Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac
(Post 8378828)
If anything, Thornton attack was the least vicious of those, but had the worst end result, which was knocking his victim unconscious and giving him a mild concussion.
Obviously, these attacks are not actions that should be part of hockey, but if you let the other dozen or so acts go unpunished and then punish the one that results in a guy going to the hospital, is it really a deterrent? | Well the precedent has been set with past suspensions, Shanahan clear out saying that injury resulting in missed games is a factor in considering length of suspension. THAT is one of the problems right there, players don't know if/what the suspension will be until after the act/injury happens, which does absolutely nothing as a deterrent.
In this particular case, Orpik has a past concussion history which made him that much more vulnerable to getting KO'd and injured. That isn't Thornton's fault, he could have done the same thing to somebody with no injury history and the result would have likely been no knockout/injury. It doesn't make Thornton's slew foot and sucker punch any cleaner though--the suspension should be exactly the same regardless of either situation above, that's the flaw in suspending based on injury sustained. |