Shawn Thornton gets 15 game suspension
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I'm not really surprised, but I think it's a bit excessive too. I'd bet Shanahan's video explanation will speak on the concussion as a reason for being 15 versus something less.
To be honest, I don't disagree with the length. I hate seeing stuff like that in the game. My bigger issue is that we still have guys getting penalties of 5-7 games for blatant headshots instead of 10-15 games. Any attempt to deliberately injure another player when they are defenseless should be punished the same way. John Scott shouldn't get 7 games for his hit on Loui while Thornton receives 15 for this move.
I have no problem with this in a vacuum. But when Neal, a guy with a history of hitting to the head only gets 5, this was more about PR.
Extremely excessive. More than even the the hard-liners were guessing. 5 games of this are about warning other players, not punishing Thornton. That isn't fair.
NickEsasky said:
Yeah. I kind wish they would either be consistent. Either punish the hit or punish the result. Either similar hit should be punished the same, no matter what happens, or any hit(even clean ones) that results in injury should be punished(allowing appeals for extreme cases). You either want to enforce that it is the responsibility of the hitter to not cause injury or that certian hits are ok and others are not; bad hits are punished and the others are not, no matter what luck happened in either case. I think either approach would work to reduce problems, but this weird hybrid we have now doesn't as well. Basically, it's "you can push the envelope, but you only get punished if something bad happens". I don't think that works as well.
If Orpik gets up, it's a 2 minute minor for roughing IMO.NickEsasky said:
Given the results, I would've been fine with 5-7 more games for Thornton than Neal. Neal getting only 5 games by virtue of an arbitrary 18 month repeat offender window sticks in my craw a lot more than this decision - I was expecting anything up to 20 games.
Trupiano and Hardy are discussing the suspension and this familiar voice calls in and says that while he was advising the NHL he told them to stay away from Congress and that Congress was looking for reasons to call all the major sports in to nanny state them. Somehow he was trying to link the Thornton suspension to this. He finally finishes the rant and Hardy says, "Thanks a lot Jay. Say hi to Imus for us." Yeah, it was noted right-wing radio nut-bag Jay Severino himself
If Orpik gets up, it's a 2 minute minor for roughing IMO.
Given the results, I would've been fine with 5-7 more games for Thornton than Neal. Neal getting only 5 games by virtue of an arbitrary 18 month repeat offender window sticks in my craw a lot more than this decision - I was expecting anything up to 20 games.
I believe the 18-month thing relates to financial penalties, although who's to say with these guys. Shanahan stated that his office "cannot ignore the fact that Neal has previously been fined once and suspended twice in his six-year NHL career," although I have no idea now that impacted the movement of the Ouija board when he was calculating his suspension.
Given the results, I would've been fine with 5-7 more games for Thornton than Neal. Neal getting only 5 games by virtue of an arbitrary 18 month repeat offender window sticks in my craw a lot more than this decision - I was expecting anything up to 20 games.
I believe the 18-month thing relates to financial penalties, although who's to say with these guys. Shanahan stated that his office "cannot ignore the fact that Neal has previously been fined once and suspended twice in his six-year NHL career," although I have no idea now that impacted the movement of the Ouija board when he was calculating his suspension.
First of all, what Thornton did was incredibly stupid. But I think everyone knows that. I agree that if Orpik gets up, it's a two minute minor for roughing. Nothing Thornton did looked all that vicious until you saw the aftermath. I also agree that the aftermath should not determine suspension lengths. But it goes beyond that. There's no consistency in these suspensions, even when you consider the aftermath. Cook wasn't even suspended for his career ending elbow to the side of Savard's head. And Cook got a running start at Savard.
I agree that Thornton should have gotten maybe 12 games max. Since Neal got 5 games, Thornton should have gotten 10 games. To clear up one point technically, Cooke's hit on Savard was not a "career ender." Savard did come back to play again. I am in no way defending Cooke or his actions but it bothers me that everybody refers to his hit on Savard as a career ender". By his own admission Savard suffered numerous undiagnosed concussions early in his career and kept playing. The cumlative effect could have played a role in Savard's retirement. Anyway sorry for the digression.Hoplite said:
PedroSpecialK said:
I don't think this is true. I mean it's true but mostly because the egregious thing in most people's mind is that Thornton hit Orpik when he was down and couldn't defend himself. Granted that everything happened so fast he probably didn't even have time to think and stop himself, but in this case, Orpik being out is the center of the issue, not just a consequence.
So yes, if Orpik had gotten up, it would have been roughing, but that doesn't actually excuse Thornton from hitting him when he was out.
So if Marchand had concussed Crosby and Engelland did the exact same thing that Thornton did, would he have gotten 15 games? I think we all know the answer to that. Blatant example of a league favoring one team over another. It's NBAesque.
TheShynessClinic said:
That was my thought too. 15 games vs. nothing because Emery got lucky and didn't hurt the guy he jumped.
Salem's Lot said:
Just be glad you don't play in their division and have to deal with that crap more often. But then again you guys have the Habs.
Well, looks like we have to cross Detroit off the list of teams we can listen to about Pittsburgh.
I dunno. There's not a lot of comparable examples because players usually don't freak out and break generally accepted standards of decency like Thornton did.Salem's Lot said:
Are you guys serious that it would just be a roughing if the same thing happened but Orpik didn't get hurt? That's the thinking now? I seem to remember people on here calling for suspensions when Scott Walker sucker-punched Ward (who was not going to fight but was looking right at him, instead of having his back turned). How is this different?
Reasonable people can disagree on the length of the suspension and I'm not really sure what I think there but the game misconduct was absolutely warranted. You just can't tolerate that. Thornton himself seems to agree (I know he is appealing the length but he was contrite after the game).
Salem's Lot said:
Just stop it, you're being ridiculous
Toe Nash said:
Scott Walker didn't get suspended, that's the point. I don't think most people think 15 games is unfair by itself. The problem is the NHL turns a blind eye to sucker punches and jumping guys, until it ends with a guy on a stretcher which is terrible for their image. They're wildly inconsistent. Zero games for Emery and Rinaldo are two recent examples.
I'd even be fine with more than 15 games, if the NHL also punished other egregious acts more severely as well.
Forgot all about Rinaldo.
If you look at it objectively the league actually is pretty consistent with this stuff. It's been made clear over and over that the resulting injury is the biggest factor in how these incidents are treated. And while I agree it should be a consideration (and I can't really complain because every time one of these things happens there's a chorus of fans yelling "suspend him until player X returns from his injury"), I don't see why it should be the only or even the principal consideration.
And (putting on my tinfoil hat now) I wonder how much their plan to throw the book at Thornton influenced their declaring Orpik's hit on Eriksson "clean". Because if they disciplined Orpik then they'd kind of have to acknowledge that Orpik's actions precipitated this whole thing. But if they call that hit OK then they can hammer Thornton for attacking an innocent player who was just out there playing the game.
If you look at it objectively the league actually is pretty consistent with this stuff. It's been made clear over and over that the resulting injury is the biggest factor in how these incidents are treated. And while I agree it should be a consideration (and I can't really complain because every time one of these things happens there's a chorus of fans yelling "suspend him until player X returns from his injury"), I don't see why it should be the only or even the principal consideration.
And (putting on my tinfoil hat now) I wonder how much their plan to throw the book at Thornton influenced their declaring Orpik's hit on Eriksson "clean". Because if they disciplined Orpik then they'd kind of have to acknowledge that Orpik's actions precipitated this whole thing. But if they call that hit OK then they can hammer Thornton for attacking an innocent player who was just out there playing the game.
I don't think that requires a tinfoil hat. I think there's a less nefarious explanation in play as well, though. Orpik's already missing whatever games he would have been suspended for. I think that probably played a role.
Myt1 said:
That's a odd way of looking at it. It shouldn't really cancel out like that.
If your gonna punish the act, punish the act.
If your gonna punish the result, punish the result.
Just pick one and be consistent. Heck, they did it both ways in that game.
NHL discipline and consistency are in a never-ending war. The NHL would never cede ground to that nefarious devil concept.
I'm not saying they were consistent. But, to the extent that Orpik deserved to miss games because of his hit, that's happening. IMHO, a recognition that Orpik's play was dirty and worthy of discipline would have actually strengthened the NHL's point. "Yes, this was dirty. But you don't get to take discipline into your own hands in this way; we'd have suspended him after the game."BucketOBalls said:
But the fact of the matter remains: Orpik has been punished for his hit and will miss games due to that punishment. Unless you're thinking that he should have been suspended after coming back from the injury?
Greg, you'll be better off if you don't try to respond to my posts. I'm apparently talking about stuff that is far too complicated for you to understand.
I'm saying that even if Orpik's hit were suspension worthy, he's de facto missing games already, so suspending him would serve no punishment purpose (if he were suspended for games he's missing due to injury anyway) or would be excessive (if he had to face a suspension after returning from injury).
You're better off sticking to whining about how hard it is to root for a scumbag organization that every team can't stand. Looks like Neal's suspension really deterred your garbage team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UMaoLIjKsE
I'm saying that even if Orpik's hit were suspension worthy, he's de facto missing games already, so suspending him would serve no punishment purpose (if he were suspended for games he's missing due to injury anyway) or would be excessive (if he had to face a suspension after returning from injury).
You're better off sticking to whining about how hard it is to root for a scumbag organization that every team can't stand. Looks like Neal's suspension really deterred your garbage team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UMaoLIjKsE
Although he might defend that logic - he certainly seemed to feel that way in the game thread - I'm not sure that was Myt1's point with that post, Greg. I read that he's saying that the NHL's logic in not calling the hit dirty and penalizing it is that Orpik is already going to miss games and so has been punished enough. It's not good logic, but it would certainly be a likely line of thought for the NHL disciplinarians.
edit: and Myt1 already responded. I missed a little bit of nuance re: "has been punished enough", I see. They could have suspended him longer than the expected injury time, of course.
edit: and Myt1 already responded. I missed a little bit of nuance re: "has been punished enough", I see. They could have suspended him longer than the expected injury time, of course.
I've never defended the Penguins for dirty hits to the lengths some people have gone to not excuse, but at least to lessen what Thornton did, and most times I've argued they should get longer suspensions then they actually receive, first time offender or multiple-time offender. Neal's knee should have gotten him 15 games at least, and I said that in the game thread when it happened. Engelland should be gone for a long time. It's not the league favoring Pittsburgh; it's the league being stupid.
None of these acts have any place in the game. Player safety is a joke. 2-5 game suspensions have no impact whatsoever. Start adding a 1 or a 2 before the 2 or the 5 or a 0 after and you'll have a much better game.
Also, start holding the franchises responsible...fines or suspensions to coaches/gm's.
None of these acts have any place in the game. Player safety is a joke. 2-5 game suspensions have no impact whatsoever. Start adding a 1 or a 2 before the 2 or the 5 or a 0 after and you'll have a much better game.
Also, start holding the franchises responsible...fines or suspensions to coaches/gm's.
I think we can all agree on this.Greg29fan said:
Myt1 said:
Sure. Having a concussion really sucks, though, too.
Also this.
Couldn't agree with you more here. What was the disincentive for Ron Rolston/Terry Pegula to have John Scott sit 7 games without pay?Greg29fan said:
That is really what threatens skilled players. For teams other than their own, they're pretty much seen as sacrificial pawns.
I would agree that we shouldn't be trying to lessen what Thornton did what Orpik did was borderline or because if Orpik doesn't get knocked out Thornton probably gets 5 and a game plus a 2 or 3 game suspensions. He should have gotten a suspension regardless of whether Orpik gets knocked out. It was a scumbag move from a previously classy guy.Greg29fan said:
Fines for coaches or GMs are ok but probably not enough of a deterrent; losing a roster spot for the length of the suspension for teams that qualify as repeat offenders, perhaps define repeat offenders as teams with multiple suspensions in 1 season or x number of suspensions over x numbers of seasons, would be better.
Thanks. I just think that fines to coaches/GMs would end up getting made up for in some way by the owners. I'm not sure how one suspends a GM either. Shut off his cell phone?
Walker was kicked out of the game. I was reading the earlier posts as saying that Thornton would only get a roughing if Orpik had gotten up, which I think is insane.veritas said:
What happens afterwards is a different story but the refs seem to be pretty consistent in at least these two situations.
I hate the quote function but PSK wrote:
If Orpik gets up, it's a 2 minute minor for roughing IMO.
Walker was only kicked out of the game because there was 2:47 left and he got a fighting major with an instigator. Had there been more time in the game, he would have served his time and been out of the box.Toe Nash said: