The NHL has suspended Bruins forward Shawn Thornton for 15 games for his attack on Penguins defenceman Brooks Orpik. After the whistle, Thornton skated the length of the ice, pulled Orpik to the ice from behind and punched him in the face several times. Orpik suffered a concussion and was taken off the ice on a stretcher and sent to hospital. "This cannot be described as a hockey play that went bad, nor do we consider this a spontaneous reaction to an incident that just occurred," NHL director of player safety Brendan Shanahan said. The NHL described it as an "act of retribution." After he was suspended, his people, which include the NHLPA and his lawyer/agent, issued the following statement: "I am aware of todays ruling by the NHL department of player safety. I will be consulting with the Bruins, my representation and the NHLPA about next steps, and will be in a position to address the matter publicly after speaking with those parties." Translation: Thornton and the NHLPA are assessing the merits of an appeal and whether he stands a reasonable chance of getting his suspension reduced. Bruins president Cam Neely believes that the suspension is too long. "Higher than I expected and higher than I think is warranted…Weve had our fair share of players hurt badly by concussions. I dont think anyones gotten a 15-game suspension out of those. Thornton is a guy who plays the role he plays and has never had any suspensions or issues. It comes down a little harsh for me" Neely declared. Timeline Thornton has 48 hours to appeal his suspension as per the collective bargaining agreement. That takes us to Monday. That appeal goes to the Commissioner Gary Bettman. Since the suspension is over five games, Bettman will need to conduct an in-person hearing. Assuming Bettman upholds Thorntons suspension, which is a near certainty, Thornton will have seven days to appeal the decision to an independent arbitrator. The arbitrator will also have to hold an in-person hearing. If Thornton does appeal, the NHLPA will argue that the length of the suspension is not in keeping with the leagues practice for similar incidents. Effectively, it will be argued that the punishment is disproportionately long. Could Thornton Win An Appeal? Should the case be appealed to an arbitrator, Thornton will have a difficult time getting the suspension reduced. Ultimately, the appeal is unlikely to meet with success. Why? The league should be able to demonstrate that the length of the suspension is aligned with its past practice when it comes to incidents where one player intentionally targets and assaults another player in a manner that cannot be considered contact that is incidental to the game. Heres just a sample of suspensions dating back to 1978 that the NHL could rely on to show that the Thornton suspension makes sense: Chris Simon (2007): 30 games for stomping on the leg of Jarko RuutuJesse Boulerice (2007): 25 games for a cross-check to the face of Ryan KeslerRaffi Torres (2012): 25 games for his hit on Marian HossaMarty McSorley (2000): 23 games for swinging his stick at Donald Brashears headDale Hunter (1993): 21 games for his hit on Pierre TurgeonBrad May (2000): 20 games for a slash to the head of Steve HeinzeSteve Downie (2007): 20 games for launching himself at the head of Dean McAmmondTodd Bertuzzi (2004): 20 games for his assault on Steve MooreDave Brown (1987): 15 games for his cross-check to Tomas Sandstroms faceTony Granato (1994): 15 games for slashing Pittsburghs Neil WilkinsonWilf Paiement (1978): 15 games for swinging his stick and hitting Dennis Polonich in the face There are certainly arguments that could be relied on to distinguish certain of these incidents from the Thornton incident. That being said, however, all share a common element: an intent to harm together with contact that falls squarely outside the scope of what is considered acceptable contact in the game of hockey. In these cases, the length of suspensions has ranged from 15 to 30 games. The league will also be able to rely on an extensive history of lengthy suspensions. The NHL has been suspending players for long stretches for decades. Thornton suspension, the league will argue, is by no means unique. Rather, the length fits in nicely with previous cases and is wholly supported by precedent. In fact, based upon the leagues history of suspensions and the egregious nature of the incident, the NHL may well be in a position to argue that it exercised restraint in suspending Thornton. The suspension, the league may contend, could have been longer but was reduced on account of Thornton having no priors. One more thing: the league could argue that times have changed. It is now generally accepted that players can suffer irreversible brain damage as a result of blows to the head, and as a result, the league must take active and decisive steps to safeguard the brains of its players. Part of that is imposing sanctions that are designed to strongly discourage behavior that threatens the long-term health of its players. Failing to firmly discipline players in these circumstances puts all players at risk at a most sensitive time for sports. So relying, in part, on deterrence may assist the NHLs position. Merits aside, we may still see an appeal. The option to appeal a suspension to an independent arbitrator is brand new having been introduced in the latest CBA. So far, no case has been appealed to an arbitrator. The NHLPA may want to appeal the decision to start building case law and precedents for future cases. So while this case does not present a high likelihood of success for Thornton, the NHLPA may want a decision from an arbitrator to help guide it on future cases. Indeed, there is value in precedents. Ultimately, given the NHLs past practice when it comes to assault on the ice, Thorntons suspension is on the lighter side or at the very least eminently reasonable. So I dont see an appeal unless the NHLPA wants to start building precedents. The problem with that, however, is that this isnt a great case to test the independent arbitrator waters since Thornton is very likely on the losing side of the case. China Shoes Wholesale . -- The Orlando Magic finally are showing the patience in critical moments that coach Jacque Vaughn has been waiting for all season. China Shoes Nike . "I could have been equipment manager but nooooo" from Lisa on Ice. Season 6, Episode 8. https://www.chinashoesshop.com/ . In the second game of their day/night doubleheader at Minneapolis, three Blue Jays pitchers, Steve Delabar, Sergio Santos and J. China Shoes Free Shipping . With one penalty, Fourcade finished in 24 minutes, 58.2 seconds, just nine-tenths of a second ahead of Timofey Lapshin, who shot clean in the cold. Fake China Shoes . -- Craig Anderson has quite a record against his former team, the Florida Panthers.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Im sure you have thousands of emails on this already. How can that third Kings goal in Game 2 be allowed? The Kings player went in to the blue paint on his own accord, made contact with the Rangers defender and then laid on Lundqvists leg as the shot went in. If it is not a two-minute goalie interference call, it is at least a disallowed goal because of "incidental" contact with the goalie. I really dont see how they could rule any other way. Thank You,Bruce ChangoDillsburg, PA ----- Hi Kerry, Dwight Kings goal with plenty of time left in the third period last night was a huge momentum swing, eventually resulting in the Kings overtime win. However, the Rangers were unhappy about what they thought was goaltender interference on Henrik Lundqvist. Do the Rangers have any argument here? Anthony Z.Sault Ste. Marie, ON ----- Kerry, Im sure youve been asked to comment on the Kings third goal in Saturdays game and the goaltender interference controversy. But Ill ask again. What did you see and how would you have called it? J. RockwellEaston, PA Bruce, Anthony and ‘J-Rock: A violation of Rule 69 (goalkeeper interference) was committed by Dwight King when he initiated contact with Rangers goalkeeper Henrik Lundqvist inside the goal crease. As a result of this deliberate action by King, the goal should have been disallowed and a minor penalty assessed to King for goalkeeper interference. Some fans will maintain that King was pushed into Lundqvist through the actions of Rangers defenceman Ryan McDonough, which would have resulted in the scoring of a legal goal. From the quick look and decision rendered by referee Dan OHalloran, I have to believe that he also felt McDonough was guilty to some degree of pushing King into the crease. Allow me to explain why this was not the case and why I am confident that, if the referee was afforded the luxury of video review, he would have also concluded that Lundqvist was the victim of goalkeeper interference and the goal subsequently would have been disallowed. What I want to disprove is the premise that King was pushed into Lundqvist and that he did not make any reasonable effort to avoid the Ranger goalkeeper as per 69.1: “If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.” We pick up the action outside the goal crease to the right of Henrik Lundqvist when Dwight King (approaching on an angle outside the crease and from behind goal line) and Ryan McDonough (front of net) engaged one another in frontal combat with their sticks in a prone cross-check position toward one another. With McDonoughs posture and position, he was set too move his opponent away from the crease and not into it.dddddddddddd. King was also moving in a direction towards the slot and not facing into the blue paint. Note also that Kings stick blade appears to be in tight on Lundqvist. In this pose, both players are willing combatants engaging in a battle for position outside of the crease. Following their initial contact, King played off McDonough to the inside and then slipped laterally into the blue paint and toward Lundqvist. King then made a movement independent (separation) of McDonough with a backward press deeper into the crease and a resulting lateral ‘skate hop that initiated solid contact with the Rangers goalie. The resulting tumble caused King to land on the right pad of Lundqvist inside the crease. This action took place as Lundqvist was attempting to remain square and set for a shot from the point that King was ultimately given credit for deflecting past the Ranger goalkeeper. Once again from 69.1: “The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeepers ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.” So why was this play, as I described it, missed by the referee you might ask? First of all, contact such as this can happen very quickly in real-time and, especially, while other action is taking place. Different angles can also be deceiving. In this situation, Justin Williams carried the puck behind the Rangers goal and deep into the corner directly toward referee OHalloran. The referee was forced to pivot out from the corner and then back to allow Williams space to carry the puck wide and up the wall. Based on the referees body posture, he visually followed Williams carry the puck up the wall and then deliver a cross-ice outlet pass to Matt Greene at the right point position. While this action was taking place, the contact between King and McDonough had been initiated. This, along with Kings independent move into the blue paint, would have been undetected by the referee. With a pending shot from the point and a refocus by the referee toward the front of the net, it would likely have appeared from the refs vantage that McDonough deposited King in the goal crease as a result of the fall. It would have been a “bang-bang” play in the eye and mind of the referee under these circumstances. Lundqvist claimed that the referee told him the puck had already entered the net prior to any contact by King. Plays of this nature and magnitude must be reviewable as I have contended for at least the past couple of seasons! Review will be a crucial safety-check for the referees to correctly determine and enforce goalkeeper interference. The Competition Committee apparently met today. The eventual outcome of some games might just rest in their hands pending final approval of the rules committee. ' ' '