HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Primeau believes helmet device can cut down on concussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2011, 12:19 PM
  #26
chimrichalds18
the key
 
chimrichalds18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,769
vCash: 500
Owners won't do it, but they should make the ice bigger. I know it was already resized, but you look at how ****ing fast these guys are, they need more room to skate. Ten 200+lb men moving incredibly fast in such a small area....it's not hard to see why people get hurt. Give them some breathing room.

chimrichalds18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 12:20 PM
  #27
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
My only concern would be false positives with the device. I'm sure there are jarring hits, or other random occurrences that might set of the device, but may not necessarily result in a concussion.
This is true, though I'm fairly sure science has a pretty good idea what the threshold for a likely concussion is.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 12:35 PM
  #28
SgtJoseph
Registered User
 
SgtJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
My only concern would be false positives with the device. I'm sure there are jarring hits, or other random occurrences that might set of the device, but may not necessarily result in a concussion.
I agree with this completely....And all people are different as to how they handle hits etc.For instance a hit may not trigger the light to Red, but the person wearing that helmet may be of the physical make up that he or she still gets a concussion ?.....I fly airplanes, and believe it or not folks with High blood pressure can take G loading better than those with " normal" or lower blood pressure.I just think things these days are now moving towards folks wanting their cake and eat it too.....I want to play a fast, physical, violent game on a hard sheet of ice surrounded by boards, glass etc with sharp steel blades strapped to my feet.......and i want to be able to do it with 100% safety ?.......Drop the puck and let em play, if they do not want to wear a helmet or a cage etc, then let em do it.....why is that so bad ? Bobby Clarke never wore a helmet ?

SgtJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 12:41 PM
  #29
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
You don't HAVE to yank someone from a game just because the light turns red. However, it's a fantastic tool for the training staff since they would know they need to pay much closer attention to that player.

Also, you can't compare hockey in Bobby Clarke's day to hockey now. Pads are now essentially suits of armor, and players are faster. Just because someone could get away with it then doesn't mean it would work now.

edit: NFL players used to be fine without cages and with soft helmets, would that be remotely safe now?

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 01:07 PM
  #30
SgtJoseph
Registered User
 
SgtJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You don't HAVE to yank someone from a game just because the light turns red. However, it's a fantastic tool for the training staff since they would know they need to pay much closer attention to that player.

Also, you can't compare hockey in Bobby Clarke's day to hockey now. Pads are now essentially suits of armor, and players are faster. Just because someone could get away with it then doesn't mean it would work now.

edit: NFL players used to be fine without cages and with soft helmets, would that be remotely safe now?
NFL football would be much safer with out the hard helmets....If all players wore softer helmets or no helmets for that matter, they would tackle using " form " instead of trying to blow someone up like they do now.....All of this body armor and hi tec equiptment has made things MORE dangerous in my opinion, simply because players feel " bullet proof " wearing it.In Bobby Clarke's day, you just did not see folks running full speed into others very often, and when it did happen the " players " took care of it quickly with enforcers....That's how it should be in my opinion......

Now they want to " protect" the goalies after the Miller incident ? Goalies wear more damn equipment than anyone on the ice, and now they want to protect them from other players ? FERGETABOUTIT !

SgtJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 01:58 PM
  #31
xifentoozlerix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: staten island
Posts: 772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You don't HAVE to yank someone from a game just because the light turns red. However, it's a fantastic tool for the training staff since they would know they need to pay much closer attention to that player.

Also, you can't compare hockey in Bobby Clarke's day to hockey now. Pads are now essentially suits of armor, and players are faster. Just because someone could get away with it then doesn't mean it would work now.

edit: NFL players used to be fine without cages and with soft helmets, would that be remotely safe now?
If everyone on the field was wearing soft helmets and no facemasks, it would probably be safer...but the point isn't about what is safe. These are adults who are not under any obligation to play the game. If they want to play without pads, that is their choice. Players have "body armor" now because it was "safer" for them to wear it. All it has done is make players less accountable for their actions. The players themselves are responsible for their own safety. That is the point. Trying to legislate or force safety measures will always lead to unintended consequences.

xifentoozlerix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 02:02 PM
  #32
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by xifentoozlerix View Post
If everyone on the field was wearing soft helmets and no facemasks, it would probably be safer...but the point isn't about what is safe. These are adults who are not under any obligation to play the game. If they want to play without pads, that is their choice. Players have "body armor" now because it was "safer" for them to wear it. All it has done is make players less accountable for their actions. The players themselves are responsible for their own safety. That is the point. Trying to legislate or force safety measures will always lead to unintended consequences.
If someone signs a contract to be paid money to do something dangerous, they can be made to wear safety equipment. If workplaces can force workers to wear helmets and other equipment, so can sports teams.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 02:03 PM
  #33
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtJoseph View Post
NFL football would be much safer with out the hard helmets....If all players wore softer helmets or no helmets for that matter, they would tackle using " form " instead of trying to blow someone up like they do now.....All of this body armor and hi tec equiptment has made things MORE dangerous in my opinion, simply because players feel " bullet proof " wearing it.In Bobby Clarke's day, you just did not see folks running full speed into others very often, and when it did happen the " players " took care of it quickly with enforcers....That's how it should be in my opinion......

Now they want to " protect" the goalies after the Miller incident ? Goalies wear more damn equipment than anyone on the ice, and now they want to protect them from other players ? FERGETABOUTIT !
Boy, all that equipment really helped keep Miller safe, didn't it?

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 02:13 PM
  #34
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Boy, all that equipment really helped keep Miller safe, didn't it?
SgtJoseph was actually arguing that the unintended consequences of "better" padding have made the game more violent and dangerous. I think that's one thing all three of us agree on.

The disagreement comes on how we think hockey should respond to that danger.

I disagree with him is on this monitoring system taking anything out of the game, or making it more dangerous. That would be like blaming home pregnancy detection for unprotected sex. A technology like this is necessary in part becase protective gear has made collisions more explosive.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 02:22 PM
  #35
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
My only concern would be false positives with the device. I'm sure there are jarring hits, or other random occurrences that might set of the device, but may not necessarily result in a concussion.
That's one of the reasons I thought it would be good for younger players instead of professional leagues. In just young pee-wee leagues if you miss a game, not a big deal. When money starts getting involved you'll start causing conflicts with it. Figure it can be used also as a gage to help teach young kids how to properly check someone.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 02:25 PM
  #36
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Boy, all that equipment really helped keep Miller safe, didn't it?
To be fair, goalie's padding isn't intended to protect them from a check. A player's padding is.

Vice versa, goalie padding is intended to protect them from the puck, not so much with player equipment, which is way blocking a shot is such a big deal.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 02:35 PM
  #37
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that sports have become faster and harder hitting because of the pads. I think they've become faster and harder hitting because athletic training is far more rigorous and advanced now than it was three decades ago. Players themselves are faster and stronger.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:12 PM
  #38
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that sports have become faster and harder hitting because of the pads. I think they've become faster and harder hitting because athletic training is far more rigorous and advanced now than it was three decades ago. Players themselves are faster and stronger.

It's both, obviously; I think the pads are a big part of it. You can't design away athletic training, but you can design the pads to adress different kinds of impact.

Right now, the pads are extremely well designed to protect against catastrophic injury from linear impact.



Just an example of what I mean by linear impact. That's a motorcycle helmet, but the same principle applies to the design of the hockey helmet and the plastic body armor.

The better players are protected against linear impact, the more confident they will feel about hitting harder and harder. That's just a natural response of the human body. I'm sure at least once as a kid you've played the game with your friends where someone gets all padded up and volunteers to get whacked at by fists, hockey sticks or baseball bats. The better protected you against linear impact, the more linear force you can subject yourself to.

However, most severe concussions aren't caused by linear impact. They are caused by angular acceleration. And when you get faster and faster linear movement and collisions, you get more severe angular acceleration effects on the brain.

For athletes competing at the hardest level, the way to reduce linear force is with the body's own feedback. If the players are wrapped in plastic armor designed to reduce the effects of linear force, that feedback is going to be severely dampened.

The most dangerous legal contact seems to be shoulder-to-head. If less protected shoulders means better protected heads, I'll take that trade-off. I'll trade some bumps and bruises and even broken or dislocated bones for players with healthier brain tissue for their entire lives.

"Let's be real: If you want to take out hits to the head, why are we wearing Terminator-sized shoulder pads? If you're coming in with your shoulders and all this padding, it really doesn't matter if you have the best helmet or the weakest helmet."

- Avalanche forward Peter Mueller

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/70...d-look-helmets

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:18 PM
  #39
SgtJoseph
Registered User
 
SgtJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Boy, all that equipment really helped keep Miller safe, didn't it?
Respectfully that is my point exactly..Even goalies can get hurt with all of the "safety" equipment they wear etc because its a fast, tough, brutal game. But folks are already knee jerking about how goalies need to be protected ....Where will it end ?

SgtJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:26 PM
  #40
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that sports have become faster and harder hitting because of the pads. I think they've become faster and harder hitting because athletic training is far more rigorous and advanced now than it was three decades ago. Players themselves are faster and stronger.
yea. 6'2 210 used to be huge. now its average. remember ron sutter? he was average. 165 used to be small. now its 190. These guys are football players and the reason the equipment got this way is because of garth snow. no, im kidding. but things evolve and im fine with them tweakin things to protect a little. It's not a wussy mentality to try and protect. these guys definately dont play scared. the problem is when they get hurt their out and getting paid to do nothing. We all know the Crosby thing is the straw that broke it all. I dont mind them tryin some different things but i just dont want more rule changes. and get rid of that stupid trapezoid. Evolution is and always will need to be for this to continue to get better. I love the old days (i'm only 35) but i love the speed and quality way more now than i did even in what i consider the greatest era, the early 90's.

funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:31 PM
  #41
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
I'd be interested to know if the rate of head injuries is actually higher because of hard shell pads, or if it's because concussions have slowly been getting more and more attention over the years and are diagnosed more often now. There are a lot of concussions that aren't caused by big open ice hits where players are flying at each other, too. Board play, falling or being shoved and hitting your head, etc. I don't know that soft pads would do a whole lot to improve the rate of head injuries on an NHL level. You'd likely see a decrease in really hard hits made on purpose, but that isn't how they're all caused. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for at least doing something about the shoulder pads, but I don't expect to see a drastic difference because of it. These guys have been playing the same style their whole life, I don't know that they'd all put on the brakes suddenly because hits hurt a little more...and then you'd get everyone calling for a return to hard pads once stars start going down to injuries because they have less protection.

edit: ah, this was meant to be in response to Damaged.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 11-16-2011 at 03:37 PM.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:39 PM
  #42
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtJoseph View Post
Respectfully that is my point exactly..Even goalies can get hurt with all of the "safety" equipment they wear etc because its a fast, tough, brutal game. But folks are already knee jerking about how goalies need to be protected ....Where will it end ?
Well right now the precedent seems to be that blasting a goalie in open ice is OK. I don't know about you, but I'd be ****ing livid if Bryz was taken down in such a manner. Goalies don't expect to get run like that. It might be part of the job description for a skater, but not a goalie. It's like a sucker punch.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:49 PM
  #43
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I'd be interested to know if the rate of head injuries is actually higher because of hard shell pads, or if it's because concussions have slowly been getting more and more attention over the years and are diagnosed more often now. There are a lot of concussions that aren't caused by big open ice hits where players are flying at each other, too. Board play, falling or being shoved and hitting your head, etc. I don't know that soft pads would do a whole lot to improve the rate of head injuries on an NHL level. You'd likely see a decrease in really hard hits made on purpose, but that isn't how they're all caused. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for at least doing something about the shoulder pads, but I don't expect to see a drastic difference because of it.

There are so many canceling variables from bigger players to bigger pads to abuse of pain medication and increased awareness, all feeding into each other that I don't know how you could get any "clean" data.

There are lots of factors pushing the incidences up, but I think these factors are also pushing into each other.

For instance, you get an influx of bigger, faster players and bigger, faster players are putting a bigger hurt on everyone, so they all want better body armor and more pain killers, and that practice becomes the standard more and more, and all of those things drive up concussions, and inevitably more star players get hurt, which increases the awareness of concussions, which increases reporting of concussions, etc. and there you have a number of feedback loops.

But just following common sense, I think putting "more pain in the game" is one way to fight against some of those feedback loops. Exactly how much this would help is very unpredictable, because there are so many complicating factors. It is just one prong of attack.

Just like more awareness is good. So is legislation to protect players. Matt Cooke's blindside shots to the head and flying elbows don't belong in any era of hockey, no matter what size the players are, how padded they are, or how sensitive you are to head injury -- and the greater precedent there is for punishing that kind of action, the better. It's not so much a matter as design vs. legislation. Rather these things should be moving together to work on the same page. You can't just go blindly up one avenue and expect to solve the problem to the best possible extent.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:51 PM
  #44
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
We seem to agree.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:54 PM
  #45
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Well right now the precedent seems to be that blasting a goalie in open ice is OK. I don't know about you, but I'd be ****ing livid if Bryz was taken down in such a manner. Goalies don't expect to get run like that. It might be part of the job description for a skater, but not a goalie. It's like a sucker punch.

Maybe I'm naive, but like Shanahan, I basically believe Lucic's version of events. He was going head down as hard as he could after the puck for what he thought was a possible break-away attempt. He looked up and saw an imminent collision which he reacted to by bracing himself. I see this as more of the unavoidable/unfortunate kind of incidents you get in a game which to a certain degree is always going to be fast and violent.

Slapping a 5 game suspension on Lucic after the fact wouldn't have protected Miller either. And if that precedent had already been set, I wouldn't want Lucic to ease up on going after that puck because he was thinking about the possibility of colliding with Miller and getting a suspension. To me, that was a hockey play.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 03:59 PM
  #46
SgtJoseph
Registered User
 
SgtJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Well right now the precedent seems to be that blasting a goalie in open ice is OK. I don't know about you, but I'd be ****ing livid if Bryz was taken down in such a manner. Goalies don't expect to get run like that. It might be part of the job description for a skater, but not a goalie. It's like a sucker punch.
Actually the Miller/Lucic incident was one of those bang/ bang fast plays that happen when 2 players are going for the puck...I think that shanny was correct not sitting Lucic etc. I am not saying goalies should be fair game as much as just saying that its getting crazy how folks react a little too quickly demanding this or that legislation come down when someone gets hurt etc.I think most would agree that if all players were wearing less pads, body armor, etc, they would be much less prone to be running full speed into each other, and they would show more " respect" for fear of injuring their own selves.

Ed snider dealt with things correctly back in the late 60s and 70s.Folks were taking runs at the Flyers with cheap shots etc....He fixed that problem very nicely with out crying for helmets, more pads, concussion crusades etc....That old school method worked out well and the rest is history.

SgtJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 04:00 PM
  #47
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
We seem to agree.
Well to go a step farther, I would be VERY happy if the NHL announced tomorrow that they were going to aggressively pursue a "less is more" approach to body armor. Without that step, I don't think they are on the same page with their headshot legislation and their design approach.

http://news.inventhelp.com/Articles/...sby-12576.aspx

Quote:
Less Body Armor

The best helmet in the world won’t be able to protect against 200 pound hockey players with protection that is fit for a battlefield. These days, protective elbow and shoulder pads act as weapon which players use when delivering body blows. Research shows that almost half of concussions occur because of “legal hits to the body.” Players cause concussions with their muscular arms and shoulders which are supported by elbow and shoulder pads, and which often come in contact with the facial area of other players. Years ago, these pads weren’t as hard as ice, but actual “pads” that allowed for some give if they came in contact with something.

This year, the NHL expanded Rule 48 which now makes any lateral or blind side hits to the head illegal. In other words, players are now forbidden to hit in any way which makes the head the principal point of contact. Although this rule will prevent head shots, contact to the jaw and face area will still occur from typical, legal hits.

Ironically, the technology which has allowed NHL players to skate faster, shoot harder, and body check more safely is exactly what is causing concussions. The NHL has to take a step back, specifically in regards to elbow and shoulder pads, if it is serious about decreasing concussions. Although helmets have the potential to reduce seriousness of concussions, only softened body armor will do the job of preventing them.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 04:04 PM
  #48
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,597
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtJoseph View Post

Ed snider dealt with things correctly back in the late 60s and 70s.Folks were taking runs at the Flyers with cheap shots etc....He fixed that problem very nicely with out crying for helmets, more pads, concussion crusades etc....That old school method worked out well and the rest is history.

That method worked in the 60s and 70s, when the league had no interest in actually protecting players, so players and teams had to protect themselves. It won't work now. It's been four decades, things change. There was a time when boxing was bare knuckle, last-man-standing...that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 04:49 PM
  #49
SgtJoseph
Registered User
 
SgtJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
That method worked in the 60s and 70s, when the league had no interest in actually protecting players, so players and teams had to protect themselves. It won't work now. It's been four decades, things change. There was a time when boxing was bare knuckle, last-man-standing...that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.
Respectfully i disagree that it won't work now, it would work just fine if the NHL would let it work.And i disagree with your boxing analogy as well, MMA fights are doing pretty well and seem to be all the rage these days and they are not wearing 10oz gloves and head gear etc ?
We are no different than Rome was back in its hey day.Nascar racing is nothing more than modern day " chariot" racing, but it is now getting quite boring because of all of the safety stuff going on.It don't take near as much courage to make some of the moves in a race car as it did years ago, because of all of the safety legislation etc.....It was a much better sport when there was more of a " daring" aspect to it in my opinion....Whoever said " sports" should be safe ?

I always really respected the courage and bravery it takes to block a shot from the point, or to go to the front of the net to set a screen while a 6ft 7 player unloads a 100 mph shot towards them. That courage and bravery is what sets certain players above others in my opinion.....It will be a very sad day when all players are padded up to a point where the bravery or courage aspect is minimized to a point that the risk of doing such will make those of less courage and daring on equal terms equal to those who would do it regardless?..The thought of such is truly depressing and i hope never comes.Perhaps my way of thinking is different than most of you younger folks....I never agreed with Social security, medicare, universal health care, wearing pink ribbons or red ribbons etc etc.....I believe in individual responsibility and let the chips fall where they fall...

SgtJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2011, 05:03 PM
  #50
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtJoseph View Post
Respectfully i disagree that it won't work now, it would work just fine if the NHL would let it work.And i disagree with your boxing analogy as well, MMA fights are doing pretty well and seem to be all the rage these days and they are not wearing 10oz gloves and head gear etc ?
We are no different than Rome was back in its hey day.Nascar racing is nothing more than modern day " chariot" racing, but it is now getting quite boring because of all of the safety stuff going on.It don't take near as much courage to make some of the moves in a race car as it did years ago, because of all of the safety legislation etc.....It was a much better sport when there was more of a " daring" aspect to it in my opinion....Whoever said " sports" should be safe ?

I always really respected the courage and bravery it takes to block a shot from the point, or to go to the front of the net to set a screen while a 6ft 7 player unloads a 100 mph shot towards them. That courage and bravery is what sets certain players above others in my opinion.....It will be a very sad day when all players are padded up to a point where the bravery or courage aspect is minimized to a point that the risk of doing such will make those of less courage and daring on equal terms equal to those who would do it regardless?..The thought of such is truly depressing and i hope never comes.Perhaps my way of thinking is different than most of you younger folks....I never agreed with Social security, medicare, universal health care, wearing pink ribbons or red ribbons etc etc.....I believe in individual responsibility and let the chips fall where they fall...

I don't buy this narrative. Hockey games are faster, more brutal, violent and dangerous than they ever have been before. I believe the padding and other technology (like composite sticks) has given the game these qualities more so, not less. It takes just as much "courage and bravery" to play the game today as it ever has.

However, the "courage and bravery" issue is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to players under contract having healthy enough brain tissue to play the game.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.