sprig Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 As with any argument with DaveK, the voices tell him he's won the argument. Congrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 No player expects to get hit like that when the puck isn't anywhere near him, and hasn't been anywhere near him. Players need to keep their head up when they are carrying or attempting to catch a pass, but there was no reason for this hit other than being a blatant cheap shot. Since it was between the whistles, it was, however, within your context of the game. With that standard, big players who like to hit should run around taking shots at opponents away from the puck. They won't be expecting to get hit, and you can drill him big time like you otherwise cannot. Malone's is not comparable, the puck was there or had just left. BTW, I'm not a Bruins fan. And I'd guess no one here, and certainly no one I know, understands the game the way you see it. Actually Louie was going to attempt to catch the pass off the wall....he was going to get hit either way. I can definitely see what Orpik was trying to do...he just made a wrong call. Did Louie have the puck...no. However, it doesn't mean the puck wasn't sent to him nor was he not trying to catch the pass. The passer's angle was simply wrong and it went behind Louie. Should there have been a penalty called on Orpik....100% yes, interference. Did Orpik deserve what he got, no. Also, your comment regarding "the puck wasn't anywhere near him" is 100% false. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jdub27 Posted December 10, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2013 Quote, directly from the linked article: "Seconds after the opening faceoff, the puck came around the boards in the Boston zone. Eriksson went to play the puck, and it took a funny bounce off the boards and skipped behind him.By that time, Orpik had already stepped up to smoke Eriksson. He stayed low. He kept his skates on the ice and his elbows in. He drove his right shoulder into Eriksson's chest, not Eriksson's head." Check-mate! Why did you leave out the very next sentence? Too inconvenient for your argument? By that time, Orpik had already stepped up to smoke Eriksson. He stayed low. He kept his skates on the ice and his elbows in. He drove his right shoulder into Eriksson's chest, not Eriksson's head. It could have been a minor penalty for interference because the puck wasn't there, but it wasn't worthy of supplemental discipline. Seriously. It was literally the next sentence from what you cut and pasted. The writer clearly states "the puck wasn't there". Not sure how you can deny that he doesn't think that? Checkmate! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Why did you leave out the very next sentence? Too inconvenient for your argument? Welcome to Dave's world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Welcome to Dave's world. Dave's world! Dave's world! Party time! Excellent! Dave should run a standard definition public broadcast tv show out of his parents basement. Would anyone watch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 By that time, Orpik had already stepped up to smoke Eriksson. He stayed low. He kept his skates on the ice and his elbows in. He drove his right shoulder into Eriksson's chest, not Eriksson's head. It could have been a minor penalty for interference because the puck wasn't there, but it wasn't worthy of supplemental discipline. Seriously. It was literally the next sentence from what you cut and pasted. The writer clearly states "the puck wasn't there". Not sure how you can deny that he doesn't think that? Checkmate! Bingo, my 6-year old daughter could have told you that the hit in question was a penalty. If the refs calls a penalty there, maybe the game doesn't get out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farce poobah Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 A little bit of progress today, in that Phaneuf got 2 game suspension for boarding Kevan Miller. That would never have been a suspension in the past. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=695249&navid=nhl:topheads 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Because the writer clearly stated that Eriksson went to play the puck in the previous sentence. The fact that the puck took a funny bounce and was no longer there a half-second later is irrelevant. Orpik had already started the motion of delivering the hit before time reached the point where the puck was no longer there. It is literally physically impossible for him to stop at that point in time. Watch the clip, the puck clearly is there when Orpik starts to deliver the hit. The time that the writer was referring to when he stated the puck was no longer there was at the end of the hit. The entire thing happened in a matter of like two seconds or less. No reasonable person would expect that he could realize the puck was going to take that bounce and hold off on delivering the hit all within that miniscule time period. Dave, it should have been a penalty. However, he didn't deserve what he got. Either way he was hitting Louie, the puck simply took a weird bounce off the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 In other news...the definition of "bush league" should be immediately followed by the words "Florida Panthers" for now and evermore... http://nesn.com/2013/12/pane-of-glass-breaks-during-red-wings-panthers-game-arena-had-no-backup-glass-to-replace-it-photos/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 The Slew Foot Sid and the Pens were playing. It was going to get out of hand, penalty or no penalty. Those guys are a bunch of psychopaths in need of anger management counseling. fixed your delusional post...again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Was in extreme northern nd today. All I could get on the radio was some odd Canadian stn. There was an interesting interview with a gm of a junior hockey league in northern Ontario. Due to one side of their fan base being pro-fighting and the other side being anti-fighting, they are pre-scheduling fights prior to the start of the game. This way fans that don't wish to see fights can leave to not view them. And he claims fans buy tickets to only watch the eight minutes of fights every game. I personally believe fighting is part of the game but I don't endorse preset fights like this. It's like this league is attempting to change the game.....just as eliminating fighting would change the game. Sorry I don't have a link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I hear Thornton is only going to get 15 games. That is an absolute outrage in my opinion. I was hoping for the rest of the season but would have settled for 25 games. Anything less than 25 is unacceptable. Thornton will be a moving target the next time Boston plays Pittsburgh, which may be in the spring or maybe not till next season. Either way his day is coming and he is going to be on the receiving end of a devastating hit within the context of the game. The Penguins will not forget his criminal actions, and will get their revenge. I am extremely confident of that. ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 I can't wait to hear the rationalization why the Pens cheap shot on Abdelkader (Detroit) tonight was ok because it was in the 'context of the game'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 (edited) I can't wait to hear the rationalization why the Pens cheap shot on Abdelkader (Detroit) tonight was ok because it was in the 'context of the game'... Is there video of said Bush League hit... Edited December 15, 2013 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Is there video of said Bush League hit... sorry, I don't have a link for it. Looked like typical Pittsburgh goonery though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 I heard a rumor that Thornton is going to appeal his suspension. I wonder if there is any truth to that rumor? If so, I guess he was just lying when he said how sorry he was after the game. POS!!!! Is that rumor off the penguins Facebook page? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 http://prohockeytalk...ionship-miming/ Hey Marchand... SCOREBOARD!!! Your team got schooled 6-2, way to make a fool of yourself. Another day, another classless act by a Boston player. Par for the course. I blame James Neal. Everyone knows Marchand already had some loose screws, but Neal's knee to the head probably knocked them all the way out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 I wonder...if the RESULTS of the two plays from that BOS/PITT game had been different, how would the suspensions have played out? If Orpik had been able to skate off, would Thornton have been suspended 15 games? If Marchand had been carted off on a stretcher, would Neal have been given only 5? I'll guarantee Neal would've had an in-person hearing and probably a 10 game suspension if Marchand had been concussed - especially considering Neal's history. They say they focus on whether or not there is an "intent to injure" on these types of plays, but all too often the RESULT of the play factors in more. I think that's BS. Sure, seeing someone concussed is more tangible than judging intent, but in my opinion it breeds a "roll the dice" mentality with risky hits. I wish they would start hammering players with longer suspensions regardless of whether or not guys are hauled off on stretchers. Maybe they would start getting the message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Is that rumor off the penguins Facebook page? With his fake facebook friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 The bad publicity just continues to pile up for the Boston franchise: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=439105 http://www.tsn.ca/vi...§ion=Sports DaveK - you're really grasping now. A guy tries to go after Lucic on 2 separate occasions and also hit Lucic 2 or 3 times at a bar and Lucic didn't hit him back, and you're apparently trying to say that this makes him and the Bruins look bad? D'ohkay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Combined with the Pens victory over Detroit earlier in the evening, it is indeed "A Great Day For Hockey". Nothin' to see here, right DaveK? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UMaoLIjKsE 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Nothin' to see here, right DaveK? Come on you, you already know what the answer to that is going to be...It was during the course of play and the puck was near him, automatically makes it a clean hit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Come on you, you already know what the answer to that is going to be...It was during the course of play and the puck was near him, automatically makes it a clean hit. You have to choose the words carefully when describing what DaveK believes. I think what you posted is close, but probably not quite accurate. At any rate, there are two things that always apply, now, in the past, and in the future. That is, physical play by Boston is always cheap, and wrong, while physical play by Pittsburg, is the right way to play the game, and is always right. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Nothin' to see here, right DaveK? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UMaoLIjKsE That elbow to the head was thrown in the context of the game, therefore it is acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 DaveK - you're really grasping now. A guy tries to go after Lucic on 2 separate occasions and also hit Lucic 2 or 3 times at a bar and Lucic didn't hit him back, and you're apparently trying to say that this makes him and the Bruins look bad? D'ohkay! I was thinking the same thing, I believe the guy was asking/begging for a beat down and should have gotten one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.