Lindros calls for significant changes to reduce concussions

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by sempuki

I'm a hockey fan no matter what. How can you rationalize asking another man to get brain damage for your entrainment?

Broken bones heal. Torn ligaments can be reattached. How do you give a man his mind back?

How do you get a man his mind back? Get him a divorce!

Removing body contact is silly. Not every body check results in brain damage. I also think there would be a lot more diving and that's just not fun to watch.

Injuries happen, its a risk players take but let's not pretend everyone in the NHL has brain damage(and those who do end up running the oilers!)

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

How is he a hypocrite?
He, like all of us, had no idea what damage those hits were doing when he played

Fair point, but did he think that hitting and headshots we're good for people? No. Like, we're talking about 2007, not 1930 here. I've had my bell rung, pre-concussion craze. Never once did I think that there wasent going to be repercussions. Never occurred to him after several concussions? When I played football and rugby, I never tried to inflict injury. He did, more then once. I'd rather hear from someone that wasn't dishing it out worse then he got it.

I have an immense dislike for Lindros, maybe that's clouding things for me. I just can't see him as a victim.

[gamesaver]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I get where Lindros is coming from. His career was cut short from 90s and early 2000s hockey. Like Kariya. But they've changed the game to address that. They really need to hammer guys like Marchand today to really send home the message. That high elbow on Marcus Johansen was the epitome of what hockey needs to eliminate.

I thought Lindros had to quit because of eye surgery, not "just" because of consussion. I agree it is a serious problem which has to be addressed, but if you look at those victims, they are usually fighters, enforcers, though guys or lets say hitters , who were giving and receiving a lot. Now when their health catch up on them, they are starting to wave a red flag. But at the same time, there is a majority of players that were playing the same league during the same time, some of them had great, long careers, but were able to avoid serious brain damage problems. We can call it luck or we can take a look at the difference in how they were playing the game. I think there is no need for drastical changes, just stay on course of promoting skill instead of toughness. We can´t make a pro sport safe, but we can make it safer by banning cheap shots, heashots, dirty plays etc. I would better ban individuals who commit those, especially recidivism and it has to be unconditional. For example, in my book, Dustin Brown should have been banned for lifetime already after those numerous critical injuries he deliberatly caused, no matter if he is LAK captain or not.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

When I was playing University sanctioned rugby, there was a guy in that league one year that was paralyzed as a result of a scrum that collapsed. Freak accident,

Huge difference between a freak accident and a statistical eventuality.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by sempuki

Huge difference between a freak accident and a statistical eventuality.

My comment was based on the premise that I would like to know what players thought, based on the new understanding of concussions and the information that is out there, and illustrated it by referencing my own experience when confronted by my own personal safety. But anyways... Concussions don't happen accidently? Suppose they remove hitting; guy takes a slapshot to the chin, blacks out, falls over and smashes his helmet clad noggin on the ice. Concussion. Softer pucks? No slap shots? No of course not. It's about limiting exposure. How about toughening up the suspensions for commiting head shots? What is with this repeat offender status being reset after an incident free period (1 year I think)? Time off for good behaviour is BS. How bout instead banning guys that are repeat offenders? The fear of losing your livelyhood is a powerful motivator. All I'm saying is maybe try and actually lock it down before fundamentally changing the game.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by sempuki

I watch for the things other than the brain damage inducting plays. You're saying that if they took the brain damaging inducting plays out yours refuse to watch. Those are two different things entirely. "Whataboutism" is a argumentation that needs to die a painful death.

And ultimately it's the players choice whether the participate, and at least this one player is saying it should be taken out. How do I tell that player "if you refuse to accept brain damaging I will stop paying you to play the game you invested your life into?"

I never said I'd quit watching. Someone else did.
We all watch the game for something other than brain damage inducing plays.

The way you're talking in this thread you should be refusing to watch until hits are gone. With your strong feelings on the matter, it seems hypocritical of you to still enjoy viewing a sport that currently ruins so many lives.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I never said I'd quit watching. Someone else did.
We all watch the game for something other than brain damage inducing plays.

The way you're talking in this thread you should be refusing to watch until hits are gone. With your strong feelings on the matter, it seems hypocritical of you to still enjoy viewing a sport that currently ruins so many lives.

That makes no sense what so ever, is lazy argumentation, and everyone in this room is dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[カナダ人です]

I'm not a proponent of eliminating body checking, or even fighting from hockey. But I also don't think if you did it would ruin the game.

Women's hockey has neither fighting or body checking (legally, that is), and I've seen some great games played.

In fact, in the NHL today I often see several shifts in succession or even several minutes where a "body check" isn't thrown, let alone a fight...



(And with regards to Soccer... I don't know why people don't think that isn't a physical game. I pick up more injuries playing soccer than hockey!! And FIFA/soccer is waaaaaaay behind regarding head injuries! Just today I was watching the Gent vs Eupen game and one of the goalies got knocked in the head and was basically knocked out. They gave him a few mins and he continued the game....)

[Barnet Flame]

I think that we need to look at how the rules as they stand are enforced. I’m in favour of eliminating goonery from the sport.

What right do goons like Cooke, Marchand and Wilson have to play in a way that significantly increases an opponent’s chances of a life changing and debilitating injury?

Off the ice, you get locked up for that kind of thuggery. In the NHL you may get a suspension for a few games but after that you’re back in to do it all again. And again. And again.

It sickens me that thugs like Cooke and Marchand not only get away with this, they have profited from it. What they have taken from the game and the lifestyle afforded to them as a result of dragging the sport into the dirt is disgusting.

Let’s take that right out of the game. We can do that without changing the rules on how the sport is to be played.

Seriously let’s kick the bastards who are willing to substantially increase the risk of an opponent having their life inalterably ruined, out of the game.

Then let’s see how that affects players and their health. And not just at the NHL level, but all levels of the sport. How much goes on that we don’t hear about because the profile of non NHL players is so low, we never hear about it.

If after kicking the goons out, there are still unacceptable levels of injury then we need to look at fundamental changes to the game. But before we do that, let’s aggressively apply the existing rules we already have.

[Ragnar]

I'm in the camp saying that the dirty players ALA Cook, Classic Scott Stevens and even the more recent Tom Wilson kind of players should be severely punished for DIRTY hits. That being said, clean body to body ice checks is one the reasons that I fell in love with game and taking that out is would put an extremely bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the NHL.

I do appreciate that guys in later stages/after their careers suffer head injury symptoms but when was the last time an NHL'er had their career ended because of a hit?

I'm also curious to see the type of damage done in the lower leagues such as the AHL and even overseas just to get a wider grasp of the issue.

IMHO the NHL needs contact or it becomes a completely different game.

[CroFlames]

All I will say is that it's already creeping in and the game is suffering for it.

There's been many a regular season game with tons of flow, but the lack of hitting made the games less intense and therefore the back and forth became routine and frankly boring.

I worry if there are actual rule changes to eliminate hitting.

[speede5]

There's got to be a way to get rid of the body armor without making a player more susceptible to injury.

Softer pads, less armor, from the waist up. If it hurts to hit someone at full tilt people will lay up on their hits but it won't take contact out of the game. Those cheap elbows to the head as a player skates by aren't going to do near as much damage if there's no armor plate on the elbow.

Hockey without contact would suck, but seeing two guys collide at full stride doesn't need to happen.

[Russic]

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.

I would almost fall into this category. I've been a season ticket holder for close to 20 years, but I won't put my kids in hockey. Off the top of my head I can think of 4 other couples I know that share that sentiment. Perhaps if I'd had my kids 10 years earlier things would be different, but with all we've learned over the past decade it's a hard thing to justify for us.

Further cementing our feet in the sand is the fact that my wife teaches junior high, and the concussions she sees in some of her students each year are quite bad.

As for the overall answer, there probably isn't one. Realistically hockey probably shouldn't have hitting, but what does that do to the fanbase? It's not as if the NHL can stand to lose a percentage of their fans – there are probably individual video games in e-sport leagues that draw more viewership.

Our best example of hockey without hitting remains the Olympics, but those are all-star teams playing for a huge outcome. I'm not sure a non-hitting game between the Coyotes and Blue Jackets on a Tuesday evening would be too similar.

Hoping for equipment changes is a legitimate option, but a lot of the problem is still the speed. There's really no helmet that will make going from 35km/h to a dead stop safe. Even as Everlast pointed out, when you see concussions coming from heading a soccer ball, this problem is going to be hell to solve.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by カナダ人です

I'm not a proponent of eliminating body checking, or even fighting from hockey. But I also don't think if you did it would ruin the game.

Women's hockey has neither fighting or body checking (legally, that is), and I've seen some great games played.

In fact, in the NHL today I often see several shifts in succession or even several minutes where a "body check" isn't thrown, let alone a fight...



(And with regards to Soccer... I don't know why people don't think that isn't a physical game. I pick up more injuries playing soccer than hockey!! And FIFA/soccer is waaaaaaay behind regarding head injuries! Just today I was watching the Gent vs Eupen game and one of the goalies got knocked in the head and was basically knocked out. They gave him a few mins and he continued the game....)

Women's hockey....? The only good games which are usually once every 4 years between the Cdns and Americans are only good because they hate each other and they try to hit.

Seriously, you would pay $200/ticket to watch a non contact all star game for 42 games a year? (hmm well i guess the Flames would win the cup since we are the most "unphysical" team in the league. I'll just tune in for the parade)

[locsofblu]

Not sure what else they can do. They've pretty much done away with fighting and assess big fines and penalties for hits to the head. It's a fast game and there's a risk in everything. That's why these guys get paid millions of dollars to do what they do.

[locsofblu]

Originally Posted by Poe969

How do you get a man his mind back? Get him a divorce!

Removing body contact is silly. Not every body check results in brain damage. I also think there would be a lot more diving and that's just not fun to watch.

Injuries happen, its a risk players take but let's not pretend everyone in the NHL has brain damage(and those who do end up running the oilers!)

Hear hear!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Far from the truth, and even further if you consider the trap era.

What games on international ice are you presenting as boring compared to a rough equivalent played on NHL ice?

Literally every hockey league that plays on international sized ice.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Literally every hockey league that plays on international sized ice.

Meaning no top tier players who practice regularly on that ice.

All of these examples are players who can’t play in the NHL, or women’s hockey of which there are only two teams who can even play the game. All-star comparisons are idiotic because it’s an all-star game, not a regular season/playoff game. If you can’t see the differences here then there is no discussing it. I don’t know if it’ll work, but it wouldn’t be remotely as detrimental to the game as some of you are portraying.

[Resolute 14]

As far as the future of bodychecking goes, Lindros would be a bad person to be championing personal responsibility and general awareness of your own surroundings as a necessary requirement for reducing contact-related injuries. So it isn't surprising the doesn't advocate for that.

Also, the concussion incidence rate in women's hockey is pretty much the same overall as it is men's. e.g.: 1, 2. So removing bodychecking isn't a solution, even if Ken Dryden insists that we must do something for the sake of doing something.


That said, one of the easier ways the league has to slow the game down is to bring back the two line pass rule.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Meaning no top tier players who practice regularly on that ice.

All of these examples are players who can’t play in the NHL, or women’s hockey of which there are only two teams who can even play the game. All-star comparisons are idiotic because it’s an all-star game, not a regular season/playoff game. If you can’t see the differences here then there is no discussing it. I don’t know if it’ll work, but it wouldn’t be remotely as detrimental to the game as some of you are portraying.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to pull a pot-meet-kettle "if you can't see the differences" argument while at the same time promoting doing something for the sake of doing it, then there is only one part of your post where we're going to find common ground: that there is no point discussing it.

But I'll leave you with a hint: The NHL isn't the only league that plays on North American ice that we can compare against while forming our opinions.