Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I would imagine NHL injuries roll out like this.
-Player gets hurt
-He's taken back to get looked at.
-In Tanev's case he didn't return for the game.
-After tests they assess whether further play would make the injury worse, or if there would be no change.
-If the latter is true it's up to the player based on pain threshold.
I get that we want to complain and act like we know what's going on for every single issue but lets get a grip here.
The players have a player's association and agents to protect them from mean teams that make them play when they're hurt.
Now is there a code? Sure there is. But if the players is diagnosed not to get worse from playing that's up to him to either break or conform to. The code exists because of players stubbornly playing when they were hurt, it will have to be nixed or changed by players saying forget it.
|
I also get the perception from many that if a player is playing hurt, he immediately is a detriment to the team.
That is just simply and demonstrably untrue.
If I am Tanev for instance and i get a couple cracked ribs....that stuff hurts and it hurts a lot. That does not mean that i cannot play though as long as I am willing to endure the pain of it all. Not even a little bit. If it hampers me so much i cant execute the way I go about business and actually start to be a liability, then fine....sit me.
The last thing I want however is someone else deciding how much pain I should be allowed to play with if i can still play as needed. If the doctor says I am risking further damage by playing, then by all means...call it a day, but otherwise stay the hell out of my head.
A lot of people on here seem to think they know what others are thinking and feeling. You don't.