Sam Bennett Value: Have the Flames held on TOO long? OR is he awesome?

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Sam Bennett?

No?

See ya...

Mark Jankowski?

No?

See ya

[SilverKast]

Came looking for Bennett discussion, will leave satisfied.

Guess I'll go look in the Jankowski thread haha.

[SuperMatt18]

I do think the league does need to do a better job eliminating the blatant headshots and dirty plays from the game but at some point the threat of injury and concussion needs to become an inherent risk of playing the game and the players need to accept that they are taking a risk to play.

I feel like any player joining the league today should be 100% aware of the risks they are taking to play hockey - and they need to make the decision if they are willing to take those risks to be an NHL hockey player. And IMO that is on the NHLPA to ensure the players have all the information and details available to them.

It's much like choosing to be a wrestler / MMA fighter / or a boxer. Those athletes all know that they are getting into a dangerous sport and that there are going to be repercussions from participating in the sport but understand that in order to get the compensation that they want they will have to take that risk.

If you speak to most ex-players and current players they want hitting and fighting to remain part of the game. If the players that play the sport are comfortable with that and are willing to take those risks then the physicality should remain in the game. Not to say the league shouldn't take steps to make the game safer where possible (preferably without drastically changing the whole fabric of the sport) but everyone involved needs to understand the risks involved with what they are doing.

Hell I got a concussion in a Co-Ed CSSC Flag Football game this year. Jumped up to make a catch, kinda got caught up with my own team mate in the air, and smacked my head on the ground when I landed. It was a risk I took and I didn't blame anybody or CSSC for it.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by theslymonkey

Sam Bennett?

No?

See ya...

Sam Bennett made a game momentum swinging beautiful check on Saturday. . There, back on topic.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I do think the league does need to do a better job eliminating the blatant headshots and dirty plays from the game but at some point the threat of injury and concussion needs to become an inherent risk of playing the game and the players need to accept that they are taking a risk to play.

I feel like any player joining the league today should be 100% aware of the risks they are taking to play hockey - and they need to make the decision if they are willing to take those risks to be an NHL hockey player. And IMO that is on the NHLPA to ensure the players have all the information and details available to them.

It's much like choosing to be a wrestler / MMA fighter / or a boxer. Those athletes all know that they are getting into a dangerous sport and that there are going to be repercussions from participating in the sport but understand that in order to get the compensation that they want they will have to take that risk.

If you speak to most ex-players and current players they want hitting and fighting to remain part of the game. If the players that play the sport are comfortable with that and are willing to take those risks then the physicality should remain in the game. Not to say the league shouldn't take steps to make the game safer where possible (preferably without drastically changing the whole fabric of the sport) but everyone involved needs to understand the risks involved with what they are doing.

Hell I got a concussion in a Co-Ed CSSC Flag Football game this year. Jumped up to make a catch, kinda got caught up with my own team mate in the air, and smacked my head on the ground when I landed. It was a risk I took and I didn't blame anybody or CSSC for it.

I posted something similar in another thread but you've said it better than I ever could. There is an inherent risk, as there is with many other sports/jobs, and these players are certainly aware of it.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by SilverKast

Came looking for Bennett discussion, will leave satisfied.

Guess I'll go look in the Jankowski thread haha.

12 pages discussing 1 play by 1 player, Bennett.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I do think the league does need to do a better job eliminating the blatant headshots and dirty plays from the game but at some point the threat of injury and concussion needs to become an inherent risk of playing the game and the players need to accept that they are taking a risk to play.

I feel like any player joining the league today should be 100% aware of the risks they are taking to play hockey - and they need to make the decision if they are willing to take those risks to be an NHL hockey player. And IMO that is on the NHLPA to ensure the players have all the information and details available to them.

It's much like choosing to be a wrestler / MMA fighter / or a boxer. Those athletes all know that they are getting into a dangerous sport and that there are going to be repercussions from participating in the sport but understand that in order to get the compensation that they want they will have to take that risk.

If you speak to most ex-players and current players they want hitting and fighting to remain part of the game. If the players that play the sport are comfortable with that and are willing to take those risks then the physicality should remain in the game. Not to say the league shouldn't take steps to make the game safer where possible (preferably without drastically changing the whole fabric of the sport) but everyone involved needs to understand the risks involved with what they are doing.

Hell I got a concussion in a Co-Ed CSSC Flag Football game this year. Jumped up to make a catch, kinda got caught up with my own team mate in the air, and smacked my head on the ground when I landed. It was a risk I took and I didn't blame anybody or CSSC for it.

Having many contacts and direct friends in the game both minor and major pro, they all want no changes to the hitting with the exception of a direct headshot. They also want fighting in the game, instinctive fighting, not the staged ones.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I think it's pretty dumb to assume if you take a borderline charge out of hockey you won't see guys stand up at the blueline or bang a guy in the corner or put a hip on someone in the neutral zone.

Putting aside the attempt to torture the definition of charging in a failed attempt to hold the moral high ground, I would say this assumption isn't as dumb as you are trying to argue.

When I look at your and Jiri's reaction to this hit, I see judgment based on outcome rather than action. Someone was believed to be concussed on that hit, therefore you're both looking for excuses to make the hit out as malicious (you) or unwarranted (Jiri).

It stands to reason that if someone ends up with a concussion because they got stood up at the blue line or banged in the corner that you would be right back here trying to reinvent the nature of what happened to argue those events crossed the line too.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure that if someone suffered a concussion by tripping and hitting their head on a doorknob, you would be calling for a ban on doors.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I will say that I can't understand how MMA is acceptable as a sport still. I don't know much about it and don't watch it, except for following the big stories such as the broo-haha from the last big fight.
What is the concussion rates from MMA? I assume to be high but I don't really know for sure.
Same with boxing I suppose.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I will say that I can't understand how MMA is acceptable as a sport still. I don't know much about it and don't watch it, except for following the big stories such as the broo-haha from the last big fight.
What is the concussion rates from MMA? I assume to be high but I don't really know for sure.
Same with boxing I suppose.

Concussion rates are high. It's kind of an end goal of the whole contest.

Athletic commissions can then issue suspensions that prevent the athlete from competing or participating in contact training These suspensions can range from a month to 6 based on the perceived impact or severity of the injury:

For the first time in California, mixed martial artists – along with professional boxers – will undergo testing before and possibly after bouts to help determine if they have suffered neurological damage or deficiencies.

All fighters scheduled for Saturday’s UFC Fight Night on Fox at Golden 1 Center have been given baseline testing on cognitive awareness and balance using an iPad with proprietary software designed for the C3 protocol. It stands for Comprehensive Concussion Care and is modeled after tests administered by the Cleveland Clinic’s Professional Fighter Brain Health Study.

Jeff Novitzky, the UFC’s vice president of athlete health and performance, said if a fighter is knocked out or takes enough significant shots to the head, ringside physicians will order post-fight C3 tests that will inform the UFC about lengths of possible medical suspensions. Those suspensions could last as many as 180 days, although 45- and 60-day medical suspensions are common in the UFC, Novitzky said. The California State Athletic Commission has partnered with the UFC to help establish and administer the C3 protocols at all sanctioned MMA events in California starting Saturday.

“This new C3 protocol gives us baseline objective and measurable data on a fighter before a fight and can be given to the fighter after a bout to see if they are hurt. They can ask for another test to compare,” Novitzky said. “The feedback from the first fighters tested (Tuesday) has been great.”

Novitzky said the test process takes about 20 to 25 minutes and includes the fighter holding an iPad. The test is described as being somewhat similar to a field sobriety test, which includes a cognition portion and a balance portion. Part of the cognition portion entails fighters counting numbers forward and backward into the iPad’s microphone. They also use the iPad’s screen to recognize symbols and patterns in timed sequences. The balance portion of the test includes having fighters close their eyes and maintain balance on one leg while holding the iPad away from their body. The iPad’s gyroscope can sense balance issues that may point to a concussion. The data is sent to the UFC, the appropriate athletic commissions and the Cleveland Clinic. That data is checked and rechecked to reveal possible neurological declines.

“The testing will be an annual process for UFC fighters, eventually,” Novitzky said. “As people age they decline naturally in neurocognition. But we want to see if fighters decline quicker and, if so, how and why?”

The UFC signed a five-year extension in February with the Cleveland Clinic and provided $1 million for the study focusing on early identification of brain function declines and prediction of long-term neurological effects. The study’s physicians are trying to understand why fighters with similar exposure to repeated head strikes are affected differently.

Sacramento MMA fighter Josh Emmett faces Scott Holtzman in a lightweight match Saturday. Both fighters took the baseline test Tuesday; Emmett said he appreciates the safety measures taken by the UFC and athletic commission.

“They’re taking extra precautions and looking out for the fighters,” said Emmett, an El Camino High School graduate who has a 10-0 MMA record. “Having a baseline is great. You can’t cheat science, and hopefully some guys won’t get back into the gym if they’re hurt.”

Emmett, who will compete in just his second UFC fight, said he likely suffered a minor concussion after a hard-fought victory over Christos Giagos in a West Coast Fighting Championship bout in January. While the WFC did not give him a medical suspension, Emmett said he would expect one from the UFC should he take heavy blows Saturday.

“Luckily the (C3) test isn’t pass/fail,” Emmett said.

Eventually, baseline and subsequent testing ordered by ringside physicians will be required for any boxer or MMA fighter to be licensed in California, said Andy Foster, state athletic commission executive officer.

“The commission doesn’t have eyes in every gym in the state and many fighters go back into the gym and spar even though they may be on a medical suspension,” Foster said. “Hopefully, they can use the C3 tests to see if they are hurt and hopefully the trainers will see the information and they’ll uphold the suspensions.”

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I will say that I can't understand how MMA is acceptable as a sport still. I don't know much about it and don't watch it, except for following the big stories such as the broo-haha from the last big fight.
What is the concussion rates from MMA? I assume to be high but I don't really know for sure.
Same with boxing I suppose.

You may as well question every single other combative sport then on why they exist too. It's a completely moot point. Come on, the objective is to hit people in the face really hard.

To answer your question, licensing for both fighters and promotions are very tightly regulated by state athletic commissions. USADA-regulated drug testing for PEDs was introduced recently. Flash has a good excerpt there that goes into detail.

How serious the concussions are during KOs... it really depends on the referee in the heat of the moment and the victim of the KO. Does this fighter have a history of getting knocked out? Is the official able to stop the fight before serious damage is incurred?

Usually they are good about it and immediately wave the fight over once they see the knockout and no further strikes are thrown. Unlike in boxing, where you give the guy a change to stagger back to his feet and recieve more punches to the head (with heavier gloves too).

In addition - once the fight is over, both fighters are subject to a medical examination and there are often medical suspensions, up to six months, for those depending on the severity of the results. Usually for KOs I think they do the maximum time alloted.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

You may as well question every single other combative sport then on why they exist too. It's a completely moot point. Come on, the objective is to hit people in the face really hard. .

Yeah... that’s exactly what Jiris point is that you bolded.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

The Great Softening of Society continues...

Some would call this progress...

· No one dies at the end of an athletic contest? ... soft.
· Anaesthetics for surgical procedures? ... soft.
· Dentistry? ... soft.
· Labour laws and unions? ... soft.
· Flight simulators? ... soft.
· Workers compensation? ... soft.
· Paid holidays? ... soft.
· Helmets? ... soft.
· Visors? ... so soft.

...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

You may as well question every single other combative sport then on why they exist too. It's a completely moot point. Come on, the objective is to hit people in the face really hard...

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah... that’s exactly what Jiris point is that you bolded.

I'm on board with this as well.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I do think the league does need to do a better job eliminating the blatant headshots and dirty plays from the game but at some point the threat of injury and concussion needs to become an inherent risk of playing the game and the players need to accept that they are taking a risk to play.

I feel like any player joining the league today should be 100% aware of the risks they are taking to play hockey - and they need to make the decision if they are willing to take those risks to be an NHL hockey player. And IMO that is on the NHLPA to ensure the players have all the information and details available to them.

It's much like choosing to be a wrestler / MMA fighter / or a boxer. Those athletes all know that they are getting into a dangerous sport and that there are going to be repercussions from participating in the sport but understand that in order to get the compensation that they want they will have to take that risk.

If you speak to most ex-players and current players they want hitting and fighting to remain part of the game. If the players that play the sport are comfortable with that and are willing to take those risks then the physicality should remain in the game. Not to say the league shouldn't take steps to make the game safer where possible (preferably without drastically changing the whole fabric of the sport) but everyone involved needs to understand the risks involved with what they are doing.

Hell I got a concussion in a Co-Ed CSSC Flag Football game this year. Jumped up to make a catch, kinda got caught up with my own team mate in the air, and smacked my head on the ground when I landed. It was a risk I took and I didn't blame anybody or CSSC for it.

Yes but did anyone see it and start petitioning to have jumping removed from your CSSC flag football game???

Honestly, this is absolutely correct.

Professional Hockey Players are responsible to make their own decisions, they can either play, understanding the risks and rewards, or not play.

People who want to remove hitting from the game are speaking on behalf of people who they ASSUME share their opinion without ever asking for it.

Jiri and Flash are both assuming that Compher, or anyone else who gets injured playing professional hockey, would want hitting removed without actually considering the opinions of the people on who's behalf they are arguing.

And do you know what happens when you assume?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Yes but did anyone see it and start petitioning to have jumping removed from your CSSC flag football game???

Honestly, this is absolutely correct.

Professional Hockey Players are responsible to make their own decisions, they can either play, understanding the risks and rewards, or not play.

People who want to remove hitting from the game are speaking on behalf of people who they ASSUME share their opinion without ever asking for it.

Jiri and Flash are both assuming that Compher, or anyone else who gets injured playing professional hockey, would want hitting removed without actually considering the opinions of the people on who's behalf they are arguing.

And do you know what happens when you assume?

I don't want hitting removed - I have a more nuanced view. But that is not what they are doing at all. Neither has argued from the hitee's perspective.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

...People who want to remove hitting from the game are speaking on behalf of people who they ASSUME share their opinion without ever asking for it.

Jiri and Flash are both assuming that Compher, or anyone else who gets injured playing professional hockey, would want hitting removed without actually considering the opinions of the people on who's behalf they are arguing...

Except they are not.

Jiri has posted a lot about this and it is abundantly clear from his posting history that he is keenly aware that the vast majority of NHL players do not share his opinion. But sometimes, that does not matter. If an issue is serious enough, and if the risks present enough jeopardy to public safety then advocating for change is something that transcends the opinions of even those most close to the issue.

I personally do not think that NHL players opinions ought to trump all others in this. If changes to the game can be introduced that will protect the long term health and safety of players while maintaining the quality of entertainment, then this is something that I think should happen—regardless of whether this is what the players want.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't want hitting removed - I have a more nuanced view. But that is not what they are doing at all. Neither has argued from the hitee's perspective.

By saying that hit needs to be removed, because it caused injury, is indeed assuming the opinion of the Hittee. If the hittee is fine with the hit and would rather it be in then they are merely voicing an opinion held by a minute percentage of hockey fans.

If they are indeed arguing as a fan, then my initial comment of "anyone who wants the bennett hit out of hockey should find a new sport" then becomes more relevant and I believe is shared by the vast majority of fans, participants and advertisers / business partners of the league.

I am all in favour of removing head shots, the science shows its too dangerous, but removing hitting takes a large amount of the entertainment value away.

But these guys are grown adults, consenting to play the game and get paid well to do it, and they have no problem with it.

If you (collective, not just you Gio) have a problem with that then go watch basketball.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

...If they are indeed arguing as a fan, then my initial comment of "anyone who wants the bennett hit out of hockey should find a new sport" then becomes more relevant and I believe is shared by the vast majority of fans, participants and advertisers / business partners of the league...

...If you (collective, not just you Gio) have a problem with that then go watch basketball.

These straw man retorts are not remotely helpful. The fact of the matter is that there are fans who love the game, but are sickened by the physical and psychological toll that is exacted by an aspect of the game. Telling us to "go watch basketball" merely signals to me that you are uninterested in weighing other opinions in this discussion.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

By saying that hit needs to be removed, because it caused injury, is indeed assuming the opinion of the Hittee. If the hittee is fine with the hit and would rather it be in then they are merely voicing an opinion held by a minute percentage of hockey fans.

No it isn't.

I don't think what hockey players want or are willing to risk is the end of the debate at all. Hockey players didn't want helmets to be mandatory, or visors.

If they voted to allow spearing would that be good with you?