GDT: USA Vs Austria | 12/26 @ 9:30PM ET | TSN/NHLN

[Muston Atthews]

Care to provide those statistics?

Concussion in the National Hockey League: a systematic review of the literature

In the 2009–2012 seasons, after the implementation of Rule 48, body checking without head contact (31.7%) made up the greatest proportion of concussions sustained in the NHL. A more detailed analysis noted that concussed athletes had possession of the puck 23% of the time, did not have possession of the puck 34% of the time and 42% of the time the player had just released the puck. In over 70% of the cases, the time from puck release to contact was less than 0.5 s [14]. Another study found that 47% of concussions were ‘open ice’ (interior portion of the ice surface) events, 53% occurred around the ‘perimeter’ of the ice surface (including side dasher boards, corners, end boards and the side of the net) and 37% involved injured players’ heads contacting the dasher boards or plexiglass [13].

I had a better link before but that was the quickest one I could find

 

[Dr Quincy]

You're using ridiculous analogies when you can look at the numbers right in your face. Hockey can exist without body checking = fact. In fact it's played in the Olympics. Why not take out all the risk of head injuries that everyone is clamouring about?

You don't say? Gee, now find where I said it couldn't. To quote someone: Nice strawman.

And again, no matter how many times you keep saying something that you think is a great point, it doesn't make it one.

Remove hitting and there will STILL be injured players and head injuries= fact.

So therefor why not just eliminate hockey altogether?

Because, as I've said, we've determined that some risk is acceptable. Where YOU draw the line and where the rest of the world draws the line is the issue. The rest of us have decided that contact that is against the rules is....................................................................................................
wait for it.........................................................................................
against the rules.

If you don't like that then you can not watch, or watch and live with it, or yammer on with verbal flatulence if you choose.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Concussion in the National Hockey League: a systematic review of the literature



I had a better link before but that was the quickest one I could find

I'll let you think about the flaw in your argument if you read the 1st sentence again real closely.

 

[Barnum]

Well we don’t like the same hockey obviously.

He may be suspended like that being an iihf tournament. Just saying if it was the nhl I wouldn’t be demanding or even expecting one.

I dunno. You are probably right as the NHL is a crapshot sometimes but I would think he would get a fine or phone call for this in the NHL too. It’s a blindside hit where the principle point of contact is the head which is illegal in the NHL. We have seen hits like this get a suspension or some sort of disciplinary action.

 

[Muston Atthews]

I'll let you think about the flaw in your argument if you read the 1st sentence again real closely.

My argument was that body checks not to the head cause the majority of concussions. I fail to see the flaw.

I get what you’re implying. They made a rule to stop hitting the head and now there is still concussions due to body checking. In what way is this a positive for the health and safety of players?

I’m saying if you’re advocating for health and safety go full send, not half ass. Either concussions matter or they don’t

 

[c9gunner]

Well we don’t like the same hockey obviously.

I'm ok with this kind of hockey if the boys are allowed to drop their gloves, but they can't do it.

if it was the nhl

But it's not NHL. Things like this one could lead to the deterioration of the quality of this tournament (just imagine a goon from a non-hockey country delivering a career ending hit to a top draft pick)

 

[Muston Atthews]

You don't say? Gee, now find where I said it couldn't. To quote someone: Nice strawman.

And again, no matter how many times you keep saying something that you think is a great point, it doesn't make it one.

Remove hitting and there will STILL be injured players and head injuries= fact.

So therefor why not just eliminate hockey altogether?

Because, as I've said, we've determined that some risk is acceptable. Where YOU draw the line and where the rest of the world draws the line is the issue. The rest of us have decided that contact that is against the rules is....................................................................................................
wait for it.........................................................................................
against the rules.

If you don't like that then you can not watch, or watch and live with it, or yammer on with verbal flatulence if you choose.

ah yes, the rules are the rules. No shit. This wouldn’t have been in a penalty/suspension in the NHL which is literally what my point has been the entire time.

it’s just funny that people claim to care about health and safety and then say shit like “some risks are assumed”. So we want to get rid of concussions because they’re horrible for people’s livelihoods, but only some of them. The rest can just f*** themselves and deal with it because they assumed the risk

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

My argument was that body checks not to the head cause the majority of concussions. I fail to see the flaw.

I get what you’re implying. They made a rule to stop hitting the head and now there is still concussions due to body checking. In what way is this a positive for the health and safety of players?

I’m saying if you’re advocating for health and safety go full send, not half ass. Either concussions matter or they don’t

*Caused the most concussions from 2009 to 2012.

You're trying to make this an 'all or nothing' issue when it isn't.

 

[Dr Quincy]

ah yes, the rules are the rules. No shit. This wouldn’t have been in a penalty/suspension in the NHL which is literally what my point has been the entire time.

it’s just funny that people claim to care about health and safety and then say shit like “some risks are assumed”. So we want to get rid of concussions because they’re horrible for people’s livelihoods, but only some of them. The rest can just f*** themselves and deal with it because they assumed the risk

How do you live everyday knowing people die in their bathtubs while you post on the interwebs??????????????????????????

 

[Dr Quincy]

My argument was that body checks not to the head cause the majority of concussions. I fail to see the flaw.

I get what you’re implying. They made a rule to stop hitting the head and now there is still concussions due to body checking. In what way is this a positive for the health and safety of players?

I’m saying if you’re advocating for health and safety go full send, not half ass. Either concussions matter or they don’t

They made a law that says people have to wear seatbelts.

Now the majority of injured people in accidents were actually wearing seatbelts.

Does this mean
a) that seatbelts are ineffective
or
b) there are less people who go seatbeltless so of course they'd take a smaller portion of the injured pie?

Nobody in the world has said that the choice is the elimination of all injuries or ban the sport, no matter how hard you try to make that the argument.

By your logic people shouldn't have supported speed limits of 20 mph in school zones because.... well a kid would still get hurt if hit by a car going 20 mph. So instead let cars go 80 mph because, hey, if you are ok with SOME kids getting hit by cars going 20 you really are anti-school kids and don't care if they get hurt.

Absurdity. We can eliminate the worst, most dangerous, most negligient kind of things without having to achieve perfect state of 100% healthy existence for all. The rest of us function that way.

Not sure what world you live in.

 

[Canadienna]

It's exactly my point. Hitting is exciting. People enjoy hitting... but only to the extent that they deem "safe". Even when statistics say most of the concussions in the NHL come from body checks with no head contact. It's just not a conversation people want to have because they want to pretend that they "care" for these people

Simultaneously, I: 1) care about players wellbeing 2) acknowledge the risks of hitting and 3) have no issue with them voluntarily participating in a contact sport.

You seem to want to label what "everyone" thinks a lot. There is a large gap between banning hitting and setting realistic rules for how to hit players. Trying to maintain the integrity of the sport while balancing head injuries is exactly what we have to do.

Your example of banning hitting altogether is a poor one because it would fundamentally change the sport. The fact you brought up Womens hockey is the real irony. With all respect to the many great women hockey players, the game is quite a bit different and lacks the edge and excitement of Men's leagues.

 

[Muston Atthews]

*Caused the most concussions from 2009 to 2012.

You're trying to make this an 'all or nothing' issue when it isn't.

Find me something that says otherwise. It's really the only study done

 

[Muston Atthews]

How do you live everyday knowing people die in their bathtubs while you post on the interwebs??????????????????????????

Why would I care about someone dying in a bathtub?

 

[Muston Atthews]

Simultaneously, I: 1) care about players wellbeing 2) acknowledge the risks of hitting and 3) have no issue with them voluntarily participating in a contact sport.

You seem to want to label what "everyone" thinks a lot. There is a large gap between banning hitting and setting realistic rules for how to hit players. Trying to maintain the integrity of the sport while balancing head injuries is exactly what we have to do.

Your example of banning hitting altogether is a poor one because it would fundamentally change the sport. The fact you brought up Womens hockey is the real irony. With all respect to the many great women hockey players, the game is quite a bit different and lacks the edge and excitement of Men's leagues.

So it's alright if people get long term head trauma as long as it's for our entertainment? I'm glad you're finally on board with the point I'm making.

I don't think hitting should be removed, nor do I think this was particularly dirty for HOCKEY standards nor do I think this would constitute a penalty or suspension in the NHL. I like watching people get hit - it's entertaining. I don't pretend to care the ramifications these hits have on people because it's for entertainment, I know they assume these risks.

 

[Muston Atthews]

They made a law that says people have to wear seatbelts.

Now the majority of injured people in accidents were actually wearing seatbelts.

Does this mean
a) that seatbelts are ineffective
or
b) there are less people who go seatbeltless so of course they'd take a smaller portion of the injured pie?

Nobody in the world has said that the choice is the elimination of all injuries or ban the sport, no matter how hard you try to make that the argument.

By your logic people shouldn't have supported speed limits of 20 mph in school zones because.... well a kid would still get hurt if hit by a car going 20 mph. So instead let cars go 80 mph because, hey, if you are ok with SOME kids getting hit by cars going 20 you really are anti-school kids and don't care if they get hurt.

Absurdity. We can eliminate the worst, most dangerous, most negligient kind of things without having to achieve perfect state of 100% healthy existence for all. The rest of us function that way.

Not sure what world you live in.

I don't particularly enjoy watching people get into car accidents. I also don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not

 

[Canadienna]

Unless you are advocating for the removal of all body checking you don’t care about players getting concussions.
But we all like it because it’s exciting, even if it is causing damage to the health of the players everyone claims they care so much about.

It's just not a conversation people want to have because they want to pretend that they "care" for these people

I like watching people get hit - it's entertaining. I don't pretend to care the ramifications these hits have on people

You ever think this might be more of a you issue than an everyone else issue?

Most people do care if someone has a serious injury, that's why we work to reduce high injury percentage plays while maintaining the game's integrity. Throwing your hands up in the air and going all catcher in the rye on everyone isn't the way.

 

[Muston Atthews]

You ever think this might be more of a you issue than an everyone else issue?

Most people do care if someone has a serious injury, that's why we work to reduce high injury percentage plays while maintaining the game's integrity. Throwing your hands up in the air and going all catcher in the rye on everyone isn't the way.

I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I know people will get hurt because it's a physical sport. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. I'm saying if youre going to care, go all the way.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Find me something that says otherwise. It's really the only study done

I wasn’t the one claiming it as evidence in a debate.

 

[Guttersniped]

I don't particularly enjoy watching people get into car accidents. I also don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not

I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I know people will get hurt because it's a physical sport. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. I'm saying if youre going to care, go all the way.

Just because you don’t believe in mitigating sports injury risks doesn’t mean it ceases to exist as a concept. Improvements in equipment are also part of this, as well as rule changes, but I guess you don’t care if skaters wear helmets or goalies wear masks either.

 

[Ban Hammered]

Unnecessary? Absoultely. Illegal in international hockey? Absolutely. I'm not arguing against either of things.

A good hockey hit? Absolutely.

If it is illegal and unnecessary...it is by definition not a good hockey hit.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I would guess this Austrian 2022 probably isn't going to be extremely high end, but I keep hearing way more about the 2022 draft eligibles than the 2021 draft eligibles. That 2022 draft sounds like it's going to be amazing

It's early, but thats the way it seems. Then again, this is said very often, so maybe 2022 will only be pedestrian. I don't think 2021 is bad though.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This is the most lopsided shot total I've ever seen.

Wait until you see a defense with Johnson and Hajek.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Zegras has more than justified being a top ten selection. He did that and then some last year with his WJC performance and excellent freshman year. All this is gravy on the "how much higher should he have been drafted?" meal.

The only thing I'd disagree about is that I don't think he had an excellent freshman season. He was good at Boston U, but I thought his WJC performance last year was better than his season performance at Boston U.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Trevor Zegras is everything Cole Caufield is hyped up to be

No reason to criticize Caufield to hype up Zegras. Caufield is pretty good himself, and has done really well since being drafted.

He might have a little extra hype due to the team that drafted him and his style of play, but he's been really good for Wisconsin. Maybe he'll pick it up at some point in this tournament, but even if he doesn't, Caufield wouldn't be the first player to struggle at this tournament to have a good NHL career. One of the biggest mistakes you see are these enormous hot-takes after this tournament from people who don't watch these prospects during the course of a season. It's a two-week snapshot in a whole year of development.

 

[HanSolo]

I don't want to see anyone get hurt. But I know people will get hurt because it's a physical sport. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. I'm saying if youre going to care, go all the way.

Why? Why cross into absurdity in the interest tof mutual exclusivity? I know I said I was done but I couldn't help responding to what's your worst take thus far. You continue to paint this subject in black and white terms but the difference between a hit to the head and a standard body check is not minimal just because the latter has resulted in more concussions than the former but that's a ridiculous ground to base your argument on.

The reason more concussions happen because of your run of the mill body check gets thrown in disproportionately higher numbers than hits to the head. That doesn't mean a regular ass body check is as likely to cause injury as one with significant impact to the head. Using that logic I can say "more people die from car crashes every year than people who blow themselves up with rocket launchers so if regular civilians can't buy rocket launchers they shouldn't be able to buy cars either." it's just such a blatant lack of understanding of basic ratio function and the varying degrees of danger of a hit based on where the impact occurs.

And then to say you should either be for all physicality or against anything that can potentially cause injury is just so disengenuous and frankly absurdist at its core. The seatbelt/speed limit thing was a pretty good comparison which, of course, you didn't even bother trying to address the point and rather obfuscated the comparison with more strawmen arguments about how you don't like watching car accidents and don't care if someone wears a seatbelt or not (which I guess I'm glad that you're presumably not in politics)

I don't particularly enjoy watching people get into car accidents. I also don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not

Which, his independent safety habits and your interest in them and that of others is, of course, patently irrelevant and incongruous to the point he was making, but you knew that. You just didn't have it in you to unpack a comparison that deconstructed your logic.

That aside, the point is hockey fans and players understand there's a risk involved with the sport that can't be eschewed without fundamentally changing the game. The thing is, the majority of body checks do not deal significant trauma to the head as most hits thrown have no intent to do so or negligence of the possibility of such a result. When a hit is high its thrown with either pure intention to cause damage to the head or bald recklessness to the risk of such a result which means it might as well be intentional as callous disregard. There's enough evidence of tall players throwing hits on smaller opponents without hitting the head that we can say the league and the sport worldwide can take steps to at least eschew the kind of contact that carries with it the most significant risk of brain trauma.

Just because we support such measures doesn't mean we don't care about player safety because other on ice events could cause injury. I mean fighting has as much likelihood to cause CTE as a headshot but few get up in arms and call for the banning of fighting because we and the players know that anyone who gets in a fight usually gives their informed consent and takes the substantial step to engage in conduct that puts them at a high risk for brain damage.

Ever notice how people react when someone starts throwing punches at a player who clearly doesn't want to be a part of the fight? They're usually pretty outraged cause the victim didn't give consent to engage in that conduct and be exposed to that potential harm. The same thing goes for a hit to the head. Whether a player's head is down or not, it's the substantial step and independent choice of the player throwing the hit to either intentionally hit the head or act in callous disregard of such impact occurring. No player goes out there like "yeah I'd like or would be down with someone trying to plaster my skull in tonight."

Adjustments to any hit can be made prior to throwing it and there's rules in place to enforce caution with how you throw your checks. Throwing them in such a manner that it causes impact to the head is illegal whether you want them to be or not.