Lindros calls for significant changes to reduce concussions

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not really. The size of the ice still makes it a slower, less interesting game. It also pushes play further away from the net.

Obviously better players will be better players regardless of the rink size, but a larger ice surface doesn't make for a better game. I'm also deeply skeptical that it will have any impact on reducing concussions.

Just as reminder there are options between the NHL rink (~26m wide) and the Olympic rink (30m wide).

In Finland we have lots of rinks that are 28m wide for example. It's a pretty good size, and you might even get the IIHF to agree on that as a new standard for international games, so we could finally have a proper standard everywhere.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by troutman

Don't you think Steve Montador, Wade Belak, Derek Boogaard, Rick Rypien etc would have given all their millions back for their mental health?

Probably. But hindsight is 20/20. Think army veterans with PTSD would rethink their career too? Probably.

We should absolutely be fighting to help these people who are suffering, but I don't agree that removing hitting is the right thing to do. As Weitz said, we know the risks now and nobody is quitting because they're extremely well compensated for it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is anyone in the NHL quitting now when they all know the risks?

Do the Marc Savards and Chris Prongers of the world count?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

These guys make more in one paycheck than I make in an entire year. It sucks that some of them get hurt, but they're more than fairly compensated for the risk. When you have guys in the military making $50k/year putting their life on the line it puts this into perspective a bit.

Maybe that's evil, but to me that makes a huge difference in how I view this.

The presence of a national military is a necessary evil. Hitting in hockey is not. I continue to maintain that the dangers of ECT and the early onset of dementia are not risks that all players knowingly and willingly accept in their entry into professional hockey. Most of them are 18-year-old kids who understandably believe themselves to be invincible, and the only want to play. When I was 18 I was positive that my body could withstand any punishment inflicted, and I made a tonne of stupid decisions on the basis of this thinking.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well of course it’s a parents choice. But I am curious as to who here have decided their kids can’t play hockey. This is after all a hockey fan discussion board. Are there people who are huge fans of the game, give it their time and money, but believe it should be fundamentally changed and don’t want their kids playing.

Hockey was never really an option for us, but my wife and I actively decided against enrolling our youngest son in football this year as a result of the high risk. My oldest son played rugby and one of his teammates suffered a serious concussion that has had a permanent affect on his day-to-day life.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is anyone in the NHL quitting now when they all know the risks?

Originally Posted by N-E-B

...I don't agree that removing hitting is the right thing to do. As Weitz said, we know the risks now and nobody is quitting because they're extremely well compensated for it.

Are the players really in the best position to be making this decision? I think they are too close and too emotionally invested to see things clearly. Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to see what those closest to the situation cannot—or outright refuse to acknowledge.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do the Marc Savards and Chris Prongers of the world count?

No because they quit because they were injured. They didn't quit before the injuries, which is what Weitz was talking about. Nobody is quitting based on the risk alone.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The presence of a national military is a necessary evil. Hitting in hockey is not. I continue to maintain that the dangers of ECT and the early onset of dementia are not risks that all players knowingly and willingly accept in their entry into professional hockey. Most of them are 18-year-old kids who understandably believe themselves to be invincible, and the only want to play. When I was 18 I was positive that my body could withstand any punishment inflicted, and I made a tonne of stupid decisions on the basis of this thinking.

You're right that the military is necessary and hitting isn't. But the NHL players are making a whole lot more money because of that. As for the known risks, if the guys aren't aware of them then why not focus on educating the players on the risks involved?

[Darth Tkachuk]

Removing body checking from the game is an absolute garbage idea. Lindros had his concussions generally from skating with his head down. I would hope that today's players understand the risks of playing the game, and assume some of that risk. I have a feeling that most people who view removing body checking from the game as a good idea, have never played the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

...You're right that the military is necessary and hitting isn't. But the NHL players are making a whole lot more money because of that. As for the known risks, if the guys aren't aware of them then why not focus on educating the players on the risks involved?

Mostly because I don't believe it would make any difference. As I noted above, when players are all cocky teenagers most of them are certain they will come out on the right side of the odds. We can call that an "educated risk," but I don't think this is good enough. Any amount of money a player may make in his career will never replace the lost quality of life before the age of 40.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are the players really in the best position to be making this decision? I think they are too close and too emotionally invested to see things clearly. Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to see what those closest to the situation cannot—or outright refuse to acknowledge.

These are grown men, each with an entourage of family, friends, agents supporting them. I don't think that people with a saviour complex telling them they are incapable of thinking for themselves is the answer either.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

These are grown men, each with an entourage of family, friends, agents supporting them. I don't think that people with a saviour complex telling them they are incapable of thinking for themselves is the answer either.

Generally people are poor judges of their own safety.
There was a time when hockey players were allowed to play without helmets and most ddid
There was a time when in Alberta you could choose to drive without your seatbelt on, and most did. Should we return to that?

This narrative that for some reason because hockey players make a lot of money, this is all ok.
It also completely ignores the fact that this is happening at lower levels of hockey where players don't make a ton of money.

I don't care what the hockey players think overall. We should be listening to the ones that are having to contend with the consequences of sever concussions - or at least those that are still alive that we can listen to.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is anyone in the NHL quitting now when they all know the risks?

I would say that in football we are now seeing some players walk away because of concussions. It is also happening in sports like Lacrosse...Karsen Leung being a local example.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This narrative that for some reason because hockey players make a lot of money, this is all ok.
It also completely ignores the fact that this is happening at lower levels of hockey where players don't make a ton of money.

The money argument isn’t a very strong one. Players in other professional non contact sports can earn the same or more. Players get what they are paid because the league makes a lot of money, not because they might get concussed. It’s not as if players would be taking a pay cut if the league were to remove hitting from the game.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The money argument isn’t a very strong one. Players in other professional non contact sports can earn the same or more. Players get what they are paid because the league makes a lot of money, not because they might get concussed. It’s not as if players would be taking a pay cut if the league were to remove hitting from the game.

What players in other sports can earn is completely irrelevant - if a hockey player is better at baseball and can make many more millions, i.e.: a Tom Glavine, then they can choose to play that sport instead. If they are only a top level athlete at hockey, then the only pay scale that matters is hockey's.

Regardless, players get what they are paid because society places that level of value on the entertainment they provide. And in a contact sport, that includes the contact. If fundamentally altering the game caused the sport's popularity to diminish, then yes, removing hitting from the game very well could result in players taking paycuts.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Generally people are poor judges of their own safety.
There was a time when hockey players were allowed to play without helmets and most ddid
There was a time when in Alberta you could choose to drive without your seatbelt on, and most did. Should we return to that?

This narrative that for some reason because hockey players make a lot of money, this is all ok.
It also completely ignores the fact that this is happening at lower levels of hockey where players don't make a ton of money.

I don't care what the hockey players think overall. We should be listening to the ones that are having to contend with the consequences of sever concussions - or at least those that are still alive that we can listen to.

"The only voices I am interested in hearing are those that agree with me."

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

No because they quit because they were injured. They didn't quit before the injuries, which is what Weitz was talking about. Nobody is quitting based on the risk alone.

Nothing for certain yet but it looks like Rick Nash may be walking away. He would have been signed on July 1 if he wanted to keep playing. From what has been reported he doesn't want to risk getting another concussion and having it affect the rest of his life. He could have signed at least a 3 year contract if he wanted.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Nothing for certain yet but it looks like Rick Nash may be walking away. He would have been signed on July 1 if he wanted to keep playing. From what has been reported he doesn't want to risk getting another concussion and having it affect the rest of his life. He could have signed at least a 3 year contract if he wanted.

While that would qualify, it's still a rather weak example given Nash has already made about $100 million.

But football has some strong examples. Chris Borland was a star NFL rookie who quit after one season due to risk rather than injury. A couple NCAA players have done so as well.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I would say that in football we are now seeing some players walk away because of concussions. It is also happening in sports like Lacrosse...Karsen Leung being a local example.

John Cornish.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If fundamentally altering the game caused the sport's popularity to diminish, then yes, removing hitting from the game very well could result in players taking paycuts.

Yes absolutely, however IMO that still doesn’t qualify as being directly compensated for the contact aspect. If concussions were to increase and fans decided to boycott games because they didn’t want to want to support a league they view as unsafe the same thing would occur without removing hitting from the game.

[Russic]

My line of thinking is similar to Textcritic... it's not out of the realm of possibility to imagine a time when your knees don't work well, or your back aches a lot when you're older. I think it's much harder to imagine a time when you're so depressed you want to die. Whenever you see a story about a guy killing himself who has young kids, one of the common comments is always: I just don't understand how anybody could do this. That's exactly the problem – depression is a bit of a prick that way.

I don't totally blame a kid for entering a league and not taking the risk of depression or other mental illness seriously. It's too hard to understand for a healthy mind.

[BloodFetish]

I'm curious to know what effect changing elbow and shoulder caps would have. If it reduces the dangerous hits to the head without significantly changing the game then why not do it?

The other problem is tackling the "must-play" culture. The NHL needs to get to a place where a player can be honest with their team regarding concussion, injury, or mental health issues, and still feel secure about their place on the team once they're healthy again. Playing silently through concussion-related symptoms because of a fear of being replaced must be a dark and lonely place, and I'd imagine more physically damaging in the long run.