Around the NHL - 2013-2014

[Hoss]

Pretty good debate going here. Agree with a good majority of what is being said. Neal's penalty should've matched Scott, but I see the league giving him five as compared to Scott's 10 a clear result of the type of players they are. The league doesn't like guys like Scott.

 

Thornton deserves 15-20. That's just ridiculous. Julien deserves a nice fine.

[LastPommerFan]

Player selection fine for Julien?

 

I spit coffee everywhere when i read this. nice.

[darksabre]

 

 

people are enormously complex creatures. to my mind, the two states of being can co-exist within the same person.

 

 

 

i think his intentions were to get a piece of orpik - spin him around, drop the gloves, and a land a few blows in defense of thornton's highly skilled teammate who got knocked silly by a (clean) hit from orpik at the start of the game. (we can discuss separately how stupid it is that players like orpik "need" to "answer" for clean hits.) thornton then skated into the scrum full of adrenaline and acted on his intentions in a reckless and dangerous manner.

 

You are correct that those two realities can coexist. I just have no use for someone who wants his behavior excused.

[That Aud Smell]

You are correct that those two realities can coexist. I just have no use for someone who wants his behavior excused.

 

i watched and listened again to his comments. i didn't hear him asking for his conduct to be excused. i heard him acknowledge that he'd stepped outside/beyond "the lines" within which he tries to perform his role and say that he was sick about what happened. i also heard him indicate that he expects to be punished (by acknowledging the hearing that was coming). people who want their behavior excused generally ask for clemency or leniency; he wasn't asking for either.

[dEnnis the Menace]

You are correct that those two realities can coexist. I just have no use for someone who wants his behavior excused.

 

exactly.

 

I like 5 for Neal. He knew what he did, and I liked what he did. I hate Marchand and Lucic and just about most the Bruins team, and have no sympathy for them.

 

I really hope they drop the hammer on Thornton because that was 5 - 10x worse than what Scott did. Scott wasn't purposely head hunting. He hit Eriksson high, yes, but he wasn't aiming there with malicious intent. What Thornton did (and Neal for that matter) should be considered malicious intent.

[Eleven]

exactly.

 

I like 5 for Neal. He knew what he did, and I liked what he did. I hate Marchand and Lucic and just about most the Bruins team, and have no sympathy for them.

 

I really hope they drop the hammer on Thornton because that was 5 - 10x worse than what Scott did. Scott wasn't purposely head hunting. He hit Eriksson high, yes, but he wasn't aiming there with malicious intent. What Thornton did (and Neal for that matter) should be considered malicious intent.

 

Which is why Neal's punishment should have been more severe than Scott's. But Marchand doesn't have enough in the skull to get hurt, so it's fewer games for Neal.

[That Aud Smell]

i think people tend to get bad outcomes confused with intent. thornton acted recklessly - maybe grossly so, but i don't get the sense that he planned, with malice aforethought as the standard goes, to render orpik unconscious. he'd been looking for orpik all game long, saw an opportunity to engage him from a scrum, and executed a hastily made plan in a really dangerous fashion. malice, that ain't.

[shrader]

i think people tend to get bad outcomes confused with intent. thornton acted recklessly - maybe grossly so, but i don't get the sense that he planned, with malice aforethought as the standard goes, to render orpik unconscious. he'd been looking for orpik all game long, saw an opportunity to engage him from a scrum, and executed a hastily made plan in a really dangerous fashion. malice, that ain't.

 

Slew footing a guy and then punching him while he's down. What exactly is his plan there if it's not to take out Orpik? I'll go right out there and say it, this one is on the same level as Bertuzzi's incident was. Fortunately the outcome was nowhere near as bad, If you want to suckerpunch someone like that, you're walking a very dangerous line and need to be prepared for a very negative result for your victim.

[Hoss]

i think people tend to get bad outcomes confused with intent. thornton acted recklessly - maybe grossly so, but i don't get the sense that he planned, with malice aforethought as the standard goes, to render orpik unconscious. he'd been looking for orpik all game long, saw an opportunity to engage him from a scrum, and executed a hastily made plan in a really dangerous fashion. malice, that ain't.

 

You never plan to knock somebody unconscious. But there was clear intent to injure. Clear malice. You can't defend him for "accidentally" knocking him unconscious. He acted recklessly and got this result.

[wjag]

I think you bullies should quit piling on poor Boston. I was over reading their site and they clearly feel the victim. They lost two players (Erickson and Marchand, even though he finished the game, matters not) and Pitt lost only one (Orpik). On top of that, they believe the league singles them out because they are Boston. So quit piling on.

[Eleven]

i think people tend to get bad outcomes confused with intent. thornton acted recklessly - maybe grossly so, but i don't get the sense that he planned, with malice aforethought as the standard goes, to render orpik unconscious. he'd been looking for orpik all game long, saw an opportunity to engage him from a scrum, and executed a hastily made plan in a really dangerous fashion. malice, that ain't.

 

That was not recklessness. He intentionally took him down. He intentionally punched him. What results is not considered in determining whether an act is reckless.

[LGR4GM]

i think people tend to get bad outcomes confused with intent. thornton acted recklessly - maybe grossly so, but i don't get the sense that he planned, with malice aforethought as the standard goes, to render orpik unconscious. he'd been looking for orpik all game long, saw an opportunity to engage him from a scrum, and executed a hastily made plan in a really dangerous fashion. malice, that ain't.

If you punch someone in the face your intent is to hurt them...

 

I think you bullies should quit piling on poor Boston. I was over reading their site and they clearly feel the victim. They lost two players (Erickson and Marchand, even though he finished the game, matters not) and Pitt lost only one (Orpik). On top of that, they believe the league singles them out because they are Boston. So quit piling on.

They should learn to count in Boston. Pittsburgh lost Orpik to concussion and now Neal to suspension.

 

I do like the snarky sarcasm in your post though :flirt:

[shrader]

I think you bullies should quit piling on poor Boston. I was over reading their site and they clearly feel the victim. They lost two players (Erickson and Marchand, even though he finished the game, matters not) and Pitt lost only one (Orpik). On top of that, they believe the league singles them out because they are Boston. So quit piling on.

 

I heard from one Boston fan who claimed that Thornton's attack was retribution for the hit that Phaneuf threw last night. That's right, he preemptively attacked a Penguin for a hit that a Leaf was going to throw the following night.

[That Aud Smell]

That was not recklessness. He intentionally took him down. He intentionally punched him. What results is not considered in determining whether an act is reckless.

 

Points taken.

 

I just think his conduct in that melee was reckless (and not malicious or fully intentional). I define recklessness here as having intentionally engaged in behavior you know is dangerous, and then having that behavior spin out of control in a way you hadn't intended and then have an outcome that you didn't intend, but could and should have foreseen.

 

Slew footing a guy and then punching him while he's down. What exactly is his plan there if it's not to take out Orpik? I'll go right out there and say it, this one is on the same level as Bertuzzi's incident was. Fortunately the outcome was nowhere near as bad, If you want to suckerpunch someone like that, you're walking a very dangerous line and need to be prepared for a very negative result for your victim.

 

Again, I think his "plan," such as it was as he skated as fast as he could to engage a guy he'd been trying to get at all night, was to pull him from the scrum and have the tilt he so badly wanted to have. The way he executed that "plan" was disastrous - it spun out of control and ended in a way he didn't intend, but should have foreseen. Hence, reckless - probably grossly so.

 

You never plan to knock somebody unconscious.

Oh, I think (some) people do.

 

But there was clear intent to injure. Clear malice. You can't defend him for "accidentally" knocking him unconscious. He acted recklessly and got this result.

 

Very different concepts. Let's not use them to mean the same thing.

 

I don't mean to defend the guy, but the whole concept of recklessness is engaging in behavior that you know is dangerous and then having an outcome you did not intend. I'd avoid the term accidental in that connection, since it denotes mere negligence.

Edited December 9, 2013 by That Aud Smell

[wjag]

Isles jettison Bouchard to waivers. 4G, 5A, 9P, -9 make him top six material in Buffalo...

[MattPie]

Isles jettison Bouchard to waivers. 4G, 5A, 9P, -9 make him top six material in Buffalo...

 

Was it the Islanders that last year were picking up everyone on waivers?

[dEnnis the Menace]

Points taken.

 

I just think his conduct in that melee was reckless (and not malicious or fully intentional). I define recklessness here as having intentionally engaged in behavior you know is dangerous, and then having that behavior spin out of control in a way you hadn't intended and then have an outcome that you didn't intend, but could and should have foreseen.

 

 

 

Again, I think his "plan," such as it was as he skated as fast as he could to engage a guy he'd been trying to get at all night, was to pull him from the scrum and have the tilt he so badly wanted to have. The way he executed that "plan" was disastrous - it spun out of control and ended in a way he didn't intend, but should have foreseen. Hence, reckless - probably grossly so.

 

 

Oh, I think (some) people do.

 

 

 

Very different concepts. Let's not use them to mean the same thing.

 

I don't mean to defend the guy, but the whole concept of recklessness is engaging in behavior that you know is dangerous and then having an outcome you did not intend. I'd avoid the term accidental in that connection, since it denotes mere negligence.

 

fair and valid points. received.

[That Aud Smell]

Isles jettison Bouchard to waivers. 4G, 5A, 9P, -9 make him top six material in Buffalo...

oh, man. that's tough stuff.

 

fair and valid points. received.

what are you? some sort of reasonable person?

 

it's a tricky thing for me to debate on the side i'm advocating, especially given (1) how much i (we) hate the bruins and (2) how nasty an outcome it was. (and (3) how much i respect orpik.)

[dEnnis the Menace]

 

what are you? some sort of reasonable person?

 

it's a tricky thing for me to debate on the side i'm advocating, especially given (1) how much i (we) hate the bruins and (2) how nasty an outcome it was. (and (3) how much i respect orpik.)

 

HAHA I try to be. I really hate the Bruins but given what you've defined as the difference between malice and recklessness, I see where you are coming from and concede that it is a reasonable stance.

 

As I said before, I really hope they drop the hammer on Thornton.

[26CornerBlitz]

it's a tricky thing for me to debate on the side i'm advocating, especially given (1) how much i (we) hate the bruins and (2) how nasty an outcome it was. (and (3) how much i respect orpik.)

 

This is like saying a person exceeds the speed limit by driving 95 MPH on a highway while weaving in and out of traffic and subsequently crashes into vehicles causing multiple serious injuries had no intent. Seriously.....Come on man.

[MattPie]

This is like saying a person exceeds the speed limit by driving 95 MPH on a highway while weaving in and out of traffic and subsequently crashes into vehicles causing multiple serious injuries had no intent. Seriously.....Come on man.

 

No, that's a great example of non-intent. The driver in your example (presumably) didn't *intend* to crash his car into other people. He's guilty of gross negligence though.

[Campy]

No, that's a great example of non-intent. The driver in your example (presumably) didn't *intend* to crash his car into other people. He's guilty of gross negligence though.

 

I'm no attorney, but I think that might be the difference between homicide (intent to kill) and manslaughter (no intent to kill but behavior stupid enough to pull it off).

[That Aud Smell]

This is like saying a person exceeds the speed limit by driving 95 MPH on a highway while weaving in and out of traffic and subsequently crashes into vehicles causing multiple serious injuries had no intent. Seriously.....Come on man.

nowhere have i suggested that thornton had "no intent" (although that's not the phrase i would use). i said he was grossly reckless. do you know what that means? i'm sensing that maybe you don't.

 

what we're talking about is a continuum of culpability. on the one side of the continuum is the entirely faultless accident (like a driver with hands at 10 and 2, doing the speed limit, paying attention, and then hits a pedestrian who darted out into traffic). on the other side of the continuum is the intentional act, with malice aforethought, and such (where the perpetrator carefully plans to run over the victim when he crosses the street at 5:45 p.m. as he customarily does, and then carries out the attack successfully, in cold blood).

 

i'm saying thornton's culpability is closer to the carefully planned attack than the faultless accident. you dig?

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

nowhere have i suggested that thornton had "no intent" (although that's not the phrase i would use). i said he was grossly reckless. do you know what that means? i'm sensing that maybe you don't.

 

what we're talking about is a continuum of culpability. on the one side of the continuum is the entirely faultless accident (like a driver with hands at 10 and 2, doing the speed limit, paying attention, and then hits a pedestrian who darted out into traffic). on the other side of the continuum is the intentional act, with malice aforethought, and such (where the perpetrator carefully plans to run over the victim when he crosses the street at 5:45 p.m. as he customarily does, and then carries out the attack successfully, in cold blood).

 

i'm saying thornton's culpability is closer to the carefully planned attack than the faultless accident. you dig?

 

To pile on to this....let's pretend Orpik is hurt really, really badly. As this happened well after the whistle, I'm curious if this would be considered assault as it didn't happen during play.

[MattPie]

To pile on to this....let's pretend Orpik is hurt really, really badly. As this happened well after the whistle, I'm curious if this would be considered assault as it didn't happen during play.

 

The game was in Boston right? Good luck on that one. People are all up-in-arms about the knockout game, though, maybe they'll make Thornton an example for playing it. (ha, ha)

Edited December 9, 2013 by MattPie