Originally posted by RehnX@Dec 7 2013, 09:10 PM
Eriksson looks at the puck as it's in his feet and moves his stick in the direction AS Orpik hits him. . .That isn't interference.

You don't have to fight for clean hits, if Thornton wanted to go after someone it should have been Neal, and it should have been straight up.  No tripping from behind and hitting while they're down and can't defend themselves.

the Neal play happened probably 20 seconds before the Thornton play. (if that)
Thornton was on the ice and i doubt he saw the Neal knee.

Originally posted by NathanAD@Dec 7 2013, 06:10 PM


I don't think there are degrees of interference. Eriksson didn't touch the puck, therefore it was interference.

Just remember, NHL players don't get to see the replay. Thornton sees a big hit and an injury, on a borderline interference, what do you think he'll do? Obviously he went too far, but still.

Eriksson looked like he was going to play the puck when Orpik committed, when the puck took a strange hop, Eriksson stuck his stick out to try and get it, when he got hit. I wouldn't call it interference, and apparently the Refs didn't either.

and true point actually, Thornton isn't the brightest player either, but i agree with it. They can see the replay on the scoreboard though, but not when you're on the ice.

Thorton and Neal both deserve extensive suspensions. Thorton should have been much smarter and let the rest of the game determine the outcome.
While Neal's knee was just incredibly unnecessary and uncomfortable to watch.

Both plays simply make me sick.

Thanks Jove for my sig