See, I kind of disagree with this. In this particular case I felt like Orpik crossed the line, and the hit was punishable. But it's borderline; a lot of people disagreed. But big-picture, Brooks Orpik isn't some useless cementhead like a John Scott, he's a viable physical defenseman, and people do go to games to see clean physical play. At some point you risk tipping the scales too far the other way, and end up with something like what we see in the All Star Game every year. Obviously tons of skill on display and yet the game is steadily heading toward becoming unwatchable.
I disagree with it because what happened with Thornton (and McSorley since he mentioned him) was a freak outcome. I'm not in agreement or disagreement with the length of Thornton's suspension. I'm refuting the author's claim that precedent could apply to a decision on something that occurs very rarely. I guess that's not completely correct: the next time a player repeatedly challenges another, is rebuffed, only to pull him down and knock him out with a couple of quick punches, he will get at least 15 games.
