Lindros calls for significant changes to reduce concussions

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't mean to sound crass or insensitive to the men living with CTE, but the money thing counts to a large extent.

No one says here is a 10M paycheck and a guaranteed concussion and CTE.

It's more like here's a 10M paycheck, but you may get concussed.

Personally, I would take that chance 10 out of 10 times.

How much money do bantam and midget players make where hitting is within the rules?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

People get far to defensive on these types of subjects and take things personally, when there is really no need to. Since the scientific revolution we have changed from a mindset where our traditions and holy books know everything, and switched to a mindset which acknowledges that we do not know everything and it is up to us to discover and learn more.

But with this comes the fact that everything will always be changing to keep with what we know now. This means that you cannot fault people for making decisions in the past that we now know better about. As long as the person made the decision with the best knowledge available at the time, they were responsible. Where problems come is when people do not adapt to what we have learned.

You see this all the time in things like medicine. There are many traditional treatments that we now know are dangerous, and we have developed better alternatives to them. For example, say there is a traditional treatment that we now know has the side effect of increased child mortality. The people who used it at the time were not horrible people for risking their child's life, they could not have known any better at the time. The people who are horrible are the ones who are still using the old treatment and needlessly killing children do to the higher risk.

But our brains do not draw that distinction very well, so people who used it before we knew better get defensive and defend its use now because they feel like admitting that we now know better would somehow make them guilty in the past. This turns them from innocent victims of our lack of knowledge, to actively defending a practice which results in more children dying. It is sad, but we need to compassion if we want to break these cycles.

This is all well and good and I agree to a point but Hockey is entertainment.

Call me an idiot or a fool or whatever you want but I like watching hockey that has some inherent danger in it. It adds to the excitement level, and honestly, there will always be collisions and removing hitting solves nothing. Removing headshots is fine, but the fact remains that the NHL would lose a LOT of fans if they went with Lindros's suggestions.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

How much money do bantam and midget players make where hitting is within the rules?

You know exactly how much money they get, so I'm not sure the point of your question.



If you are arguing that legal hitting should be abolished at minor levels as well as in the NHL, that is a different story.



Removing hitting at all levels may be the answer and the eventuality of hockey. I maintain that the entertainment value will suffer greatly if that happens. Take it for what you will.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You know exactly how much money they get, so I'm not sure the point of your question.



If you are arguing that legal hitting should be abolished at minor levels as well as in the NHL, that is a different story.



Removing hitting at all levels may be the answer and the eventuality of hockey. I maintain that the entertainment value will suffer greatly if that happens. Take it for what you will.

Isn’t that what we are talking about? Changing the game itself? It’s why I don’t get the money argument.

Hockey is a big part of Canada’s culture. Not just the NHL. And I don’t agree with abolishing hitting but you can’t abolish hitting at the NHL and leave it in place everywhere else.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

People get far to defensive on these types of subjects and take things personally, when there is really no need to. Since the scientific revolution we have changed from a mindset where our traditions and holy books know everything, and switched to a mindset which acknowledges that we do not know everything and it is up to us to discover and learn more.

But with this comes the fact that everything will always be changing to keep with what we know now. This means that you cannot fault people for making decisions in the past that we now know better about. As long as the person made the decision with the best knowledge available at the time, they were responsible. Where problems come is when people do not adapt to what we have learned.

You're making an assumption that in the past society valued safety just as highly as we do now, and the only thing that has changed is we know more about risks. I think we need to recognize that only do we know more about the long-term health effects of things like head trauma (and smoking, drinking, etc.), we place a much higher value on reducing those risks than people did in the past. Our notions of acceptable risk have changed.

But how much they've changed varies person to person. Just look at how wide the range of attitudes are around child safety. Some are content to raise kids the way they were raised 30 years ago. Others avidly try to remove any possible chance of harm coming to their children. Most people fall somewhere in between.

No doubt we'll change our expectations around hockey. But let's not pretend it's a simple matter of making obvious changes as more science comes to light. It's still a judgement call based on competing values.

[renny]

Originally Posted by Weitz

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

Not necessarily the NHL, but there are athletes that are quitting sports learning about the risks.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...afety-concerns

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by flambers

Concussion issue is not only associated with Hockey, to remove physical contact would be an interesting debate in terms of how would this effect the other major league sports?

From a kids sports perspective, from my view soccer had the bigger issue in terms of concussions.

More likely area to focus is the equipment and is the game to quick.....

My view, there is no chance the player associations would approve the elimination of body contact.

I have heard that concussions are a major and increasing issue in soccer, and this has me curious about whether the effects are the same as what we have seen in hockey and football. Are soccer players developing symptoms of CTE in later years? Are there incidents of former professional soccer players seeing their lives fall apart after retirement and resort to living on the street like Joe Murphy? Are there reports of suicides and drug overdoses for former professional soccer players similar to those of Derek Boogard, Steve Montador, Wade Belak, Mike Webster, Terry Long, or Junior Seau?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have heard that concussions are a major and increasing issue in soccer, and this has me curious about whether the effects are the same as what we have seen in hockey and football. Are soccer players developing symptoms of CTE in later years? Are there incidents of former professional soccer players seeing their lives fall apart after retirement and resort to living on the street like Joe Murphy? Are there reports of suicides and drug overdoses for former professional soccer players similar to those of Derek Boogard, Steve Montador, Wade Belak, Mike Webster, Terry Long, or Junior Seau?

In short, no. That's not to say there's absolutely no talk or no evidence of it, but I struggle to think of even one well known case. There has been increased discussion and certainly the sport should not let clearly concussed players back on the pitch, which is what mostly happens now. But it does not seem to be a major risk.

In general retired soccer players seem to have much less problems than retired hockey players, but Im not going to claim that's based on anything tangible.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

In short, no. That's not to say there's absolutely no talk or no evidence of it, but I struggle to think of even one well known case. There has been increased discussion and certainly the sport should not let clearly concussed players back on the pitch, which is what mostly happens now. But it does not seem to be a major risk.

In general retired soccer players seem to have much less problems than retired hockey players, but Im not going to claim that's based on anything tangible.

Thanks for that. One would think that if the effects were as devastating in other sports as they have been in football and hockey this is something we would know more publicly. Wikipedia tells me that a semi-pro player Patrick Grange was diagnosed with CTE in an autopsy. He died at the age of 29 from sever ALS. Both Hilderado Bellini and Pelé were discovered to have CTE after they passed. Bellini suffered from Alzheimer's disease later in life and lived to be 83-years old, but Pelé appears to have lived a highly productive life until the day he died this summer.

Both of these players don't seem to have experienced the sort of rapid and extreme cognitive degradation that is becoming practically epidemic in hockey and football. I think that should tell us something about the higher level of danger extreme physicality in these sports can have.

[Itse]

Umm, Pelé isn't dead.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

Umm, Pelé isn't dead.

Whoops. I misread that.

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

This sounds like 'old man yelling at the clouds'

They are top tier athletes who want to get every possible mental edge over their opponent. If i can face-wash him a little bit in front of the net and its gonna make him pause for even a quarter of a second before going into the corner with me, thats the sort of advantage these guys need. If I can knock you off your game because you are focused on being mad at me instead of thinking about where your outlet pass is, even better.

calling pushing after the whistle violence is taking it way too far, its a little jostling and I think you can ask any player in the NHL if they see a major problem with it and they will tell you no. But if you think players will respect each other more just because they can't jostle after the whistle you are wrong. The trash-talk and crude language that goes on in the NFL and NBA is way worse than in the NHL. Would you rather kids look up to a bunch of whiny babies like nba players or heart on their sleeve hockey players.

I think what im trying to say is players will always find a way to get an edge on their opponent. That is at the heart of any competition where you compete head to head, and removing the physical aspect will only lead to something else which I would say is worse to teach the next generation.

Obviously the NHL needs to do something to eliminate the egregious high hits and a targetting rule would be a very logical step. But it doesn't need to go the no hitting, no fighting route.

Straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man.

Some posters have suggested banning all hitting, cracking down on scrums between plays, etc. Did you even read this thread?

[sempuki]

I haven't read every post, but I don't think *posters* are suggesting anything of the sort. I think the thread is titled "*Lindros* calls for significant changes". What I react to is people saying "if they make significant changes I won't watch anymore", meaning their entertainment supercedes the brain health of the players.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man.

This would have looked far less foolish had you read the article and realized that removing contact is exactly what Eric Lindros is suggesting. It's not a strawman, it's the actual topic.

[Textcritic]

This discussion emerged in the Zetterberg thread and I think it would be better to continue it here ...

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Not sure what Prongering means but if there is any question about the seriousness of Mule's concussion just read this:

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/n...910rdl1rrz5i5i

So I have no idea how this could be considered a blemish on the Wings.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is a long highlight video of that game from 10 October 2015 included with that article. The hit occurred at the 14:05–mark of the second period. What is amazing is that Franzen gets up and brushes it off right away—he is laughing and joking with teammates; he appears to be fine. Franzen leaves the ice and goes to the dressing room, but then he returns to the game even before the end of the second period, and finishes the third on the powerplay.

Looking at how much he is struggling now it really serves to reinforce how serious even the apparently benign head injuries can be, and how difficult their severity is to diagnose. When you watch that highlight package I very much doubt that anyone would predict from this an end to Franzen's career, and quite possibly the quality of the rest of his life. This is scary stuff.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Also reinforces why you can't possibly make a diagnosis on whether someone's brain is impaired by asking them to tell you if their brain is impaired.

That's what is so ####ed up to me about the concussion issue. When the potential injury is to critical faculties, it is negligent to then rely on those critical faculties as a means of justifying exposure to future injury.

People with brain injuries often cannot accurately describe the nature or severity of their brain injury because the brain is injured.

I don't know what mechanism should be put in place to protect athletes from themselves, but ultimately they can't be relied upon to judge the extent of their own injuries.

This is exactly what the problem boils down to: The NHL has simply done a deplorable job in addressing the severity of concussions and the real danger of CTE. The current NHL Concussion Protocol is laughably ineffective, as it continues to rely on the judgment of individual teams, coaches, and the players themselves to assess their own health. I think this is from where extreme measures like those proposed by Lindros and Dryden stem—if the League is not going to mandate and enforce a rigorous and sensible procedure for handling minor head injuries, then it should come as no surprise that the elimination of body checking has now become a viable talking point.

[powderjunkie]

Sorry if it's already been brought up as I only skimmed the thread, but I have two simple (albeit drastic) rule changes that I think would make the game safer and more entertaining:

1. 4 on 4.
2. The stick can only be used for the purpose of attempting to play the puck. Anything else is a penalty. No grey area.

Throwing a body check after the puck is gone is a lot less smart when it leaves the rest of the ice at 3 on 3. Missing an open ice body check would be damn near disastrous.


A third change that I haven't given a ton of thought to is to increase the flow of the game and reduce stoppages (thereby perhaps justifying keeping rosters a bit bigger than necessary w/ 4 on 4): on an offside whistle, the offending team has to leave the puck alone (or gently dump it in behind the goal line - firing it too hard would be a delay of game penalty) - offending team has to race back and circle their own face-off dot before defending outside of their zone (ie. if the team now possessing the puck acts fast enough, they have free entrance into the attacking zone - once the puck enters the zone it's all fair game). Both teams are allowed to change.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is exactly what the problem boils down to: The NHL has simply done a deplorable job in addressing the severity of concussions and the real danger of CTE. The current NHL Concussion Protocol is laughably ineffective, as it continues to rely on the judgment of individual teams, coaches, and the players themselves to assess their own health. I think this is from where extreme measures like those proposed by Lindros and Dryden stem—if the League is not going to mandate and enforce a rigorous and sensible procedure for handling minor head injuries, then it should come as no surprise that the elimination of body checking has now become a viable talking point.

One of the direct impacts of the Wideman fiasco was the addition of a neutral third party spotter with the power to force players out of the game and into the protocol: https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-updates...ol/c-282571624

Though, yes, the NHL and NHLPA could do more to strengthen the program.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

1. 4 on 4.
2. The stick can only be used for the purpose of attempting to play the puck. Anything else is a penalty. No grey area.

Throwing a body check after the puck is gone is a lot less smart when it leaves the rest of the ice at 3 on 3. Missing an open ice body check would be damn near disastrous.

Few problems here... first, no stick checking? No lifting of the stick? Wow, and I thought the proposal to eliminate physical play was bold and radical. Second, even if you make the game 4 on 4, coaches will find a way to trap it up. That's what they do. Third, the NHLPA will never sign on to a change that effectively eliminates 20% of the required jobs in the league. Fourth, if you make everything stick-related illegal, prepare for a whole bunch of new and inventive ways for players to embellish to get calls.

Dunno why you're talking about stick checking anyway. There are plenty of rules to prevent stick abuse in the rulebook that just aren't called. They could call them on every play, and presumably over the course of the next couple of seasons people would stop doing them (in admidst a whole lot of whining and diving). Apparently there's no appetite to do so.

[Resolute 14]

If increasing the flow of games is a desired outcome powder, then you seriously need to rethink your draconian stick rule.