Greg Ambrose took some exception to my description of the penalties that
Orpik took in the 2nd period of Saturday night's game.  He characterized
Orpik as "a goon, period."  And, as Greg had a good view of the tripping
penalty that resulted in Jim Abbott's injury, he thought it was a clear
and obvious bad penalty that is considered one of the more dangerous types
of penalties.

I defer to Greg's better view of the 2nd play, if that is what happened.
I did not clearly see the hit, just the aftermath, and reported what I
knew, which was a clear difference of opinion between the UNH and BC
supporters that I heard first hand.  I know enough of Orpik's play to know
that he does take a lot of penalties that he could avoid if he chose to;
for his own reasons, he chooses to play extra-physical and accepts the
costs of those penalties.  I assume the BC staff has accepted most of this
as a tradeoff between his talents (and despite Greg's characterization, he
is not just a goon) and the benefits he brings in physicalness contrasted
to the penalty kills that are required.  Most folks see this same behavior
in many players in all the leagues.  Personally, I think Brooks has tried
to play too physical this year, possibly as an attempt to cement his image
as he decides what his future may be in the NHL -- he was a 1st round pick
in the most recent NHL draft.  In general, I think he is big and strong
enough that he can adjust to a more physical style when he gets to the
pros.  Right now, BC needs him on the ice to strengthen the defense.

As a historic note, Orpik did set the single-season penalty-minute record
for BC last year, and may break it again this year if his current trends
continue.

I termed the cross-checking penalty that Orpik received as a weak one
(IMO) as the player carrying the puck had slipped and fallen, and was
trying to regain his balance when Orpik hit him.  If he had been on his
feet and with balance I don't think the hit would have been enough to
knock him down, and based on that I thought it would have been allowed for
many players who don't have the physical reputation that Orpik has.
Brooks's reputation probably hurt him in this instance.  But that is a
personal opinion, as I stated.

In general, hits like the one that caused Abbott's injury are always a
mixed bag.  There are a lot of collisions and checks in games, some legal
and some not, which potentially cause injury.  Leg trips, as Orpik was
called for, are more dangerous than others, yet still result in no injury
in most cases.  If the collision had not been on the knee, and Abbott had
gone flying with no significant trauma, it would have been a penalty and
the vitriol that some expressed would not have been so severe.  It is safe
to say that almost no players go out of their way to cause an injury (to
bruise and intimidate, certainly, but not injure,) and certainly in this
case there was no intent to injure.  To call for a tape review and
treating this as a deliberate effort is probably more than it is worth.
In terms of deliberately hitting a player, Orpik had a very deliberate hit
in the game Friday night at Merrimack when he steamrolled a player after a
running start in retaliation for what he felt was over-aggressive play
aimed at Orpik.  He took that penalty deliberately, and though no injury
occurred in that collision, it was much more deserving of condemnation
than the hit on Abbott.

This type of behavior ultimately becomes self-defeating in the college
game, when a player gains a reputation for physical play and gets called
for hits that others are not called for.  In the pros, this is desired, as
they allow fighting, etc.  In college, I'm not sure how effective it is.
At the same time, I've seen recent BC teams play much more physical, take
more penalties, and yet be much more successful.  Part of it is stylistic
and coaching philosophy, some of it is dictated by the talents of the
players, and part of it is just the mentality of each individual player.
I've been around long enough to know that there are players on every team
who try to play physical, and some cross the line more than others.  If
the efforts are hurting the team, it is up to the coaches to rein in
someone.  That may yet happen in a case like Orpik, if his penalty string
were to continue as it has.

As to Greg's comment that I "must have had [my] Maroon and Gold colored
glasses on for this game", well, yes, I am a fan.  I have to work hard at
trying to be objective and see things as they are, and I'll freely admit
that my view of players like Orpik are kinder than other fans.  And it is
tempting to paint players on other teams as bad, or goons, or dirty, or
...  Trust me -- I've played sports, and I know what players can do on the
field or the ice.  No team is immune.  In general, I defer to the coaches,
players, and officials to regulate the behavior; I'm not privy to their
discussions or decisions, and they generally have a much better view than
I do.  I assume that those who read my summaries know that I am a BC fan;
my signature includes that fact.  They can account for that in their
judgments of my objectivity.  At the same time, I'd put my objectivity up
against Greg's, anytime, anyplace.  -- Rick
--------------------                  ----------------------
Rick McAdoo                           [log in to unmask]
"Volunteer reporter"                  A pleased BC fan.  GO EAGLES!