So...Shawn Thornton will probably need his own thread....

[awaz]

Steve Moore fought Matt Cooke. How did that end for him?

thats one example. you cant win them all. some players, coaches, and teams are just goons. sometimes there's just no way to avoid it.

that's why bertuzzi should have gotten a bigger punishment, and thornton needs to get a massive punishment. that type of stuff is unacceptable and the punishments need to show that. not just some slap on the wrist.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

When I had only seen the one angle I had that opinion too. As soon someone posted the other angle I, and IPW, both instantly agreed it was on purpose.

Same

 

[jstewismybastardson]

i didnt read the whole thread but Neal is a repeat offender isnt he?

less than 6 games seems very miniscule for what he did

 

[BOSSMANPC]

When I had only seen the one angle I had that opinion too. As soon someone posted the other angle I, and IPW, both instantly agreed it was on purpose.

Same

Plus 1.

BTW when is his hearing? Sure it's posted just haven't looked.

 

[Darkstone42]

I think it's sometime this morning.

 

[dare2be]

I would expect both Neal and Thornton to get 10 games or more, and Thornton to get double what Neal gets, but I'm not holding out hope.

 

[evolver115]

I think it's sometime this morning.

I would expect both Neal and Thornton to get 10 games or more, and Thornton to get double what Neal gets, but I'm not holding out hope.

Neal has a phone hearing, so that already guarantee's that his suspension won't be more than five games. The league has supposedly said that any hearing where the player in question could be suspended for more than five has to be an in-person hearing.

Defenseman Brooks Orpik (concussion) will not play against Columbus at Consol Energy Center. The Penguins also expect that right winger James Neal will receive a multiple-game suspension after a phone hearing with the NHL Department of Player Safety before the game.

Neal's suspension will be no more than five games. Otherwise, his hearing would have been in person with Player Safety vice president Shanahan.

 

[awaz]

i wonder if they hadn't seen the other angle of the neal knee before they announced a phone hearing?

seems like the type of shotty investigative work the NHL would be capable of?

 

[evolver115]

i wonder if they hadn't seen the other angle of the neal knee before they announced a phone hearing?

seems like the type of shotty investigative work the NHL would be capable of?

I think it has more to do with the fact that Marchand finished the game and played the next night against Toronto.

Like it or not, the league takes into account how badly hurt the opponent was when making a decision on punishment.

 

[Comeds]

Defenseman Brooks Orpik (concussion) will not play against Columbus at Consol Energy Center. The Penguins also expect that right winger James Neal will receive a multiple-game suspension after a phone hearing with the NHL Department of Player Safety before the game.

Neal's suspension will be no more than five games. Otherwise, his hearing would have been in person with Player Safety vice president Shanahan.

Yes, but supposedly he watched and by all accounts enjoyed the inflight movie "Grown Ups 2" so that means he does not have a concussion. Or so medical experts have said.

 

[evolver115]

Yes, but supposedly he watched and by all accounts enjoyed the inflight movie "Grown Ups 2" so that means he does not have a concussion. Or so medical experts have said.

I know it's a joke, but Orpik was placed on IR yesterday, and Brian Dumoulin was recalled from their AHL team for tonight's game. Orpik won't be playing for the foreseeable future.

 

[SLY]

When I had only seen the one angle I had that opinion too. As soon someone posted the other angle I, and IPW, both instantly agreed it was on purpose.

My bad, I didn't read through the whole thread.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I thought hitting Marchand was encouraged and was a factor that could be used to reduce a suspension?

You know, the Matt Cooke rule.

 

[Comeds]

My bad, I didn't read through the whole thread.

Why would you? I dont blame you. Its 14 pages of mostly the same thing.

 

[juliansteed]

thats one example. you cant win them all. some players, coaches, and teams are just goons. sometimes there's just no way to avoid it.

that's why bertuzzi should have gotten a bigger punishment, and thornton needs to get a massive punishment. that type of stuff is unacceptable and the punishments need to show that. not just some slap on the wrist.

And there are countless examples of times when guys threw clean hits and refused to fight and it never escelated any further beyond that. This is a rare example of a time where a guy refused a fight and then later had something worse happen to him. There is no way of knowing that if he fought him that would have been the end of it.

No reason a guy should be obligated to fight after a clean hit if it happened to hurt another player. If you don't like that players can be injured as a result of a clean hit then perhaps you should advocate for the rules to be changed so that these hits are not legal. That being said, I get your point about a guy should expect a challenge but that doesn't mean he's obligated to oblige. And if there is a fight then absolutely a guy should get an instigator as you also mentioned for retaliating against a clean hit.

What's next? If a guy takes a shot from the point and it gets blocked and breaks a guys foot he should have to fight for injuring that player too? If not then I'm curious what the difference is. Both are legal hockey plays that had unfortunate outcomes.

 

[juliansteed]

When I had only seen the one angle I had that opinion too. As soon someone posted the other angle I, and IPW, both instantly agreed it was on purpose.

Same here for the most part. The first angle looked like it might have been accidental but I was still leaning more towards intentional. If he didn't meant to him him then you would think he would have had some sort of surprise reaction to it. He didn't even flinch and continued to act like nothing just happened, which made it seem intentional to me. After seeing the second angle there really was no doubt whatsoever.

 

[BOSSMANPC]

And there are countless examples of times when guys threw clean hits and refused to fight and it never escelated any further beyond that. This is a rare example of a time where a guy refused a fight and then later had something worse happen to him. There is no way of knowing that if he fought him that would have been the end of it.

No reason a guy should be obligated to fight after a clean hit if it happened to hurt another player. If you don't like that players can be injured as a result of a clean hit then perhaps you should advocate for the rules to be changed so that these hits are not legal. That being said, I get your point about a guy should expect a challenge but that doesn't mean he's obligated to oblige. And if there is a fight then absolutely a guy should get an instigator as you also mentioned for retaliating against a clean hit.

What's next? If a guy takes a shot from the point and it gets blocked and breaks a guys foot he should have to fight for injuring that player too? If not then I'm curious what the difference is. Both are legal hockey plays that had unfortunate outcomes.

Bravo !!!! We've talked about this before. Hockey fans like to say how fast and hard hitting the game is but yet throw a clean hard check at a player and some cement head comes after you to answer the bell. That's not a "code" or anything it's stupidity and makes the game look bush. If it's such a tough game why do the players get their panties in a knot over a tough hit? Makes ZERO sense.

I'll use this analogy again, The NFL is a hard hitting league you see many of QB's, WR's and RB's get their cocks rocked from good hard hits or tackles. Not once did a player come over and "challenge" a LB or DL for planting the player. Why? because it's within the rules and it's a hard hitting game.

Maybe the NHL isn't the tough sport some say it is and using retaliation against a player for throwing a hard check makes it difficult to defend it as one.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

I'll use this analogy again, The NFL is a hard hitting league you see many of QB's, WR's and RB's get their cocks rocked from good hard hits or tackles.

yikes!

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Neal has a phone hearing, so that already guarantee's that his suspension won't be more than five games. The league has supposedly said that any hearing where the player in question could be suspended for more than five has to be an in-person hearing.

Actually the suspension deserved more but the Pens, based on their number 1 seed last year, were able to carry over their suspension-in-the-bank from last season to reduce the length of James Kneel's ban.

 

[JustAsking]

Here's my two cents on a already wealthy thread...

Thornton's outcome is worse, Orpik knocked out... Neal's cheapshot is worse. (I've never liked James Neal.. he's a cheap dirty baby). There is no place in hockey for what Thornton did, but I'm positive he didn't intend to injure Orpik... Neal however, I believe his intent was to drive his knee into Marchands head to injure him...