The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Ok, LadyStanley, I direct this question at you (because honestly I don't wish to personally categorize the League as something that it may not be)... If significant number of concussions continues to occur in the League, what more can be done? Or should the League just come out and say that it's one of the unforetunately common risks of playing this sport?
An aside WRT Rome-Horton hit. It is very similar to the lateral direction that Joe Thornton took when he exited penalty box and positioned himself that (unsuspecting) player ran into him, which resulted in a two RS game suspension. I looked carefully at the replays and Horton was focused on shooting the puck and had no idea there was a guy coming from his side (which was behind his head which was turned to make the pass). So, given that, I think that a Rule 48 suspension is warranted.
Now, on to the more general issue...
Many of the possible "remedies" have been iterated in stories above in this thread.
My gut tells me that the owners never want to lose key players to concussions (Sidney Crosby -- league wide loss, for example #1) or other significant injuries, not only for pure business reasons, but also as sometimes they look on the players as their "kids"; however, some of their attempts to legislate more severe punishments or remedies have been met with resistance from the union.
The league/owners have wanted mandatory face shields to prevent (some) facial/eye injuries (not only because they'll have lower insurance premiums), but there has been push back from the union to even grandfather it in. (The AHL and ECHL have been able to mandate it for players in their leagues, although AIUI some of the NHL-contracted players are not subject to that rule in the A.)
The Q just mandated zero tolerance on head hits. The NHL could go this far as well (no "targeted" head hits has been on the books a while, but this would go further to even penalize inadvertent hits that ended up with head being hit).
That still does not fully address "legal" hits, i.e., open ice checks, that result in concussion from the collision, nor the situation where a "legal" hit results in player hitting something solid (i.e., glass, boards, ice) which causes a concussion. I don't know how to eliminate those two situations without banning hitting altogether, which would drastically change the game.
An aside WRT Rome-Horton hit. It is very similar to the lateral direction that Joe Thornton took when he exited penalty box and positioned himself that (unsuspecting) player ran into him, which resulted in a two RS game suspension. I looked carefully at the replays and Horton was focused on shooting the puck and had no idea there was a guy coming from his side (which was behind his head which was turned to make the pass). So, given that, I think that a Rule 48 suspension is warranted.
Now, on to the more general issue...
Many of the possible "remedies" have been iterated in stories above in this thread.
My gut tells me that the owners never want to lose key players to concussions (Sidney Crosby -- league wide loss, for example #1) or other significant injuries, not only for pure business reasons, but also as sometimes they look on the players as their "kids"; however, some of their attempts to legislate more severe punishments or remedies have been met with resistance from the union.
The league/owners have wanted mandatory face shields to prevent (some) facial/eye injuries (not only because they'll have lower insurance premiums), but there has been push back from the union to even grandfather it in. (The AHL and ECHL have been able to mandate it for players in their leagues, although AIUI some of the NHL-contracted players are not subject to that rule in the A.)
The Q just mandated zero tolerance on head hits. The NHL could go this far as well (no "targeted" head hits has been on the books a while, but this would go further to even penalize inadvertent hits that ended up with head being hit).
That still does not fully address "legal" hits, i.e., open ice checks, that result in concussion from the collision, nor the situation where a "legal" hit results in player hitting something solid (i.e., glass, boards, ice) which causes a concussion. I don't know how to eliminate those two situations without banning hitting altogether, which would drastically change the game.
Thanks for the well-explained reply. It seems that we have a similar perspective.
I will add this though, it's been stated that such a hit could not be said as being typical of Rome... So I hope that the reality isn't that a great majority of players don't have to experience these kinds of hits, either giving or receiving, before they start playing in a such way that doesn't too often cross over from being aggressive to being dangerous.
GMs have forwarded recommendation to competition committee to remove the "blindside" component of rule 48, but tweak it to allow more flexibility for referees to meet out punishment when dealing with head hits.
Still no desire for a blanket no-head-hit-penalty.
Edit: To clarify -- they're looking to broaden the rule (make more situations covered).
Last edited by LadyStanley: 06-08-2011 at 07:49 PM.
Hockey plays. We will have them until hockey runs out of players.
"The hitting is what our league is all about," Kings coach Terry Murray said Wednesday.
"But the players need to educate themselves and each other about these hits to the head. It's almost like a skill that they need to develop."
This issue is reminiscent of the way the media covers hurricanes and earthquakes.
There is sorrow and hand-wringing and quasi-empathy. Then the cameras pack up and the reporters go home and the real suffering begins.
...
But is Rule 48 a deterrent? Not so far.
The issue is cultural. Get rid of the hard "protective" pads that players use as cudgels.
"We never wore those when I played," Murray said. "They're too hard, they're dangerous and the league is concerned about them."
And find a way to stop bashing heads, no matter if the hitter is 6-foot-5 and the hittee is 5-foot-6, just as the players find a way to control their sticks.
Redefine a "hockey play" as a play that actually involves a puck, instead of punishing a player for being near one.
If it means lengthening the suspensions, fine.
If it means stretching the power plays to 8 or 10 minutes, to make violence something that loses games, fine.
Hockey can be robust and passionate and physical without gurneys and paramedics.
No one is asking for guaranteed safety. But it's reasonable to wonder why it must be life-diminishing.
Get rid of the hard "protective" pads that players use as cudgels.
This. It just might serve as an incentive to not go for the head if the price you pay for it is a dislocated shoulder. hard elbow and shoulder pads are basically weapons, and softer ones might actually provide equal or better protection. If hockey players are supposed to be able to take a hit, they should also be able to deliver hits without relying on armor.
I think it should be a combination, players have to be aware of their surroundings, it's dangerous to your health to not know where others are on the ice. But also, I agree that the shoulder and elbow pads are excessive. At least require that the hard plastic can't be on the top layer or something like that, find some kind of happy medium so players are protected from getting hit with a slapshot but also soft enough so they aren't putting people in the hospital.
It just might serve as an incentive to not go for the head if the price you pay for it is a dislocated shoulder.
There should be a physical price to initiating contact - that's the natural internal rate governor in the process - and it's the one element that has been largely taken out of the game as we cocoon guys in the hockey equivalent of 12 air bags.
If you want to improve player safety, don't increase their armor, decrease it!
Learn to keep you head up kid. You'll receive far fewer concussions. Take some responsibility for protecting yourself.
For minimum contracts at the half-million dollar a year level, you will get players lined up around the block volunteering to put themselves in vulnerable positions "for the team".
Real_ESPNLeBrun 2:30pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Basically new Rule 48 takes out blindside aspect from the language. Hits targetting head where head is principal point of contact illegal
Shanahan (NHL) and Schneider (NHLPA) will have to discuss a few things but union and league in agreement. Next up owners' approval June 21
New medical report shows that NHL (and NFL) helmets help prevent injuries, but do little to prevent concussions.
Because concussions are a function of inertia and force, and there is little outside of making a ridiculously large/heavy/over-designed helmet that can meaningfully mitigate concussions. You would have to get the energy transferred to the head down to benign levels. I think the composite materials and technology will be out there someday, but not right now.
Because concussions are a function of inertia and force, and there is little outside of making a ridiculously large/heavy/over-designed helmet that can meaningfully mitigate concussions. You would have to get the energy transferred to the head down to benign levels. I think the composite materials and technology will be out there someday, but not right now.
So again... If there's no equipment design that can resolve the problem, then what?
Accept it for what it is - a high contact sport that will, on ocassion, exact a huge, potentially permanent physical toll on the players.
That's one response, and a very valid one. However, there seems to be large and growing fanbase that are not satisfied with that answer. And it appears a growing number of players who aren't satisfied with it either (though that number perhaps isn't so large yet, I don't know).
... And here’s a note of encouragement to those concerned about the possibility of a recurrence of a concussion [of Avs player Peter Mueller]: I spoke recently with noted concussion specialist, Dr. Robert Cantu of Boston University’s school of medicine. He said that there is no medical evidence at all to support that the assumption that those who have had concussions are more susceptible to getting another one. Once a concussion has healed, he said, the “patient” has no greater chance of getting another one than you or me.
Perhaps it's based on the definition of "healed"?
The number of hours/days/weeks/months without symptoms before a player should be cleared to return to play?
The number of hours/days/weeks/months without symptoms before a player should be cleared to return to play?
Some players never heal mentally. Their psyche is always conscious of the next big hit; that play which will start things all over again. That alone can ruin players, especially the finesse types. You think a guy was hesitant to go through traffic before? Wait until after a concussion. This sort of thing has ruined many players. Krys Kolanos being a great example. He was given all the time in the world to heal but just was never the same.
The article is also misleading. A 2nd or 3rd concussion is more damaging than the first. While you aren't any more 'likely' to get a concussion, the consequences of getting one will be worse. It's like saying you got a concussion by playing hockey so by quitting hockey you will be less likely to get another concussion. We'll file that one under the 'no ****' section.
The number of hours/days/weeks/months without symptoms before a player should be cleared to return to play?
I would definitely suspect that's the case, LadyStanley. Players are probably able to play and feel no symptoms, though the healing process may not be complete. And thus, a player in that condition could be more susceptible to being concussed again from another blow.
And as XX above said, some concussion injuries just aren't completely healable.
Some players never heal mentally. Their psyche is always conscious of the next big hit; that play which will start things all over again. That alone can ruin players, especially the finesse types. You think a guy was hesitant to go through traffic before? Wait until after a concussion. This sort of thing has ruined many players. Krys Kolanos being a great example. He was given all the time in the world to heal but just was never the same.
The article is also misleading. A 2nd or 3rd concussion is more damaging than the first. While you aren't any more 'likely' to get a concussion, the consequences of getting one will be worse. It's like saying you got a concussion by playing hockey so by quitting hockey you will be less likely to get another concussion. We'll file that one under the 'no ****' section.
The psyche thing is a bit like the Zednik incident. He was never the same player after recovering from this.
before we start taking hitting right out of the game, please NHL, mandate soft pads back into the game. If the hitters are afraid of getting hurt, so bit it...
If the hit is going to be a penalty anyway, then go ahead with the suspension, but if its a legal hit with a shoulder and the guy gets a concussion, sorry, tough s*** ... IMO
can't protect everyone with a certain set of rules, everyones physiology is different
