TSN: PJ Stock explores fighting and cheap shots

[BlueshirtBlitz]

If I was in Thornton's shoes, it wouldn't matter who it was that I went after.

The name on the jersey means little at that point.

He probably saw Orpik's name and remembered what happened earlier and did what he did.

personally, if an opposing player is going to run my top guys, I'm going to hurt one of their top guys so I really can't explain why he chose Brooks there other than the fact that he refused to go earlier.

but like I said, at that point, there's not a Penguins player that should have thought himself safe from the rough stuff.

That wasn't "rough stuff." That was a dirty move that ended with a player having to be taken off on a stretcher.

Yeah, I really love when that happens in hockey.

 

[pld459666]

This is completely insane. I'm sorry, but it's insane.

Let me go through this with you. Orpik crushes Eriksson with a clean hit. Orpik declines to fight, which he has a right to, as it was a clean hit. Thornton backs away.

COOL. We're good there,

Neal decides to channel his inner Matt Cooke.

In response, Thornton jumps an unsuspecting Orpik, and punches him with a gloved hand while he's on the ice and defenseless.

Thornton doesn't need to be in the league anymore. It's a sport, not a gladiator arena. What he did wasn't fighting, or brave. It was cowardly, and honestly, criminal. He wants to challenge him again, or challenge Neal? GREAT. That's a reasonable reaction. He wants to wait, see if he can line one of them up for a big, clean hit? Even better! It's still hockey, but now with a storyline.

What he did is undefendable. It's Bertuzzi-esque. 15 games for assault is ****ing joke

I don't share the same POV as you.

 

[Thirty One]

Went after the guy who threw the clean hit instead of the guy that kneed his teammate in the head?

Some policing.

Don't try to understand "the code".

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

I personally having players like Scott in the league, as long as it isn't on my team.

Unfortunately, Slats likes having players like that in the league even when they're on our team.

 

[pld459666]

That wasn't "rough stuff." That was a dirty move that ended with a player having to be taken off on a stretcher.

Yeah, I really love when that happens in hockey.

Unfortunate.

Oh well.

 

[TheRightWay]

lets put it in context shall we?

Brooks takes out a vulnerable Eriksson with a clean hit. Thornton confronts him, Brooks declines.

Thornton not going to take the instigator in that spot. Smart on his part.

a short while later Neal intentionally knees marchand in the head.

Thornton rightfully thought enough is enough and did what he did.

He was right to hold off the first time, and right for doing what he did the 2nd time.

Its unfortunate that Orpik got hurt, but had he answered the bell he himself rung earlier in the game, he'd still be playing right now and not counting the stars swirlinf about his dome.

So exactly where does this end up deterring anything? Does this settle everything? Are the Bruins and Penguins going to meet at center ice next game, hold hands and say grace, and be clean for the rest of eternity? What's now to stop Joe Vitale from looking at what Shawn Thornton did to Brooks Orpik, who did nothing except make a clean hit then decline a fight like players do every game, and deciding that justice must be served? And then he goes after Chris Kelly and punches him in the face from behind after a whistle. Does Dennis Seidenberg then get to be pissed at Kelly getting cheapshotted and go after an unsuspecting Pascal Dupuis the next game? Where do we draw the line here? At what point has the "policing" accomplished its goal here and everyone stops? Do we really believe that Brooks Orpik is going to come back and suddenly stop playing like a physical defenseman? What exactly was accomplished?

 

[Thirty One]

Unfortunately, Slats likes having players like that in the league even when they're on our team.

Seems to be learning, though.

 

[TheRightWay]

If I was in Thornton's shoes, it wouldn't matter who it was that I went after.

The name on the jersey means little at that point.

He probably saw Orpik's name and remembered what happened earlier and did what he did.

personally, if an opposing player is going to run my top guys, I'm going to hurt one of their top guys so I really can't explain why he chose Brooks there other than the fact that he refused to go earlier.

but like I said, at that point, there's not a Penguins player that should have thought himself safe from the rough stuff.

So what you're saying is that the NHL should adapt its rules to irrational, barbaric heat of the moment thinking like that instead of working to get the guys who have the cognitive abilities of a serial murderer out of the league?

 

[beef 4 lunch]

I don't know. Let's start with any.

Would the number of suspensions pre and post instigator rule serve as evidence that's fighting served as a deterrent.

Just an honest question. I don't have the time or energy to research this myself.

Do you have any evidence that shows that fighting is not a deterrent? How does the anti-fighting crowd explain the vast majority of players supporting fighting?

 

[pld459666]

Don't try to understand "the code".

the code is gone.

if the code was still being honored, Orpik would have don't the right thing when confronted by Thornton earlier.

and while some of you would disagree, I think if the code was still being honored, Neal sin't kneeing Marchand in the head either.

Because then he would have to answer for that as well.

but I guess we different recollections of how the code actually worked.

 

[Thirty One]

So what you're saying is that the NHL should adapt its rules to irrational, barbaric heat of the moment thinking like that instead of working to get the guys who have the cognitive abilities of a serial murderer?

You're finally getting it.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If I was in Thornton's shoes, it wouldn't matter who it was that I went after.

The name on the jersey means little at that point.

He probably saw Orpik's name and remembered what happened earlier and did what he did.

personally, if an opposing player is going to run my top guys, I'm going to hurt one of their top guys so I really can't explain why he chose Brooks there other than the fact that he refused to go earlier.

but like I said, at that point, there's not a Penguins player that should have thought himself safe from the rough stuff.

Yup, sounds reasonable.

Definitely falls under the definition of "policing,"....or anarchy. Whatever you want to call it.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Do you have any evidence that shows that fighting is not a deterrent?

I was going to go on Youtube and link some of the dirty hits happening to teams "feared" for fighting, but I figure you can do that.

How does the anti-fighting crowd explain the vast majority of players supporting fighting?

The same reason NFL players act upset that the league is trying to put in rules for safety. There's a flawed culture around the sport itself that propagates the idea fighting is necessary. End it at the lower levels and it'll eventually die out in the NHL.

I'm not anti-fighting. I'm anti-players getting injured, and it's a sham to act as if fighting stops players from getting hurt. Like I said, I could not care less if they ended fighting or not, but it isn't a magical deterrent for dirty hits.

 

[Thirty One]

Would the number of suspensions pre and post instigator rule serve as evidence that's fighting served as a deterrent.

I wouldn't say so. Standards are much different.

Do you have any evidence that shows that fighting is not a deterrent?

Nothing besides the anecdotal. I also can't prove that the earth is round.

How does the anti-fighting crowd explain the vast majority of players supporting fighting?

Why would we need to explain it?

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Plus, look at guys like Belak, Boogaard, Rypien. Probert had CTE too and he died at 45. Have we forgotten about that entirely? Getting punched in the head and slammed into the ice ****s with the brain. CTE ruins lives.

 

[TheRightWay]

Would the number of suspensions pre and post instigator rule serve as evidence that's fighting served as a deterrent.

Just an honest question. I don't have the time or energy to research this myself.

No. It would serve as evidence that the NHL is less lenient of this crap than it was before. Hits that Scott Stevens was famous for are now illegal hits to the head. So what would be a highlight real, textbook clean hit now ends up in a guy being suspended for a few games.

Do you have any evidence that shows that fighting is not a deterrent? How does the anti-fighting crowd explain the vast majority of players supporting fighting?

You're asking for us to prove a negative. It's an absurd demand. Imagine if I insisted that there was a tiny invisible, undetectable elephant slowly orbiting Jupiter. I then demanded that you provide evidence that this was not true. That would be ridiculous, right? Surely you'd have no reason to believe me unless I provided the evidence that proved my assertion true.

Until people start providing evidence that fighting improves player safety, nobody has to provide you evidence that it doesn't. Just as you don't have to provide evidence that an invisible elephant isn't orbiting Jupiter.

As for the player thing. Again, the players voted for KEEPING FIGHTING IN THE GAME. That was not a vote about whether fighting made the game safer or served as a deterrent. I could vote that smoking should be legal. That doesn't mean I'm thus voting that smoking is good for your health.

 

[pld459666]

So what you're saying is that the NHL should adapt its rules to irrational, barbaric heat of the moment thinking like that instead of working to get the guys who have the cognitive abilities of a serial murderer out of the league?

What I am saying is that the odds of the Orpik thing happening decrease a significant amount had the issue been taken care of earlier when Thornton initially confronted him.

What I am saying is that alot of times teams get heated early, get the rough stuff out of the way, get the Ref's to warn both bench's that next time guys are getting tossed and the game gets back to what we all enjoy most, actual hockey.

What I am saying and 100% believe is that Neal kneeing Marchand in the head later in the game DOESN'T happen.

I believe in my heart of hearts that guys are losing repect for their opposition because they stopped having to answer for their actions on the ice.

You know that the resident goon on the opposing team is going to come a knocking if you are a little loosey goosey with who you hit and how hard you hit them.

When you have no fear of standing and being counted when the time comes, you play a LOT more reckless.

 

[Thirty One]

Imagine if I insisted that there was a tiny invisible, undetectable elephant slowly orbiting Jupiter.

You've been reading my blog, haven't you?

Edit: Incidentally, I can prove it.

 

[Ail]

Would the number of suspensions pre and post instigator rule serve as evidence that's fighting served as a deterrent.

Just an honest question. I don't have the time or energy to research this myself.

Do you have any evidence that shows that fighting is not a deterrent? How does the anti-fighting crowd explain the vast majority of players supporting fighting?

The onus is on the person making the original claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof.

 

[TheRightWay]

What I am saying is that the odds of the Orpik thing happening decrease a significant amount had the issue been taken care of earlier when Thornton initially confronted him.

What I am saying is that alot of times teams get heated early, get the rough stuff out of the way, get the Ref's to warn both bench's that next time guys are getting tossed and the game gets back to what we all enjoy most, actual hockey.

What I am saying and 100% believe is that Neal kneeing Marchand in the head later in the game DOESN'T happen.

I believe in my heart of hearts that guys are losing repect for their opposition because they stopped having to answer for their actions on the ice.

You know that the resident goon on the opposing team is going to come a knocking if you are a little loosey goosey with who you hit and how hard you hit them.

When you have no fear of standing and being counted when the time comes, you play a LOT more reckless.

Please show me all the times that Sean Avery became tame because another team's enforcer was knocking on the door ready to say hello to him. How about Donald Brashear. Esa Tikkanen? Matt Cooke? Scott Stevens? Dale Hunter?

 

[beef 4 lunch]

I wouldn't say so. Standards are much different.


Nothing besides the anecdotal. I also can't prove that the earth is round.


Why would we need to explain it?

You don't really need to explain it, I was just curious as to why the anti-fighting crowd believes the vast majority of players believe that it shouldn't be removed from the game? What value do they see in it, other than being a potential deterrent?

 

[Thirty One]

The onus is on the person making the original claim. You don't get to shift the burden of proof.

This principle is why I'm not in jail.

 

[Callagraves]

Imagine if I insisted that there was a tiny invisible, undetectable elephant slowly orbiting Jupiter. I then demanded that you provide evidence that this was not true. That would be ridiculous, right? Surely you'd have no reason to believe me unless I provided the evidence that proved my assertion true.

Someone reads Bertrand Russel.

 

[Thirty One]

Please show me all the times that Sean Avery became tame because another team's enforcer was knocking on the door ready to say hello to him. How about Donald Brashear. Esa Tikkanen? Matt Cooke? Scott Stevens? Dale Hunter?

On the contrary, Avery and Cooke saw those big doofuses (doofi?) as targets to draw PPs for their teams.

 

[TheRightWay]

You don't really need to explain it, I was just curious as to why the anti-fighting crowd believes the vast majority of players believe that it shouldn't be removed from the game? What value do they see in it, other than being a potential deterrent?

Well for a number of players, without fighting, they don't have a job. Guess what happens to John Scott, George Parros, and Matt Carkner if fighting is eliminated from the game? Nobody has a reason to employ them. They lose a job. For a lot of the depth players fighting remaining in the game means a higher chance of maintaining their livelihood.

Again, let's use the smoking comparison. Let's say we held a vote and 80% of people voted that smoking should be kept legal. Does that mean that 80% of people believe smoking serves to benefit health? Of course not. It means that 80% of people either want to smoke or believe others should have the right to smoke, regardless of the consequences. These are a group of ridiculously strong men with a lot of pent up energy, testosterone, and competitiveness. It's easy to see why fighting would complement this very well.