Why Thornton was right.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Everything went pretty much normal.  Orpik lined up Loui for the big hit, then Thornton went in to do what he's supposed to.

    Nothing really new here, and no real villans unless you've got blinders on.  Where things went off the rails was simply a matter of "outcome".

    This idea about "clean hits' not being dealt with though...is insane.  Anytime someone gets clobberred, legal or not, there can be retribution.  Always has.  Cripes, you couldn't even skate near Gretzky.

    Although it's certainly wrong, Thorntons behavior didn't look that over the top to me.  The same type of thing happens all the time, and if Orpik got up, I doubt thornton would have got anything more than a minor.  I only saw about 2 swats. I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt Orpik.  It appearred to be a very mild smackdown....a message.  no big deal.  Same with Orpiks run at LE.  Not that far removed from what we've seen for years.

    THAT'S THE PROBLEM !!

    For some reason, these players seem to be able to "hurt each other" a lot more often, a lot worse....and with much less effort than they used to.  That's the root issue, and the rules don't acknowledge that.  They're too convoluted and subjective.  The league and PA are trying to deal with things, without changing anything.  It's not working.

    The rules need to change.  I've played for years and years, and I'm a tradionalist.  I like old time fierce hockey, but the purest definition of stupidity is debating the legality of any "play" that results in a player leaving the ice on a stretcher.  It's ridiculous.  That's what got the ball rolling, even Orpiks teamate admitted that.

    Boarding, charging and clipping, are all infractions that were virtually unheard of in the 60's.  Any hit that endangers someones life...obviously doesn't fit into the "spirit" of what the rules intended.

    I'm getting tired of watching, and discussing the fact that guys are getting hurt like this.  It's becoming a game in itself, and one I think will further the deteriorate it's image.

    Then we have the even more disgusting, cowardly, pukish reality of considering imbellishment.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    For some reason, these players seem to be able to "hurt each other" a lot more often, a lot worse....and with much less effort than they used to.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps you were asleep during the 70's Steve?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pucman. Show pucman's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    If you notice the puck takes a wierd caroom off the boards & puts Ericsson in a vunerable position. The oringinal point of contact is along the boards until the puck veers off behind Ericsson. As the puck veers so does Orpik, seeing Ericsson in a vunerable position Orpik hits him with no RESPECT  to the opponent. Orpik veered off his course, seeing that Ericsson was in a vunable position, blew him up as someone commented earlier, & your telling me that Orpik didnt mean to do this? His eyes looked right at him with the play of the puck right in front of him,veers off his original course to make contact....HUH? He was trying to hurt him! man up or have a little respect for the vunable opponent or answer the bell next time! Is Orpik, whos had concussions issues worried that Ericssons sitting home with the room spinning? 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Everything went pretty much normal.  Orpik lined up Loui for the big hit, then Thornton went in to do what he's supposed to.

    Nothing really new here, and no real villans unless you've got blinders on.  Where things went off the rails was simply a matter of "outcome".

    This idea about "clean hits' not being dealt with though...is insane.  Anytime someone gets clobberred, legal or not, there can be retribution.  Always has.  Cripes, you couldn't even skate near Gretzky.

    Although it's certainly wrong, Thorntons behavior didn't look that over the top to me.  The same type of thing happens all the time, and if Orpik got up, I doubt thornton would have got anything more than a minor.  I only saw about 2 swats. I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt Orpik.  It appearred to be a very mild smackdown....a message.  no big deal.  Same with Orpiks run at LE.  Not that far removed from what we've seen for years.

    THAT'S THE PROBLEM !!

    For some reason, these players seem to be able to "hurt each other" a lot more often, a lot worse....and with much less effort than they used to.  That's the root issue, and the rules don't acknowledge that.  They're too convoluted and subjective.  The league and PA are trying to deal with things, without changing anything.  It's not working.

    The rules need to change.  I've played for years and years, and I'm a tradionalist.  I like old time fierce hockey, but the purest definition of stupidity is debating the legality of any "play" that results in a player leaving the ice on a stretcher.  It's ridiculous.  That's what got the ball rolling, even Orpiks teamate admitted that.

    Boarding, charging and clipping, are all infractions that were virtually unheard of in the 60's.  Any hit that endangers someones life...obviously doesn't fit into the "spirit" of what the rules intended.

    I'm getting tired of watching, and discussing the fact that guys are getting hurt like this.  It's becoming a game in itself, and one I think will further the deteriorate it's image.

    Then we have the even more disgusting, cowardly, pukish reality of considering imbellishment.

    [/QUOTE]


    How about 1959?  Here's a great flying elbow that ignites a line brawl between the Rangers and Leafs.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Orpick was not headhunting, but it does appear that his shoulder, encased in kevlar hard pads, did catch Eriksson in the head. Eriksson is hurt; Thornton seeks to retaliate; which Orpick ignores; Neal, in a flagrantly dirty move, knees Marchand; officials don't see or expect it, but the players challenge this "stuff"; and Thornton picks on Orpick and loses his control completely. Neither Neal or Thornton were right and both should receive suspensions with the heaviest being against Thornton. Equally the league needs to address these super hard protective pads that are causing injuries more frequently as some players fail to respect other players and believe their "armor" will protect them. It's a multifaceted problem, as is the fact that more teams are attempting to "attack" the bruins early in an attempt to throw the Bruins off their game. Usually this tactic does not succeed

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49thparallel. Show 49thparallel's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Watch the video. Orpik goes high to Louie's chin area. Dirty hit. He was looking the whole way, lining him up the guy who just had a concussion. He even lunges at the last second. Get out of here with your it was just a hockey play. I'm sorry, it clearly wasn't. And Orpik doesn't exactly have the cleanest record either when it comes to hits. He knew what he was doing. 

    [/QUOTE]

    He doesn't go high to the chin.

    Yes, he was looking the whole way.  What else would a guy about to deliver a check be doing?

    Yes, he had him lined up.  That's how your throw a check.

    It's Eriksson's issue that he just had a concussion, not Orpik's.

    He does lunge at the last second.  That's one way to throw a check.  He doesn't, however, leave his feet. 

    Is this your first hockey game?  Maybe you should go watch some replays of the the Red Sox pitchers cheat their way to another World Series and leave the NHL to us.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pitchers? Really?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to pucman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you notice the puck takes a wierd caroom off the boards & puts Ericsson in a vunerable position. The oringinal point of contact is along the boards until the puck veers off behind Ericsson. As the puck veers so does Orpik, seeing Ericsson in a vunerable position Orpik hits him with no RESPECT  to the opponent. Orpik veered off his course, seeing that Ericsson was in a vunable position, blew him up as someone commented earlier, & your telling me that Orpik didnt mean to do this? His eyes looked right at him with the play of the puck right in front of him,veers off his original course to make contact....HUH? He was trying to hurt him! man up or have a little respect for the vunable opponent or answer the bell next time! Is Orpik, whos had concussions issues worried that Ericssons sitting home with the room spinning? 

    [/QUOTE]


    1.  The puck doesn't put Eriksson in a vulnerable position.  Eriksson puts Eriksson in that position. 

    2.  Of course Orpik meant to blow him up.  It's called a "big hit".  It happens all the time in the violent game of hockey.

    3.  His eyes looked right at him, huh?  Do you think guys throwing checks should be looking the other way?

    4.  Big checks are supposed to hurt.  If hockey wasn't painful, they'd call it basketball.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to 49thparallel's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Pitchers? Really?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pitchers put sunscreen on their arms in dome games.  Why?  To mix it with rosin to get extra grip on the ball.  Buccholz is the king here.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011. Show StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    I dont think we can blame ST , Orpik hard hit on Erickson after he released the puck, the knee fron Neal to the face of Marchand while he was already down ....what are you going to do ?  Wait till they hurt all our players .....??

     

    for once I am on ST's side ......

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mattbs. Show mattbs's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Watch the video. Orpik goes high to Louie's chin area. Dirty hit. He was looking the whole way, lining him up the guy who just had a concussion. He even lunges at the last second. Get out of here with your it was just a hockey play. I'm sorry, it clearly wasn't. And Orpik doesn't exactly have the cleanest record either when it comes to hits. He knew what he was doing. 

    [/QUOTE]

    He doesn't go high to the chin.

    Yes, he was looking the whole way.  What else would a guy about to deliver a check be doing?

    Yes, he had him lined up.  That's how your throw a check.

    It's Eriksson's issue that he just had a concussion, not Orpik's.

    He does lunge at the last second.  That's one way to throw a check.  He doesn't, however, leave his feet. 

    Is this your first hockey game?  Maybe you should go watch some replays of the the Red Sox pitchers cheat their way to another World Series and leave the NHL to us.

    [/QUOTE]

    There was head contact and it was late.  From what i seen in the past players with concussiion history do get a pass more often that not.  Look no further than Crosby, Chara could legally crush the guy every shift and doesnt.  What kind of fool would hit a player (legally or not) when he's not looking?  Orpik does this alot and it was a matter of time before there was retaliation.  

    Thornton's mistake was that he retaliated at the wrong time in the wrong manner.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Klaas. Show Klaas's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to StanleyCuptotheBruinsin2011's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I dont think we can blame ST , Orpik hard hit on Erickson after he released the puck, the knee fron Neal to the face of Marchand while he was already down ....what are you going to do ?  Wait till they hurt all our players .....??

     

    for once I am on ST's side ......

    [/QUOTE]
    Not to mention the Marc Savard incident. ST's problem was apologizing.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to mattbs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    There was head contact and it was late.  From what i seen in the past players with concussiion history do get a pass more often that not.  Look no further than Crosby, Chara could legally crush the guy every shift and doesnt.  What kind of fool would hit a player (legally or not) when he's not looking?  Orpik does this alot and it was a matter of time before there was retaliation.  

    Thornton's mistake was that he retaliated at the wrong time in the wrong manner.

    [/QUOTE]

    There was head contact.  A late hit refers to hitting a player after the puck has left his possession.  Eriksson didn't have possession, so it's not late.  I don't recall players with concussions getting passes.  Bergeron gets knocked around pretty well, as did Savard and Horton.  Chara doesn't destroy Crosby because Chara doesn't play the game that way.

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    Two thumbs up in support of your analysis Sandog!  

    Eriksson was turning up the ice with his head directed backward.  Orpik saw an opportunity to check Eriksson, he did hit Eriksson's head.  A penalty should have been assessed, a suspension should be in order with the hit on the head nothing else.  No intent to injure.

    Thornton's responsibilty was to let Orpik know his aggressive play was not acceptable and questionable as Eriksson's head was turned backward.  He asked Orpik to fight, Orpik did not want to get his clock cleaned.  Barry Pederson is correct in his analysis by saying if Orpik did fight it would have diffused the next event.

    Neal's hit on Marchand's head was not directly connected to Orpik, yet, it was the aggressive play by Orpik that went unpunished that prompted Thornton to react to the dirty play by Neal.  Thornton's next was both illegal and dirty.  Retribution usually is. Pittsburg and SuperMario need to be more physical, yet if Crosby was leveled by MacQuaid in the same manner Eriksson was, I am sure the cries of injustice from the Pens would be louder!

    Suspensions to Orpik, Neal, and Thornton.  Thornton could get 7 games imo.  Orpik and Neal will get one.  

     

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:[QUOTE]
    How is a body check not a hockey play?[/QUOTE]

    Really? A body check? Eriksson had the puck go through his skates, not even touching the puck and Orpik went up high with his hands.. not his body. The guy wants to make a  play on the edge of, if not outright, dirty but doesn't want to stand up to the consequences of dropping the gloves. Cowardly. [/QUOTE]


    Whether intentional or not the shoulder, not the elbow, hit Eriksson's head. I also agree that Orpik is a coward but he didn't deserve the two swats to the visor while he was on the ice. Shanahan is going too look at the slewfoot and the stretcher.

    In a perfect Shanahammer world Neal, Orpik and Thornton get suspended. But I think only Neal and Thornton gets suspended.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49thparallel. Show 49thparallel's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49thparallel's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Pitchers? Really?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pitchers put sunscreen on their arms in dome games.  Why?  To mix it with rosin to get extra grip on the ball.  Buccholz is the king here.

    [/QUOTE]

     all WS games were at night, so not much sunscreen being used in Oct. And a little off topic, no? That was right out of left-field, no pun intended.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    I put this in another thread, but I'm putting it here too, because so many people are taking this as an isolated incident!

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dollar ST was the one who said it. 

    3. Orpik has a chance to take "his medicine like a man", but instead acts like a coward! Having said this, I don't believe every hit there needs to be a fight, but as I mentioned above, there's a BIG history between these 2 teams & concussions. This isn't an isolated incident here! 

    4. Neal then knees Brad, to the head.... BOOOM now it's WAR & ST is in Mount St. Helens mode. And Orpik takes the high road, because ST gave him the perfect scene to take it, because ST did the construction for him. 

    5. Thorts will get 5-10 & Shanny will FINALLY use ST as the example instead of using Jon Scott!

    6. Neal gets 2 even though he's a repeat offender, but all the Bruin haters won't care about that

    7. Orpiks gets nothing but a pat on the head & all the apologies in the world. While the rest of the hockey world including so called Bruin fans give ST the "throw the book at the skating clown!" 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    nite, I'm going to guess that Orpik wasn't thinking, "Oh man.  I remember like, however many years ago, when a guy who no longer plays for this team elbowed a Bruin."

    Thornton isn't defending his actions.  B's fans trying to justify any of this are insane.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I put this in another thread, but I'm putting it here too, because so many people are taking this as an isolated incident!

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dollar ST was the one who said it. 

    3. Orpik has a chance to take "his medicine like a man", but instead acts like a coward! Having said this, I don't believe every hit there needs to be a fight, but as I mentioned above, there's a BIG history between these 2 teams & concussions. This isn't an isolated incident here! 

    4. Neal then knees Brad, to the head.... BOOOM now it's WAR & ST is in Mount St. Helens mode. And Orpik takes the high road, because ST gave him the perfect scene to take it, because ST did the construction for him. 

    5. Thorts will get 5-10 & Shanny will FINALLY use ST as the example instead of using Jon Scott!

    6. Neal gets 2 even though he's a repeat offender, but all the Bruin haters won't care about that

    7. Orpiks gets nothing but a pat on the head & all the apologies in the world. While the rest of the hockey world including so called Bruin fans give ST the "throw the book at the skating clown!" 

    [/QUOTE]

    What ST wasnt a hockey play.  Orpiks hit was.  Neal play was garbage.  Marchand is a rat and you live and die by the sword.  I can see marchand doing the same play.  Ive seen numerous players and bruins skate away from fights.  Orpik didnt deserve what he got.  I absolutely hate Brashear and love Marty but Marty was in the wrong.  ST play is criminal.  Hes a bum who i hate wearing a Bruins jersey.  

    ST should have the book thrown at him.  If ST wanted to act revenge he grabs him right away.  It was a chicken poopp play and he hits a guy after he slew foots him.   How did Orpik act wrong here.  I hope they do make an example of him.  No issues.   I agree Neals rat play should get more as well.  Scotts wasnt worthy of making an example of.   This certainly isnt even in the same  league as what scott did.  Id compare it to what marty did.  Possible bertuzzi.  To say Orpik is faking is funny.  Everyone is faking but Bruins right?   Loui faking?  Savard still faking?   

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    nite, I'm going to guess that Orpik wasn't thinking, "Oh man.  I remember like, however many years ago, when a guy who no longer plays for this team elbowed a Bruin."

    Thornton isn't defending his actions.  B's fans trying to justify any of this are insane.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bravo.  

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from kitchener. Show kitchener's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    nite, I'm going to guess that Orpik wasn't thinking, "Oh man.  I remember like, however many years ago, when a guy who no longer plays for this team elbowed a Bruin."

    Thornton isn't defending his actions.  B's fans trying to justify any of this are insane.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bravo.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Another Pens fan on here go away Troll ALERT

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    For some reason, these players seem to be able to "hurt each other" a lot more often, a lot worse....and with much less effort than they used to.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps you were asleep during the 70's Steve?

    [/QUOTE]

    Perhaps you're asleep now JM?  The game was certainly rowdy in the 70's, and I'd agree more volitile than now, but that didn't equate to the serious injuries we're seeing so often now.  I remember it quite vividly thanks.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

     

     


    How about 1959?  Here's a great flying elbow that ignites a line brawl between the Rangers and Leafs.

    [/QUOTE]

    I can reference a few hundred more too if you'd like, but they miss the point.  Brawls don't usually result in serious injury, and if they did, it's out of context on this one.  More players sustaining more serious injuries from quasi hockey plays these days...is not an opinion.  It's fact.  Thus the headshot legislation that isn't working.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to kitchener's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    nite, I'm going to guess that Orpik wasn't thinking, "Oh man.  I remember like, however many years ago, when a guy who no longer plays for this team elbowed a Bruin."

    Thornton isn't defending his actions.  B's fans trying to justify any of this are insane.

    [/QUOTE]

    Bravo.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Another Pens fan on here go away Troll ALERT

    [/QUOTE]

    Yup. You got it pegged perfect.  Thanks for stopping by.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why Thornton was right.

    In response to shuperman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I put this in another thread, but I'm putting it here too, because so many people are taking this as an isolated incident!

     

    If Orpik is concussed I don't think he'd be flying so quickly. As I said last night I'm with Crowls on this. Orpik is milking this & this is how I see it. This isn't a black & white thing here. There's history behind all of this & that's what EVERYONE seems to be forgetting here.

    1. Every player looks at the replays on the Jumbotron. Brooks KNEW his shoulder caught Lou's head...Without a doubt he KNEW IT! So, he now knows what's going to happen. He's been on the Pens long enough to know how the Bruins are going to react to another Bruin player taking a head shot from a Penquin. He was on the team in 2010 when Cooke caught Savard. He also knows how much flack the B's took for a lack of response. ST being the main one who took the blunt of it..Especially on here!

    2. Orpik now realizes he's been marked & I'm also without a doubt sure that SOMEBODY on the B's told Brooks. "Keep your head up, yours is coming! I'll bet 1 dime to a dollar ST was the one who said it. 

    3. Orpik has a chance to take "his medicine like a man", but instead acts like a coward! Having said this, I don't believe every hit there needs to be a fight, but as I mentioned above, there's a BIG history between these 2 teams & concussions. This isn't an isolated incident here! 

    4. Neal then knees Brad, to the head.... BOOOM now it's WAR & ST is in Mount St. Helens mode. And Orpik takes the high road, because ST gave him the perfect scene to take it, because ST did the construction for him. 

    5. Thorts will get 5-10 & Shanny will FINALLY use ST as the example instead of using Jon Scott!

    6. Neal gets 2 even though he's a repeat offender, but all the Bruin haters won't care about that

    7. Orpiks gets nothing but a pat on the head & all the apologies in the world. While the rest of the hockey world including so called Bruin fans give ST the "throw the book at the skating clown!" 

    [/QUOTE]

    ST wasnt a hockey play.  Orpiks hit was.  Neal play was garbage.  Marchand is a rat and you live and die by the sword.  I can see marchand doing the same play.  Ive seen numerous players and bruins skate away from fights.  Orpik didnt deserve what he got.  I absolutely hate Brashear and love Marty but Marty was in the wrong.  ST play is criminal.  Hes a bum who i hate wearing a Bruins jersey.  

    ST should have the book thrown at him.  If ST wanted to act revenge he grabs him right away.  It was a chicken poopp play and he hits a guy after he slew foots him.   How did Orpik act wrong here.  I hope they do make an example of him.  No issues.   I agree Neals rat play should get more as well.  Scotts wasnt worthy of making an example of.   This certainly isnt even in the same  league as what scott did.  Id compare it to what marty did.  Possible bertuzzi.  To say Orpik is faking is funny.  Everyone is faking but Bruins right?   Loui faking?  Savard still faking?   

    [/QUOTE]


     

Share