HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

GM's Propose Hybrid Icing, Rule Changes

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2012, 12:40 PM
  #26
OpRedDawn*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
No, and I don't have to have a single shred of evidence to be in the right either.

The league has claimed concussions are caused by the speed of the game, and therefore we must change the rules. The onus is upon them to prove that the speed of the game has some statistically significant impact upon concussion incidence. If they cannot do that, they cannot rightfully make changes to the game to "fix" things. They're the ones making the claim, and trying to take action. The fact that they've been unable to establish any link implies either they're not trying (and therefore no one should accept their claim) or that there is not link (and therefore no one should accept their claim).

Unless they are able to establish that link, they will be wrong to even so much as suggest changes.

Saying "the league has no empirical evidence" completely and utterly negates any and every statement they make about it. They've quite literally made up a boogeyman with absolutely no factual basis, and have been attacking it violently without any effort to establish whether it actually exists. This isn't an issue of player safety because there's absolutely no reason to even so much as suspect there could possibly be a remote link. This is like hearing your car make a squeaking noise, so without looking at anything, you replace the entire exhaust system. Does the exhaust have anything to do with the noise? Maybe, but since you never bothered to establish 1) that there is a problem or 2) what is causing the problem, you just went through a long, expensive process that quite likely did you absolutely no good.
Again, just because we have don't have exact numbers, it doesn't mean that the GM's and the NHL don't. I haven't seen the year to year concussions since they got reported, and neither have you. You're acting like just because there isn't a spreadsheet in front you, the GM's / NHL are making a blind guess.

Is there any data that hybrid icing is safer? Obviously though, I am in favor of it. Not because I have the numbers, but because I see the logic. Reducing the amount of times players go full speed into the boards = less horrific and unnecessary injuries. Same thing applies with allowing a bit more holding / interference on dump ins and around the boards, which is what I'm suggesting. And from the actual numbers of penalties called on those this year, it seems the officials / league agrees with me

OpRedDawn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 12:56 PM
  #27
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpRedDawn View Post
Again, just because we have don't have exact numbers, it doesn't mean that the GM's and the NHL don't. I haven't seen the year to year concussions since they got reported, and neither have you. You're acting like just because there isn't a spreadsheet in front you, the GM's / NHL are making a blind guess.
That is a pretty brutal twisting of logic try support a baseless claim. The year over year concussion count is a completely meaningless figure. The issue is, there has been no research conducted to determine if the speed of the game has an impact upon concussion incidence.

That's not a claim that "I don't know about the figures, so [x] must be true." The fact of the matter is, the league has not comissioned a study, and no credible outside institution has documented any link between the two. There's no matter of "the league might know [x] numbers." Quite literally, the league doesn't have a clue.

I don't know how to explain this to you any better. When a GM says "the speed of the game causes [x]," he's making an opinion statement about an unscientific guess that developed because a couple people thought it might sound reasonable. If that were not the case, no one would even begin to have this discussion because there wouldn't be any question about what may or may not need to be done, or whether changes need to be made. It wouldn't be anything driven by the league either as the NHLPA would have massive incentive to press for change because it's their members who would be literally risking their lives and careers.

There is no data, not because I haven't seen it, but because the data does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpRedDawn View Post
Is there any data that hybrid icing is safer? Obviously though, I am in favor of it. Not because I have the numbers, but because I see the logic. Reducing the amount of times players go full speed into the boards = less horrific and unnecessary injuries. Same thing applies with allowing a bit more holding / interference on dump ins and around the boards, which is what I'm suggesting. And from the actual numbers of penalties called on those this year, it seems the officials / league agrees with me
There have been numerous studies to determine the impact of hybrid icing upon injury rates, affect upon gameplay, and even officiating accuracy. Based upon that sort of available information, the NCAA implemented hybrid icing at the D1 college level. We now have statistically significant quantities of data to determine the majority of the impact the implementation of hybrid icing would have at the NHL level.

If you want to try make a remotely accurate or valid analogy, you're stuck with talking about the trapezoid or Burke's "Bear Hug rule." The former is a completely open for individual interpretation (and therefore no concensus) issue, and the latter has never been implemented and likely never will be.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 02:13 PM
  #28
OpRedDawn*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,129
vCash: 500
I guess the GM's should never propose anything, ever, unless the league commissioned a study on it... Obviously they can't just have an easy compare / contrast session to determine something like this. Far too many variables. They're just making suggestions on what they think could help.

Guess they should've never proposed getting rid of the red line or any post lockout changes, since there wasn't 100% concrete evidence that it would have the desired effect.

My final point is that the logic is the same as with hybrid icing. Reducing the amount of times people go full speed into the boards = reducing the amount of horrific / unnecessary injuries. That's my thinking, and it seems on par with some GM's and how the refs have been officiating.

OpRedDawn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 03:24 PM
  #29
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpRedDawn View Post
I guess the GM's should never propose anything, ever, unless the league commissioned a study on it... Obviously they can't just have an easy compare / contrast session to determine something like this. Far too many variables. They're just making suggestions on what they think could help.

Guess they should've never proposed getting rid of the red line or any post lockout changes, since there wasn't 100% concrete evidence that it would have the desired effect.

My final point is that the logic is the same as with hybrid icing. Reducing the amount of times people go full speed into the boards = reducing the amount of horrific / unnecessary injuries. That's my thinking, and it seems on par with some GM's and how the refs have been officiating.
Another bad analogy.

For the lockout rule changes, the league clearly established that scoring was down. By reviewing historic differences in rules, as well as the variations upon rulesets between various leagues around the world to determine things which would cause an increase in scoring. Again, they did their due diligence, establishing 1) there is a problem and 2) this will cause the desired change, before implementing changes.

What you are advocating for is screaming into a room "won't someone please think of the children!" and making wholesale changes to the game without ever knowing if there's even a problem.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 06:26 PM
  #30
BigT2002
Registered User
 
BigT2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: some other continent
Country: United States
Posts: 12,723
vCash: 500

BigT2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:33 PM
  #31
OpRedDawn*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Another bad analogy.

For the lockout rule changes, the league clearly established that scoring was down. By reviewing historic differences in rules, as well as the variations upon rulesets between various leagues around the world to determine things which would cause an increase in scoring. Again, they did their due diligence, establishing 1) there is a problem and 2) this will cause the desired change, before implementing changes.

What you are advocating for is screaming into a room "won't someone please think of the children!" and making wholesale changes to the game without ever knowing if there's even a problem.
I'd advocating a whole sale change? Pre-lockout interference isn't that big of a deal, and like I said, the refs are leaning that way now with their calls. Players get away with a lot more interference than previous. I never once said I was in favor of getting rid of the 2 line pass.

And, player safety doesn't have to be pre lockout vs post lockout rules. It sounds like hey like how the game flows now. Clearly concussions are a big problem and they're looking for ways to reduce them.

You're acting like I wanna completely start from scratch or something, which is clearly not the case. Ita appears you're grasping at straws now, and have been for awhile.

OpRedDawn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 07:40 AM
  #32
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpRedDawn View Post
I'd advocating a whole sale change? Pre-lockout interference isn't that big of a deal, and like I said, the refs are leaning that way now with their calls. Players get away with a lot more interference than previous. I never once said I was in favor of getting rid of the 2 line pass.

And, player safety doesn't have to be pre lockout vs post lockout rules. It sounds like hey like how the game flows now. Clearly concussions are a big problem and they're looking for ways to reduce them.

You're acting like I wanna completely start from scratch or something, which is clearly not the case. Ita appears you're grasping at straws now, and have been for awhile.
There was an entire lockout where eliminating clutch and grab was a major player. Bringing it back would be wholesale change.

Clearly concussions are a problem, and clearly there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that bringing back pre-lockout interference would have any statistically significant effect upon their occurance, duration, or severity.

You have done nothing but scream "won't someone please think of the children" and used that as some pathetic crutch to try advance major changes that would otherwise be universally reviled.

You're not even grasping at straws, you have literally no argument, and it's bizarre that you even bother to continue to reply.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 12:03 PM
  #33
OpRedDawn*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
There was an entire lockout where eliminating clutch and grab was a major player. Bringing it back would be wholesale change.

Clearly concussions are a problem, and clearly there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that bringing back pre-lockout interference would have any statistically significant effect upon their occurance, duration, or severity.

You have done nothing but scream "won't someone please think of the children" and used that as some pathetic crutch to try advance major changes that would otherwise be universally reviled.

You're not even grasping at straws, you have literally no argument, and it's bizarre that you even bother to continue to reply.
You've done nothing but strawman my entire point of view.

Look at what I proposed. Look at what you're arguing against.

You're grasping at straws (pun intended).


And, like I stated earlier, it doesn't have to be pre lockout vs post lockout. It's finding ways NOW, with how the game is NOW, to increase player safety. It does not have to be one or the other.

Again, the refs (and assuming the NHL) agree with me, so idk why you're trying to argue this so hard.

OpRedDawn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 12:37 PM
  #34
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpRedDawn View Post
You've done nothing but strawman my entire point of view.

Look at what I proposed. Look at what you're arguing against.

You're grasping at straws (pun intended).


And, like I stated earlier, it doesn't have to be pre lockout vs post lockout. It's finding ways NOW, with how the game is NOW, to increase player safety. It does not have to be one or the other.

Again, the refs (and assuming the NHL) agree with me, so idk why you're trying to argue this so hard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpRedDawn
I think they need to go back to pre-lockout interference and such if they want to reduce concussions. Nowadays, if you wrap them up at all, or slow them down just a tad too much, interference. Players just fly full speed into each other because that's all they're allowed to do.
You've proposed a massive, sweeping change based upon a completely baseless inference that 1) player speed causes concussions and 2) pre-lockout interference without question, reduces concussions.

My argument, and the only one I have put forth, is that neither of your claims is valid, accurate, or has any basis in reality. There's no strawman here. Throwing out claims of fallacies doesn't work as a defense when they're just as fabricated as the rest of your claims.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 02:19 PM
  #35
OpRedDawn*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,129
vCash: 500
I personally think they should. That's my personal opinion.

I'm not saying they (the GM's / NHL) should, or could know if it will help or not. But, testing it certainly seems reasonable. The article (and original disagreement) is about the GM's and their propositions, not our personal opinions. I think we both agree that us sitting here and being armchair GM's or NHL executives is fun, but means nothing.

So instead of arguing in circles, here's my final thoughts

*The league wants less concussions.

*The data is not 100% solid because there are too many variables to decide if the higher pace nowadays is to blame. Personally I believe the logic is there that slowing the game down = less vicious hits to the head.

*A number of GM's propose trying ways to fix it to lower concussions/injuries

*You dismiss trying idea's / proposing ideas because we don't have 100% evidence that something is the cause.

*I am favor of finding ways to make the game safer

*When trying to implement new ideas, you can't be 100% sure on what effect it will have.

*I am in favor of allowing more interference on dump ins and along the boards.

*For the same reason, I am in favor of hybrid icing, and removing the trapezoid.

*Even if it was pre-lockout interference, I wouldn't consider it a "sweeping change" or acting like the sky is falling. Every year the officials are naturally allowing more interference anyways

OpRedDawn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 04:30 PM
  #36
BigT2002
Registered User
 
BigT2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: some other continent
Country: United States
Posts: 12,723
vCash: 500
Do it for a year and see what happens is how I look at it. If the amount of concussions sees a significant decrease, then there is your answer. If not, repeal the rule and continue researching

BigT2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2012, 10:25 PM
  #37
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT2002 View Post
Do it for a year and see what happens is how I look at it. If the amount of concussions sees a significant decrease, then there is your answer. If not, repeal the rule and continue researching
The issues with that are:

1) Concussion reporting is woefully inconsistent. Remember when a Wild player's "lower-body injury" was actually a concussion? That's rampant amongst the league.

2) There's no evidence that concussion incidence is consistent year over year. There's reason to believe that it varies wildly. In that case, you're not actually measuring the effectiveness of a change, but mostly random noise instead.

3) Longitudinal effects are vastly different from short term effects. For example, when the lockout ended, rules enforcement was extremely strict. Penalties occurred at a very high rate. After a few years, both player behavior and officiating standards adjusted to the new realities of the league, resulting in vastly lower penalty rates. Behavior in a single year after a rule change would not necessarily have much significance insofar as long term effects are concerned.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2012, 09:38 AM
  #38
Dudicles
Registered User
 
Dudicles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
You've proposed a massive, sweeping change based upon a completely baseless inference that 1) player speed causes concussions and 2) pre-lockout interference without question, reduces concussions.

My argument, and the only one I have put forth, is that neither of your claims is valid, accurate, or has any basis in reality. There's no strawman here. Throwing out claims of fallacies doesn't work as a defense when they're just as fabricated as the rest of your claims.
I think it's pretty common sense that player speed, strength, and armor-like equipment significantly has greatly increased the likelihood of concussions.

Regardless of the argument between you two, speed in relation to concussions doesn't seem like something you could dismiss. The faster you go, the harder you can hit.

Dudicles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2012, 12:47 PM
  #39
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudicles View Post
I think it's pretty common sense that player speed, strength, and armor-like equipment significantly has greatly increased the likelihood of concussions.

Regardless of the argument between you two, speed in relation to concussions doesn't seem like something you could dismiss. The faster you go, the harder you can hit.
There's no medical evidence that "harder hits" cause concussions though. In some regards, a greater initial force could reduce the likelihood of that injury.

People need to understand that concussions aren't like broken bones. They're not like pulled muscles or torn tendons. They're vastly more heavily impacted by direction or impact than any other possible variable in the game.

The biggest issue that you people seem to have is that you mistake the statement of "there is no evidence for or against" as "this is 100% a statement that it's 100% one direction." The oft quoted "common sense" is so much more frequently wrong than it ever is right when it comes to scientific or medical issues. It's so frequently wrong that you're far more likely to cause harm than good when using "common sense" in that regard.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-17-2012, 03:35 PM
  #40
Dudicles
Registered User
 
Dudicles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
There's no medical evidence that "harder hits" cause concussions though. In some regards, a greater initial force could reduce the likelihood of that injury.

People need to understand that concussions aren't like broken bones. They're not like pulled muscles or torn tendons. They're vastly more heavily impacted by direction or impact than any other possible variable in the game.

The biggest issue that you people seem to have is that you mistake the statement of "there is no evidence for or against" as "this is 100% a statement that it's 100% one direction." The oft quoted "common sense" is so much more frequently wrong than it ever is right when it comes to scientific or medical issues. It's so frequently wrong that you're far more likely to cause harm than good when using "common sense" in that regard.
I guess us people is just ignant fools.


Last edited by Dudicles: 03-17-2012 at 03:41 PM. Reason: So it doesn't seem like I'm being a b*tch
Dudicles 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 06:48 PM.

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.