Want to Solve the Concussion Issue?
The Wild now have four players out with concussions. Brent Burns, Pierre-Marc Bouchard, Petr Sykora, and now Andrew Ebbett. A week or so ago, I discussed exactly what a concussion is. Now, let's talk about how to fix the problem, since the Wild seem to be disproportionately affected.
Join me after the jump for some fun with words.
The Holy Grail of concussion cures is not likely to be found anytime soon. There is no helmet, no protection device that can prevent the brain from moving inside the skull. Unless they find a way to change the laws of physics and get rid of that pesky inertia thing, concussions are going to happen. The focus needs to be on how to prevent as many as possible, and since it is equally impossible to make the ice surface soft, what else can be done?
Messier Cascade M11 Helmet
First, we have a basic, simple solution. Helmets. Specifically, the Messier designed helmet:
The helmet is designed to cushion the blow to the head using (in layman's terms) shock absorbers throughout the helmet to absorb up to 80% of the impact.
The question this begs is, why does the league not mandate its use? Change comes slow to the NHL, shocker, I know. It has been left up to the players to decide if they want to wear it, much like face shields. Similar to the NHL prior to helmet use being mandatory, the "cool" players don't wear face shields. The "cool" players won't wear the new helmet because the stigma has already been assigned to it, that only a sissy would wear this thing.
It will require the league mandating its use in order for players to wear it. Or, perhaps the Wild need to make the move and mandate their players wear it. Suck it up boys. I'd rather see you skating in this "goofy" new helmet than not see you at all.
Count me in as a proponent of making the helmet mandatory. It hurts no one, and could save careers.
Enforcing the Rules On the Books
There are rules, already in place, to help prevent concussions. Problem is, they are not enforced. Charging, boarding, high sticking, elbowing, cross checking, slashing, tripping (am I missing any?) all have sub-clauses that if they cause injury or you show intent to injure, you can be suspended. The debate is long and ongoing about how to dole out suspensions and what garners a suspension and what doesn't. I won't go into that right now. Find any thread about suspensions, and join the discussion.
What needs to happen is for the league, and the NHLPA, to call for the rules to be enforced. It worked to eliminate the clutch and grab. There were not all that many rules added to eliminate it, they simply enforced the interference, hooking, and holding rules they already had.
Enforce the rules you have, and things calm down. At least a bit.
Eliminate One Specific Rule
Can you guess which one? That's right. The instigator rule. It is the worst thing that has happened to hockey since Jacques Lemaire perfected the trap. Fellow Wild blog Wild Puck asked today about The Code. The Code is supposed to make it clear to players that they must respect each other. It is the unwritten rules of any sport that are more important than the rules in the rule book. However, The Code is dead.
Gone are the days of bench clearing brawls, of knowing you were going to have to stare down Derek Boogaard if you crossed the line. Now, all you need to do is wait until Boogey is on the bench and take your shot. Not like Boogaard can jump the boards and come take you out. If he does, he gets suspended. So, you simply wait it out and take your shot when the scariest guy on the ice is James Sheppard.
If I am Ed Jovanovski, and I know that if I cross the line, no matter when or where, that all 6' 8" 275 lbs of Derek Boogaard are going to come crashing down on my head, I think twice. Andrew Ebbet gets put into the boards, or I poke check the puck away. Instead, Jovo has free reign to do anything he wants, knowing that the worst that will happen is he will need to rest his weary bones for a couple games.
Players are no longer allowed to police themselves. With less than five minutes left in a game, you no longer see the retribution doled out like in the old days. Now, it carries a suspension and a fine for the coach. So, no one does anything. By the time the next game comes around, the focus is back on getting the two points, and retribution can wait.
Why, you may ask. Why has The Code died? There is no simple answer other than: economics. Gary Bettman has decided it is more important to be able to market the game to people who have absolutely no interest in the game than it is to allow the players to play the game. Find yourself a non-hockey fan and ask them why they don't watch it. You will most likely find out that "they don't like the fighting." Despite the fact that the number of fights has plummeted, they still don't watch. They never will. So screw 'em. Stop catering to people who hate you.
But hold on a minute. We can't just get rid of people who hate the game and put the instigator rule to death. But Buddha, why not? Because there are hockey teams in non-traditional markets that are struggling. I know, here it comes. The "I'm a Minnesota hockey fan so I am so much better than you" right? Wrong.
The Coyotes have no corporate partners. Either do the Panthers or the Lightning. The institution of the instigator rule coincided with the expansion of the NHL into markets it did not need to be in. In order to garner the corporate partners it needed, the NHL need to get the violence under control. In doing so, the NHL killed The Code in order to make a buck.
They are now paying the price for that greed.
Players are dropping like flies. Concussions are clearly on the rise. There is no simple solution, and there will always be concussions in a game as fast and as physical as hockey. However, a combination of new protection, enforcement of rules, and elimination of the instigator penalties would certainly cut down on the bulk of them. Until they invent padded ice, something else needs to be done.
Got a better idea? Tell us about it.
-Buddha
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Comments
Great stuff
I was so happy to see Chris Phillips and Jesse Winchester wearing the Cascade helmet this year. I don’t understand the “it looks goofy argument.” First off, I don’t think it looks very different at all (not nearly as different as the old Jofas), and second of all, why worry more about looks than safety?
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
by DarrenM on Dec 10, 2009 10:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The excuse “it looks goofy” is just bullsht
by IT DOESNT MATTER on Dec 10, 2009 12:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure it's that simple
The biggest argument against the integration of better helmets and protective gear is actually the fighting angle. It’s already one of the biggest barriers to the adoption of visors, and since the Sanderson incident last year there has been much discussion around players keeping their helmets on during a fight. I’d be willing to bet the primary reason the players are against this helmet is because the guy throwing the punches is at too much of a disadvantage.
I’m mixed on the role of enforcers in hockey — if I went to 41 home games and never saw a fight I wouldn’t be disappointed, but at the same time I respect the impact fights can have on momentum for the game. Would Gretzky have the records he currently holds without McScorely? Probably not.
That being said, this isn’t the NHL of the 20th century. There is a greater financial stake in the game for all parties involved, especially when the minimum NHL contract is nearly 10 times the national US household average income. The whole argument that enforcers are the only possible option for deterrent is, in my opinion, absolute bullshit. If the league would decide to start cracking down and doling out more suspensions they could put an end to all of that. An enforcer isn’t going to do anything other than inflict some physical pain — which is usually short-term. You start dealing out suspensions, you are dealing out consequences that impact both the finances of the player’s family as well as to the hockey club overall in having to go a man down on the roster.
I’ve heard the Brian Burke arguments that the NCAA is worse off for its stance against fighting and that players make more dangerous plays to compensate for not being able to drop the gloves, but I still don’t buy into that either. If we’ve seen anything in recent weeks, it’s that players will do whatever they can get away with. You’re going to continue to have that problem as long as dirty plays lead to a competitive advantage and negative consequences are only sporadically handed down.
by SpaethCo on Dec 10, 2009 4:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I made this comment in the first concussion post
A couple weeks ago North Dakota’s best player Chay Genoway was crushed from behind when St. Cloud State forward Aaron Marvin followed him down the entire ice to crush him from behind. Genoway is still out with a concussion and a medical redshirt has been talked about for a player who was once thought to be a possible Hobey finalist. Maybe the hit doesn’t happen if Marvin has to “pay” for his actions rather then sitting out for the next nights game. I do not condone fighting and I do not think it is necessary but I also think it shouldn’t be against the rules. The level of officiating in NCAA hockey is just not good right now. Also not sure how many of you follow the WCHA but the reffing is awful they had to consult the NCAA on their stance on hitting to the head which seems a pretty self expanatory rule to me and they even managed to throw out a different SCSU forward( The hit happened with about a minute left in the 2nd period and they switched the penalty to Marvin during the 2nd intermission)
"Don't give up, don't ever give up" - Jim Valvano
by nodakroxfan on Dec 10, 2009 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't it just a matter of severity then?
If a single game suspension isn’t enough, then make it 5 games for the first offense, 10 games for the second offense, and a permanent ban from the league on the third offense. Maybe make it more severe for the team; if a player makes an obviously dirty play that is against the rules, make that player’s team forfeit a point in the standings. Obviously these events would need to be reviewed closely for incidents such as hits from behind to make sure it’s not the receiving player doing equally dirty things like turning at the last second to “manufacture” a hit from behind.
I still believe the league could get rid of the dirty plays if they really wanted to; they already review plays resulting in injury regardless if a penalty is called by officials during the game or not. The problem right now is that the rules are too sporadically enforced and even if you get caught the impact isn’t great enough to act as a deterrent.
by SpaethCo on Dec 10, 2009 10:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent comment
I am not trying to say that fighting is the only deterrent. Needs to be multiple repercussions for making a stupid play. The helmet helps against slamming your head on the ice or boards. The fines and suspensions helps with a long term consequence, and Boggey beating your arse is the short term, immediate repercussion.
All three in the mix, and things are going to calm down.
http://www.hockeywilderness.com
by BReynolds on Dec 10, 2009 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Making the safer helmets manditory is fine, stricter punishment for clear intent-to-injure situations is likewise acceptable although I don’t want more penalities called nor do I think someone should be be punished simply because the other guy is fragile, but I disagree with removing the instigator rule. Remove that and you’re just giving Goons free license to assualt skill players with no short term ramifications.
by Parallex on Dec 11, 2009 10:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
There needs to be a caveat
on the instigator rule when you have opposing players slashing, etc on your skill players. It’s one thing to just coldcock some guy, but it’s perfectly fine in my opinion to make a cheap player pay for his buffoonery.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 11, 2009 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
For instance
If your team (some tech guy with mad A/V skills) can show the refs some dirty play that was meant to injure that was performed by said buffoon (whether it was called or not so long as it was legit) I say swing away. Not sure how to work this into the game, but it would give players something to think about.
by TheEvilProfessor on Dec 11, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The league already does this
As we just witnessed with the Jovanovski suspension that was just handed down. There was no call on the play during the game, but the league reviewed the video evidence from the game and elected to issue a 2 game suspension.
The problem is the league does this so haphazardly that players mostly ignore the potential consequences. Actually, the lack of enforcement probably encourages these behaviors simply because you’d be stupid to not take the competitive advantage if you know nothing bad is likely to result. (see also: exceeding the speed limit on freeways)
by SpaethCo on Dec 11, 2009 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No.
Goons have never, not ever, taken out skill players. Players like Matt Cooke and Jarkko Rutuu take out skill players because the goons are gone. The goons live and die by The Code. If they take a run at say, Mikko Koivu, they lose the respect they need so badly to keep their image and their job.
Goons don’t run elite players. Never have, never will.
http://www.hockeywilderness.com
by BReynolds on Dec 15, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















