Study finds NHL enforcers die 10 yrs younger than their peers

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I think Pepsi’s comments apply to hits like those delivered by Jacob Trouba on Timo Meier

I don’t think many people are enjoying some of his hits, nor do I think such hits are essential to the game

Big miss there in my opinion. Meier is vulnerable. To watch it is sickening. They should figure out how to eliminate that

Exactly. I think after the hit someone said they’d stop watching if those hits were eliminated but admitted they only happen a few times a year. That makes them an easy out with just slight changes to the rules. Time to call their bluff.

I personally don’t think it’s controversial to say that it shouldn’t be within the rules to blow up unsuspecting players. It happens rarely, takes both players out of the play (usually hurts one of them) and shows zero interest in playing the puck. Generally, it also stops the play because none of the players seem to like watching it happen. Just hard to see the value for anyone, much like fighting (which has become incredibly corny).

I’d make it 5 and a game for fighting and 5 and a 10 for hitting a vulnerable player or hitting through the head.

[SutterBrother]

Hockey was better when you had to be tough as balls to succeed in the league, and missing a couplle of chicklets was a signpost you'd completed a right of passage. Bone crushing open ice hits that left players unconcious, and bloodied sweaters from chucking knuckles. Players didn't wear helmets, and you could identify individuals by their haircuts.

Fortunately we now are fully aware that all of the above causes massive brain injuries long term. As such, all of the above isn't worth it.

The game isn't as good (or at least is "different"). And that's ok given the cost of the trade off.

Ban fighting and hits to the head and move on.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Hockey was better when you had to be tough as balls to succeed in the league, and missing a couplle of chicklets was a signpost you'd completed a right of passage. Bone crushing open ice hits that left players unconcious, and bloodied sweaters from chucking knuckles. Players didn't wear helmets, and you could identify individuals by their haircuts.

Fortunately we now are fully aware that all of the above causes massive brain injuries long term. As such, all of the above isn't worth it.

The game isn't as good (or at least is "different"). And that's ok given the cost of the trade off.

Ban fighting and hits to the head and move on.

User name checks out

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Hockey was better when you had to be tough as balls to succeed in the league, and missing a couplle of chicklets was a signpost you'd completed a right of passage. Bone crushing open ice hits that left players unconcious, and bloodied sweaters from chucking knuckles. Players didn't wear helmets, and you could identify individuals by their haircuts.

Fortunately we now are fully aware that all of the above causes massive brain injuries long term. As such, all of the above isn't worth it.

The game isn't as good (or at least is "different"). And that's ok given the cost of the trade off.

Ban fighting and hits to the head and move on.

Goals and saves have always been more exciting than haircuts and blood.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I personally don’t think it’s controversial to say that it shouldn’t be within the rules to blow up unsuspecting players. It happens rarely, takes both players out of the play (usually hurts one of them) and shows zero interest in playing the puck. Generally, it also stops the play because none of the players seem to like watching it happen. Just hard to see the value for anyone, much like fighting (which has become incredibly corny).

I’d make it 5 and a game for fighting and 5 and a 10 for hitting a vulnerable player or hitting through the head.

How was Meier unsuspecting when he had been carrying the puck up he ice entering the offensive zone? He didn’t “expect” that the D would try and stop him ?

I actually agree that the hit and on a defensiveless player should be 5 and a game. However he wasn’t defenseless at all. Unless we arbitrarily want to ban “big hits” or “hits that hurt” there has to be some level of accountability on the players.

The hit last night by Gudas at/after the whistle was much more a hit on a unsuspecting player and much more dirty.

The NHL has done a good job getting rid of the head clipping cross ice hits and the suicide pass explode your opponent. But carrying the puck 2 zones and into the offensive zone and not paying attention …. That’s fair game for a big hit

[Jiri Hrdina]

I realize it is more complicated than this, but in my view a check (I'm using that word intentionally as it should be about checking not HITTING. The word hit needs to be removed from the game), should be about separating puck from player to retrieve it. Anything more than that should be illegal and hit with severe penalties.
Trouba's hit on Meier is a clear example of a hit that was far more severe than it needed to be.

[bdubbs]

I want more skill players and skilled plays to remove pucks from those players, and less head injuries. I'm tired of reading articles about people dealing with concussions and drug addiction after their careers are ruined.

Watching Makar strip McDavid in last year's playoffs is a prime example of the kind of skilled play I'd prefer versus Trouba's type of play.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Hockey was better when you had to be tough as balls to succeed in the league, and missing a couplle of chicklets was a signpost you'd completed a right of passage. Bone crushing open ice hits that left players unconcious, and bloodied sweaters from chucking knuckles. Players didn't wear helmets, and you could identify individuals by their haircuts.

Fortunately we now are fully aware that all of the above causes massive brain injuries long term. As such, all of the above isn't worth it.

The game isn't as good (or at least is "different"). And that's ok given the cost of the trade off.

Ban fighting and hits to the head and move on.

Spoiler!

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

I want more skill players and skilled plays to remove pucks from those players, and less head injuries. I'm tired of reading articles about people dealing with concussions and drug addiction after their careers are ruined. .

“Yeah but while they are in their 20’s feeling invincible and making millions of dollars they say it’s okay, so we should let them decide!”

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

Hockey was better when you had to be tough as balls to succeed in the league, and missing a couplle of chicklets was a signpost you'd completed a right of passage. Bone crushing open ice hits that left players unconcious, and bloodied sweaters from chucking knuckles. Players didn't wear helmets, and you could identify individuals by their haircuts.

Fortunately we now are fully aware that all of the above causes massive brain injuries long term. As such, all of the above isn't worth it.

The game isn't as good (or at least is "different"). And that's ok given the cost of the trade off.

Ban fighting and hits to the head and move on.

I pretty much agree. If people were made differently and could play the game without helmets, with big hits, with fighting and have no chance of sustaining injuries, it would be fun. It would be fun to play the game that way too, with a sense of invincibility as though people were all comic book heroes. It's too bad people just aren't built that way.

Same thing with not wearing a helmet to ride a bike or a motorcycle, or even things like not smoking.

At the end of the day, it's a good thing that we learn about the injuries and people who have medical expertise, maturity, and experience can make rules to get rid of the needlessly dangerous parts while we still enjoy the activity.

[Strange Brew]

Forwards punishing defensemen after they release the puck by finishing their check is not a part of the game I want to see removed.

[GioforPM]

https://theathletic.com/4479775/2023...imo-meier-hit/

[Leeman4Gilmour]

I was going to say that fights are getting phased out organically and post a graph to illustrate. Which, I still will. But, I suspect some may be as surprised by this as I was.

True "Old time" hockey seems to be the way we're headed;

[Strange Brew]

The hits on vulnerable or defenseless players also need to be defined. In football, it relates to receivers who are in the process of making a catch.

In the NHL, you could make a similar rule about players receiving a pass being defenseless.

Now in the NFL, someone carrying the ball is not considered defenseless. You can’t call a penalty for hitting a RB no matter how hard you hit them (unless it’s to the head).

IMO the NHL rules are just about right. Call major penalties for hits to the head. Consider a player vulnerable when they are receiving a pass or about to play the puck.

But carrying the puck in open ice with your head down? That’s not defenseless. A clean check to the body should be allowed there. And if you’re skating fast, that has the potential to be a very hard hit. So protect yourself.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I was going to say that fights are getting phased out organically and post a graph to illustrate. Which, I still will. But, I suspect some may be as surprised by this as I was.

True "Old time" hockey seems to be the way we're headed;

I wonder what caused the two decades of growth in NHL fighting, and what changed from the late eighties into the early nineties. That's a period before my time to have perspective on

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I wonder what caused the two decades of growth in NHL fighting, and what changed from the late eighties into the early nineties. That's a period before my time to have perspective on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis

Proponents of the lead–crime hypothesis argue that the removal of lead additives from motor fuel, and the consequent decline in children's lead exposure, explains the fall in crime rates in the United States beginning in the 1990s.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I wonder what caused the two decades of growth in NHL fighting, and what changed from the late eighties into the early nineties. That's a period before my time to have perspective on

Rockem Sockem Hockey was 89-mid90s.

The huge brawl in the WJC was 1987.

[Flamesfan05]

Enforcers and hitters are not really the same

Most enforcers could barely make a proper hit

Anyway, tough way to make a living. I always had soft spot for those guys.

[Ashes]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There are still people who say “keep your head up, son” and whine whenever people disagree with monster hits that knock players out.

A big part of the problem isn’t just the NHL and what they want, it’s that there are fans who are happy to see these guys die as part of the cost of preserving the “purity” of the sport.

Just a lil bit of hyperbole perhaps?

Traumatic brain injuries and the deteriorating mental health of enforcer's is the topic of the study being considered, and maybe changes will be made. But suggesting that any real "fans" are happy to see players die as a result of fighting is a pretty wild statement.

The fact that players have been dealing with these health issues after (or sometimes during) their career's as enforcer's is the entire reason we are all here talking about it, doesn't seem like anyone's very happy about it.

[Samonadreau]

So what I see is the fights per game are back to their true norms from the 50's and 60's. Enforcers are no longer part of the game and its back to where it should be.