

It CAN be clean and still be head.  But it's to the head.  It's clear on the film at any magnification.  I understand being a Pens apologist, but there is room to argue no suspension while acknowledging head.

 

I apologize then for seeing no head contact?  I think from the angle of the video you're assuming head contact from the whiplash of the hit.  If we had a side view we'd know so much better.  I just don't see any clear contact to the face.  I can't find a single reputable report saying there was head contact, even from the Bruins.  

[ruxpin]

If Jack Edwards didn't think it was dirty...then no way was it dirty.

 

No sarcasm here:  I can't argue with that logic.   But like I said, we can acknowledge a head hit (and some Orpik defenders have--I *think* you were one of them) and still say it's clean.  I'm willing to argue it's clean (vs. dirty).  I'm even willing to say no suspension.  But I'm not willing to deny it's a head hit where the video clearly shows it was

[ruxpin]

I apologize then for seeing no head contact?  I think from the angle of the video you're assuming head contact from the whiplash of the hit.  If we had a side view we'd know so much better.  I just don't see any clear contact to the face.  I can't find a single reputable report saying there was head contact, even from the Bruins.  

 

Sorry, I see shoulder into head; I clearly see head absorbing hit by leaning into it and then back.  There's absolutely no doubt in my mind.  I've seen a side angle and that is actually a little more gray.  The typical angle from behind Orpik is abundantly clear to me.

 

Again, that does NOT mean it's a dirty hit. It's just acknowledging what the video shows.

 

Nosaggog's comment is interesting because you WOULD think that Edwards would be calling for a congressional investigation.

[B21]

No sarcasm here:  I can't argue with that logic.   But like I said, we can acknowledge a head hit (and some Orpik defenders have--I *think* you were one of them) and still say it's clean.  I'm willing to argue it's clean (vs. dirty).  I'm even willing to say no suspension.  But I'm not willing to deny it's a head hit where the video clearly shows it was

 

Sorry, Rux.  I did the same thin you did....pause/play through the clip. I don't see it. He comes close...as if by the time Orpik had followed through the head had snapped back out of harm's way from the hit. 

 

But I don't see any contact with the head.

[Polaris922]

Sorry, I see shoulder into head; I clearly see head absorbing hit by leaning into it and then back.  There's absolutely no doubt in my mind.  I've seen a side angle and that is actually a little more gray.  The typical angle from behind Orpik is abundantly clear.

 

Again, that does NOT mean it's a dirty hit. It's just acknowledging what the video shows.

 

 

Can you post the side angle?   The only angle we've got is the one we're all looking at and there's just no way to even guess head contact there.  I dunno how you're seeing it.  

[ruxpin]

Can you post the side angle?   The only angle we've got is the one we're all looking at and there's just no way to even guess head contact there.  I dunno how you're seeing it.

 

Because I'm looking at it.

 

Give me a few with the side angle.  It was from the near stands and the contact point was screened, but let me see if I can find it.

[ruxpin]

@Polaris922

 

it's lousy and at the very beginning (0:02) and distant (I swear I remember a larger picture, but haven't yet found it).  I still say head based on my opinion from the other angle, but it's really not a good angle.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W38wOCFe7Ww

 

This one also kind of indicates a "launch" but I again think this is the angle as I didn't have that feeling from the other angle.

[mojo1917]

If Jack Edwards didn't think it was dirty...then no way was it dirty.

lol ,truer words have not been typed.

[Polaris922]

@Polaris922

it's lousy and at the very beginning (0:02) and distant (I swear I remember a larger picture, but haven't yet found it). I still say head based on my opinion from the other angle, but it's really not a good angle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W38wOCFe7Ww

This one also kind of indicates a "launch" but I again think this is the angle as I didn't have that feeling from the other angle.

There's a much cleaner version of that on NBC sports. I agree the other angle is better. I thought you meant a true side shot not from above. My bad.

[ruxpin]

There's a much cleaner version of that on NBC sports. I agree the other angle is better. I thought you meant a true side shot not from above. My bad.

 Yeah, I wish there was.  Seems the type of angle you describe would be much more definitive.

 

I've watched and re-watched the "other" angle (from behind).  I guess there IS room for ambiguity, but I would testify in court that he was hit in the head.

 

Which one was it last year that hf101 insisted was in the head and you and I thought wasn't head at all (it was right up the slot, but for the life of me I can't remember who was involved)?  I guess you have this phenomenon in your professional life, but it will never cease to amaze me that even on video people can come away seeing vastly different things.

[Polaris922]

Yeah, I wish there was. Seems the type of angle you describe would be much more definitive.

I've watched and re-watched the "other" angle (from behind). I guess there IS room for ambiguity, but I would testify in court that he was hit in the head.

Which one was it last year that hf101 insisted was in the head and you and I thought wasn't head at all (it was right up the slot, but for the life of me I can't remember who was involved)? I guess you have this phenomenon in your professional life, but it will never cease to amaze me that even on video people can come away seeing vastly different things.

Perceptions always vary. We have a saying in my field that we get two stories and the truth often lies in the middle. I'm always stuck on issues like this as "would you raise your right hand to God and swear there was head contact"? Or are we assuming because of the violence of the impact that his head must have been struck? I wouldn't swear either way on this one, as the video just doesn't show it clearly. I've seen men's heads snap back from a strike to the stomach, so I'm inclined to buy into the nobody on the ice said it was there, and they know better than me train of thought.

[hf101]

Which one was it last year that hf101 insisted was in the head and you and I thought wasn't head at all (it was right up the slot, but for the life of me I can't remember who was involved)?  I guess you have this phenomenon in your professional life, but it will never cease to amaze me that even on video people can come away seeing vastly different things.

 

the Gryba hit on Eller.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ym8lsaL0lw

Edited December 8, 2013 by hf101
changed video to English

[ruxpin]

the Gryba hit on Eller.  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ym8lsaL0lw

 

 

Yeah, that's exactly the one.    Wasn't trying to take your name in vain, but that was a great of example of two people looking very closely at and dissecting a video and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. 

Edited December 8, 2013 by hf101
changed video to english

[yave1964]

 I am just picking on Polaris team because he outscored me 13-0 in fantasy hockey yesterday and had two wins to my none from his goalies and is now beating me this week. I really couldn't care less about the whole issue just mad at the Penguins because they are Polaris team, lol.

[hf101]

Yeah, that's exactly the one.    Wasn't trying to take your name in vain, but that was a great of example of two people looking very closely at and dissecting a video and drawing two diametrically opposed conclusions. 

 

yep.  I see both hits as similar, by the definition of interference on the play. 

 

 

 let me look for a non - French version.  lol  

[JackStraw]

Just watched a couple youtube videos from the incidents and my take is that there are two clear "villains" and neither one is named Brooks Orpik. Thorton and Neal both deserve suspensions. What each of them did is inexcusable and should have absolutely no place in the game. Orpik is guilty of committing a hockey play that maybe should have been a 2 minute interference penalty. The notion that a player should have to fight someone because maybe the officials missed a call is absurd. It even looked to me like Orpik intentionally tried to avoid hitting the head by bending over as he delivered the hit.

Kerry Fraser has a pretty good (imo) take on the incident on the TSN website. It's the responsibility of the officials to keep things under control, not the players themselves.

[JackStraw]

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.

 

I completely agree with that, but that doesn't mean that Orpik is in any way at fault here. It's not as if Thorton has any right whatsoever to just go after an opposing player just because that player hit one of his guys too hard. That's pure BS and has no part in the game. There has been way too much of that in recent years and the league needs to make it clear that it's not acceptable. Orpik was right, Thorton was wrong.

[yave1964]

@JackStraw

 

  The reason I consider Orpik a villain is his refusal to stand up and answer the bell when Thornton challenged him caused the situation to deteriorate to the point it did. Orpik's hit on Eriksson was borderline, his reaction to being challenged for it however was appalling. Instead of fighting and that being the end of it he chose to run, drawing a penalty for roughing on Thornton in the process. The Bruins have been wanting to send a message to the Penguins since last June, they took everything the Penguins had and won the game to boot. Orpik should have just fought like a man and that would have bee that.

  Thornton was a villain of first class.

   Neal was a vile slug

   Orpik was a coward

 

  Combined they created a perfect storm.

 

  Oh BTW congrats on 3,000 posts.