Originally Posted by JohnL
Saw that today. I think that's about right. Earlier in this thread, I said he deserved at least 10.
As you and some others posted, the injury was worse than it looked it would have been. To me, what I didn't like was:
- Thornton came in from the side (almost blind-side) on a player who was already engaging with/in discussion/pissing on the ground to mark his territory/<fill in the blank> with another Bruin. Third man in.
- He had several hits in when Orphik was down on the ice.
But, I cry no tears for the Pens.
And for the public record, Laurel Hill Crazie (crazie is right) and I ski with each other a fair amount, share a lot of the same skiing/music/beer tastes, but when it comes to hockey, we drop the gloves and break out the swords.
For me it was never about shedding tears for the Pens. It's about senseless violence in the NHL. I thought that Neal's 5 game suspension was too little, he should have got 10 and Thornton should be gone. If the league really wanted to end this they would really come down harder and they would direct the refs to start calling more match penalties and apply that any time a player drops his gloves. Oh I can hear the howls from those that think that hockey and fighting go hand in hand, who value thuggery as much as skill and I have no doubt that the boys in the front office will never outlaw fighting. I'm just saying getting rid of this culture of violence is easily accomplished by....getting rid of it, zero tolerance, no fighting, heavy, suspensions and criminal charges against the most flagrant violators, you simply cannot allow it under an unwritten code and glorify it in highlights and allow official on the ice to not make calls. You cannot always control violence when you permit it under certain circumstances. How else do you explain an act like Thornton's? Here's a guy that was never suspended, deemed an honest player that made a mistake yet he lost it and assaulted a defenseless player.
There was a lot of talk about how the Bruins didn't come to the defense of a hit on Boychuk by Montreal's Pacioretty the game before. Talk about setting a tone but when Orpik's legal hit sent another Bruin's player out of the game the nastiness just escalated until Thornton's assault on Orpik. Earlier Thornton challenged Orpik but why should a player have to fight after a legal hit? Oh, the code says you should. The code said that your best defense man is obliged to defend his clean hit because the other team is required by the code to come to the defense one of their injured players? The code requires that a team except a penalty trade off between an "enforcer" and another teams key defense man. Never mind that 2 of the Pen top 4 defense men have been out with injuries fro several games. The code dictates a certain level of violent revenge, tone setting. message sending, preemptive, premeditated violence. Screw the code.