1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chris Pronger out for season with concussion

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by spurtswriter, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. spurtswriter

    spurtswriter Member

    I don't suppose this will change any thinking in the NHL, will it? Just one more klunker in a dismal week.

  2. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    What would you like them to do? Giroux's and Michaleks concussions came at the hands of their own teammates. Players are sitting put games now that they would have played in just a few years ago. Concussions will always be a part of hockey and football and the NHL is getting better at recognizing the symptoms and keeping players out. It's not perfect but it's far better than it has been.
  3. spurtswriter

    spurtswriter Member

    Players still are pretty free with their sticks and headshots. Granted, it's a faster game than it's ever been, but it's pretty hard to believe the mucky-mucks can't see that the league's stars are getting eliminated. Yes, there are freak accidents, but too many cheap shots are left ignored.
  4. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Agree. but anytime there are a lot of a particular injury to players, especially good ones, people will be reactionary. Look at the NFL and the how the rules have changed on tackling over the years.
  5. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    I think that's a fair point. There is still no consistency in NHL discipline.
  6. rmanfredi

    rmanfredi Active Member

    I still feel like helmet technology in the NHL (and the NFL too) hasn't advanced as much as it might have over the last few years. Or at the least, leagues haven't been placing an emphasis on testing and experimenting with new technologies. I know that people freak out when they think about all players wearing Steve Tasker/Great Gazoo style mega helmets, but I think it's a better choice than players getting KOed for the season or longer with concussions.
  7. spurtswriter

    spurtswriter Member

    Let's face it. The higher-up good-ol'-boys-club (ahem, Brian Burke), as they currently stand, always will resist any attempt at curbing violence, no matter how many stars they lose or how fast and violent the game gets. It's almost (and probably is) at the point where we have to let these guys age and retire before sanity creeps into the game.

    OK, kids. Lemme have it. :eek:)
  8. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Hell, in the NYT stories involving Boogaard and afterward, Bettman expressed at least twice that he was basically fine with the game as it was. No force for change there.
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    What's the scale of concussion problems in the college game and Europe? Isn't that the main point of the advocates for change, that a lot of the contact isn't a necessary part of the game but only the part that the NHL finds marketable?
  10. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    The European game is absolutely terrible. Boring as hell. You cannot take contact out the game, the game would be awful to watch.
  11. Beef03

    Beef03 Active Member

    Yes lets turn the NHL into the No-Hit League. [/yougottabefingkiddingme]

    As far as helmet technology is concerned, have you all looked at a new hockey helmet recently? There is a ton of technology in there. Go compare them to the helmets they were wearing five years ago, you'd be surprised. There is no such thing as a concussion proof helmet unless they can somehow discover a way to keep the brain from sloshing around in the skull. Besides, it is up to the players to choose the type of helmet they want to wear. I am sure every gm and coach in the league would prefer their players to be wearing a top of the line concussion helmet -- even for monetary reasons like it helping out their insurance rates and helping to keep their stars in the lineup -- but it is always the players that buckle at the thought of being told what to wear for equipment.

    The NHL is more aware than just about any NA sport regarding concussions. They have no choice, not when they have lost the biggest star in the game to now two possibly three or four concussions for the foreseeable future. The protocol is in place to keep any player with even suspected symptoms off the ice until they are cleared by an independent doctor. If a player isn't coming forward when he is feeling woozy then that is on the player. They have also cracked down with suspensions for illegal hits to the head, especially on repeat offenders.

    When it comes to stick infractions, penalties are handed out for those too, and if it is severe enough so are suspensions. Usually though a stick infraction doesn't result in a concussion, maybe a couple lost teeth or a few stitches, and the stick is one area of the game where they keep players as honest as they can making them absolutely responsible for the actions of their stick whether there is any intention to hurt a player or not.

    As far as Burke is concerned, as soon as the Chara hit on Pacioretty happened last year, he immediately ordered the padding on the glass by the benches at the ACC to be beefed up, doubling it I believe, and helped lead the charge for change to the glass around the benches. I can't stand Burke, but that's for other reasons.

    Are there managers or coaches who question the science revolving around the recent science behind the concussions? I have no doubt there are. But if any of them were caught playing players suspected of having symptoms of a concussion, the repercussions would be severe.
  12. Gomer

    Gomer Active Member

    It's going to be the same problem in the NFL, if it's not already, and of course there will be tons of resistance to taking some physical violence out of either sport.

    But it may have to happen in the long run.

    If you as a parent don't want your kid to play a sport with too much chance of injury, it stands to reason there will be less kids playing and eventually, a worse product on the field at the highest levels.

    Even if the medical community doesn't force something to be done in the near future, a decade or two from now the leagues will have little choice. Less quality product leads to less interest leads to less money. Only when money enters the equation — or the leagues realize that it one day will — will change happen.

    All of the changes enacted in recent years aren't enough given what sort of damage is showing up. Athletes are still making millions of dollars and so are owners. I don't think this issue will be resolved anytime soon; we're just at the beginning of it.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page