Some observations, no major conclusions. Because everyone is emotionally invested in their position on this issue.
(tl;dr: if it's too long, don't read it)
This is always an emotional discussion as both sides of the conversation have their own logic, however there are many contributing factors, and much in terms of research and ability to draw definitive conclusions about the magnitude of any problem is still unknown.
I absolutely understand the logic behind the case against fighting and that brain injuries can have long term negative impacts.
I also have no use for staged goon fights, so let's throw that out there right now. And those are pretty much gone, but somehow they creep back in to the general conversation from time to time. Not here, please.
Lots of questions out there
From a statistical perspective, is fighting in hockey resulting in quality of life reductions an epidemic type problem? Or is it the greater nature of the game and being a professional contact sport?
Do we right now understand the difference between the impact of the potential damage sustained over a career during a number of fights on skates as compared to the potential damage sustained by a much greater number of smaller collisions during the course of ordinary play? The reality is that the answer is no. The optics of fighting makes it an easy target to vilify. But death by a thousand paper cuts is not easy to vilify because you don't have that one single smoking gun replay in your head, and it is impossible to quantify the aggregate impact of many unique hits in unique circumstances
Ugly question, but when we look at ex players who died too soon and there is blame on concussions and their repercussions, what other factors, some examples being substance abuse and depression (also topics related to brain function) come in to play?
There is the case that we do not need to see fighting shot out of a a cannon in to the sun.
There are some folks that like a good dust up, but more generally the most common argument is around the players being able to police the game.
Here is again a link to the case from Bobby Smith about the function of fighting in the game.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...ticle29300049/
Quote:
A 2013 study titled Bodychecking Rules and Concussion in Elite Hockey endeavoured to determine whether the NHL’s new head contact rule was effective in reducing the occurrence of concussions.
The study analyzed approximately 1,410 NHL games during 30 randomly selected weeks between the 2009-10 and 2011-12 seasons. It found that 8.8 concussions or suspected concussions occurred per 100 NHL games. Of these injuries, 0.8 of a concussion per 100 games was attributed to fighting and the other eight were caused by a variety of means, the most common of which were “Bodychecking with head contact” and “Bodychecking with no head contact.”
The study found that a player was more likely to suffer a concussion by getting hit in the face by a puck than by fighting.
It is clear that we could immediately eliminate the 0.8 of a fight per 100 games if fighting were banned from the NHL. But if Bobby Orr, Jarome Iginla and common sense are to be believed, the elimination of fighting will lead to more reckless and dangerous actions on the ice. Those other eight concussions per 100 games are going to increase, perhaps dramatically.
|
One observation is that only 9ish percent in that study of suspected concussions were tied to fighting.
Further observation - 2009-2012 saw a lot more enforcers on rosters than currently, so the above stats may have improved proportionally, so likely less than 10 percent of suspected concussions would be tied to fighting.
Another point made in that article was restated earlier in this thread.
The case is made by player Iginla and former player Orr that the threat of fights hold players accountable.
Quote:
Another study released in 1999 (Head and Neck Injuries Among Ice Hockey Players Wearing Full Face Shields vs Half Face Shields) analyzed head and neck injuries suffered during the 1997-98 season by Canadian university players. The study documented 79 concussions among the 22 participating teams. Seventy-nine concussions is an astronomical number of head injuries for teams that played 26-game or 28-game regular seasons. The university players suffered concussions at a rate at least two times the rate suffered by the NHL players in the study noted above. There is no fighting in Canadian university hockey.
|
So holding players accountable- for what?
Some previously posters rightly note that intimidation is a part of the game
A big part of the argument against fighting as deterrent is "punching heads can lead to reduction of quality of life". This is supplemented, among other things, that fighting is universally not accepted by society. Likewise, anti bullying campaigns are important right now. Hockey is full of intimidation / bullying / whatever you want to call it.
Hockey is unique from the other sports in many ways. Players carry a piece of equipment that can double as a weapon.
When you hear players and ex players speak, you understand that they know that when you make a bunch of repeated slashes to the calf, they wear a guy down. There is the little slash above the elbow that makes the arm go numb. The butt ends, face washes, etc. So many things that happen so frequently, and that it is pretty much impossible for the 2 on ice refs to see and call everything, and there is a subjective determination of what usage is sufficiently past the line to warrant an infraction.
These guys take advantage of the little opportunities that can help them over the course of a game.
Or you could look back at how vicious Regehr's stick was on Hudler last year when the Flames were eliminating LA. Sometimes they aren't even sneaky about it.
What within the rules held Regehr accountable for that? The rules cover the technicality there and allow for a penalty but don't effectively stop a damaging act or penalize equivalent to the harm they cause.
What on the Flames deterred Regehr? Nothing, really.
Players also regularly travel at speeds roughly equal to the speed of the fastest man on earth (100 m sprinter) while, within the rules, being eligible to make contact, and also while wielding what could be construed as a potential weapon.
Hockey players shoot a puck at the same speeds as fastballs are thrown. Baseball is interesting because hitting a fastball is success at close to the limits of human reflexes. Baseball may have no rules incorporating fighting as part of the game but throwing at that speed towards another player, rather than in the strike zone, is not acceptable snd actually does lead sometimes to fights. In hockey, pucks are a heck of a lot harder and more dense than baseballs, with a surface shape that would make contact much more damaging (pucks with edges compared to spherical balls). Two things here - one is that getting hit by a puck in an exposed area is a risk taken and accepted by hockey players that is not encountered in society or other sports, and secondly, shooting a puck in the direction of other players, same team or opposing, is an acceptable risk assumed as part of play.
These things can cause concussions. Ask Sidney Crosby.
Lots of comparison to other sports, notably football due to the apparently significant identified link between impact in NFL games and CTE.
Is it fair to compare football to hockey? I really don't know. Bettman says no, but obviously does not want to engage in public debate. You could argue that there are many differences
- player size
- playing surface
- direction of players' momentum prior to and then when hitting each other
- nature of play / frequency and nature of hits
I suspect that football players have more repeated jarring hits as hitting is a core element of every play.
I don't have any data but many hits in football are head on as the objective is to stop the other player, often who does not have the ball, but is trying to stop the other player's forward progress, and many in hockey would see the players headed often with a majority of the momentum from their movement going in the same direction (when rubbing a guy out on the boards for example). The boards have some give, and the receiver of a hit is not as commonly imparting the majority of force he can contribute directly in the direction of the other player.
As for tackles, the cement under the turf that NFLers play on does not have a lot of give, and it usually is the weight of two players jarring against it that contribute to the overall impact when they hit the ground.
Then there are the links to CTE that people are researching to establish. Logic makes sense but not enough data to be statistically significant.
Curious that Probert and Montador showed signs of CTE but the brain of Todd Ewen, showed none. I understand that Probert and Montador had other issues including substance abuse.
Now even though Ewen, who had multiple concussions and over 1900 PIM in 518 GP, didn't have CTE, he had apparently issues such as depression and memory loss.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/sports/hockey/nh...-cte-1.3442341
Quote:
"These results indicate that in some athletes, multiple concussions do not lead to the development of CTE," Dr. Lili-Naz Hazrati the neuropathologist who conducted the autopsy, said in the release. "Our findings continue to show that concussions can affect the brain in different ways. This underlines the need to not only continue this research, but also be cautious about drawing any definitive conclusions about CTE until we have more data."
|
Long story short, that was a collection of thoughts related to this topic.
I understand that there are a lot of things that happen in hockey that don't happen on the street, are not acceptable in day to day society, and are potentially harmful. I know that seeing a guy face down on the ice after getting hurt is jarring. I believe that fighting can be harmful. I also understand the perspective that fighting plays a role in holding players accountable, because really the rules and ability to enforce them, are not there yet, whether that means eliminating the causes that lead to fighting or penalizing them adequately to be sufficient in and of themselves (Or in other words, you could say that the metaphor is noted, but the notion that fighting is "voodoo" is quite overly simplistic)
I am not necessarily in favour of fighting, but do think that the arguments on both sides as articulated so far have been simplistic.
(I also may find that in hindsight I should have reviewed and edited this)
