Air Canada threatens to pull sponsorship from NHL over headshots

[MXD]

I agree the role of the police is to make investigation and find evidence.

Then the police communicate the evidence to the crown prosecutors who analyze and determine if this evidence is enough for the without any doubt criteria, before sending charges.

I mean, they won't go ahead to make everyone happy, they need more.

Technically true.
IRL... not THAT much.

 

[jkrdevil]

I think there is a little bit of a "summer of sharks" effect going on here as well. If you remember the news in the summer of 2001 shark attacks were all over the place and the question was being asked why are all these attacks happening. Well in reality the number of shark attacks were down, there was just more media attention as one made the news and then another and it kind of snowballed. It is a similar thing now to an extent because it is the topic in the news more attention is being paid to every head injury that occurs in the league. It can have the effect of making it more of an epidemic than it really is.

Is the game more dangerous than what it was? Who knows, I'm going to probably guess no though. Not that long ago these things went undiagnosed or guys played through them. Basically meaning from a media standpoint these things went unnoticed. I remember just 8 years ago Scott Stevens playing the rest of the playoffs after getting drilled in the head with a shot in round 2 of the 2003 playoffs. That is insane to think about now (especially as it basically ended his career after he developed PCS the next year). A big part of the reason why we are seeing an "increase" is because of better diagnosis and more cautious care. That isn't a bad thing and makes the game more safer.

 

[LeftCoast]

Personally, while I don't think the Pacioritti - Chara case is the ideal poster case for dangerous head shots in hockey, and I think Gary Bettman's statement with respect to the Air Canada letter were extremely foolish and poorly conceived, I welcome the attention that this incident has brought to the issue of head injuries and head shots. If the Chara - Pacioretti incident can become a stimulus for change, then something good will have come of it.

I also think it goes a little bit beyond head injuries. I think the league needs to look at the number of injuries to defensemen. I don't have the statistics, but since the interference rules were changed, it is my observation that injuries to defensemen have gone way up.

I love this game. I love the speed, the intensity, the violent contact and the pace. No other sport can match it. I hope it is possible to make the game safer without removing the factors that make it so entertaining.

Some things that could be part of the solution:

Fines: The maximum fine that the NHL can levy against a player is something like $2500. These guys carry that much in their wallets. A meaningful fine for an incidental head shot should be $5000 and for an intentional (or directed) head shot should be $35,000. If their is an intent to injure, make it $50,000. The NHLPA has steadfastly opposed hefty fines because they don't like taking money out of their members pockets. If they players want to keep the proceeds from the fines, then they should be applied annually to the players revenue escrow fund.

Suspensions: Suspensions need to be more predictable. The current process is too opaque. While it makes sense to evaluate each incident on its own merits, it tends to lead to confusing and inconsistent application of supplementary discipline.

Equipment: While concussions can be caused by a whiplash effect, not just by impact, improved equipment can reduce the shock and trauma to the brain. There are better helmets, an example might be the Cascade M-11, but players don't like them because they are a bit heavier and slightly more bulky (apparently only 12 players are using it in the NHL - one of them being Willie Mitchell). There is also a lot of room for improvement in shoulder pads - the outer shell of most shoulder pads is has hard as steel.

Rules: Finally, the NHL needs to look at where the rules could be tweaked to improve player safety without destroying the game. No touch icing is probably one area. I'm not a big fan of it, but if that is what it takes to make the game safer, maybe we have to go there.

Education: The CHL and Hockey Canada are probably leading the way here, but if we teach players respect at the earliest ages, maybe it will stick.

 

[MountainHawk]

Why cause you say so. The NHL as a private enterprise can run it's business as it sees fit. Don't like it , don't buy the product.
It really is that simple, now why can't you get that through your head .

Because if the NHL doesn't, governments will in the name of workplace safty.

 

[DoyleG]

Granted, discussing Bettman's role is part of any business discussion. The rules of the league and how they are enforced are not part of Bettman's compliment of responsibilities. He was asked a question on the ruling. He did what anyone would do in his position, back the people that are in charge of that department. When asked about Air Canada's statement, he answered with a very well balanced statement.

The balance of the post returns to the rules, and impressions of violence. The aspect of violence and potential injury of sport is part of the draw. UFC has grown exponentialy in the last decade. It's not as a result of its "fair play" and protective equipment.

Yeah. The Unified Rules have done nothing to help UFC grow to where it it today.

The problem you seem to have with AC has nothing to do with the hit and more to do with personal grudges.

 

[seanlinden]

Dalton, your post keeps ignoring the fact this is a business board. I don't think anyone has ever argued that concussions aren't bad, and star players being out of the line-up is a good thing.

Your argument is the same as stating.. "Hey... I believe in motherhood"... yup... everyone does.

The League made a decision based upon the rules that have been agreed upon by the league and the NHLPA. Until such rules are changed, which the NHLPA is very difficult in relenting to, the decision stands.

Air Canada's statement comes from alterior motives. Charest's statement is.. well he is the damn Premier of Quebec. Had it been a Bruin that was accidently injured by a Canadian player he would have said nothing.

Since it is the topic du jour, The Prime Minister was asked to comment. Keep in mind most of the people weighing in have been asked to weigh in by the media. It's selling ads... upping readership. How many news outlets have been putting a percentage of the profits they have made on this tragedy aside to cover Max's living expenses if he can never play hockey again?

The man is being exploited by Air Canada and the media. This has little to do with the subject at hand and is a snowball created to drive profits.

Somebody gets it!

“I just say this as a hockey fan: I’m very concerned about the growing number of very serious injuries and in some cases to some of the premier players in the game,” Harper, who has worked on a hockey history book and who has a son who plays the sport. “I don’t think that’s good for the game and I think the league has to take a serious look at that for its own sake.”

Even Stephen Harper's comment was pretty "soft". He's not acting ridiculous the entire province of Quebec who thinks that they can get special treatment and dictate how the league is run. Harper, like most sensible companies, is saying that there is a problem and it should be fixed.

Well, DUH, there isn't a person in this world who doesn't think that the NHL has a problem with concussions. Everyone has their 2 cents on how it should be fixed, the intelligent ones realize that even though they have their "solution", if it were that obvious and perfect it would've been done already.

The difference between what Harper / Tim Hortons / Scotiabank / Rebook have done and what Air Canada / Via Rail have done is that the don't go to the point of saying "do this" or "do that" basically insulting the intelligence level of the league executives, and they aren't whining about the specific Pacioretty injury going so far as to say that Chara must be suspended. It's no coincidence the companies acting foolishly are those who are headquartered in Montreal.

Pacioretty's injury is no more important than the one to David Perron, Marc Savard, Jim Slater, or Sidney Crosby. No company or fans have any business dictating to the league which players are to suspended, this isn't the WWF. This is a sport with integrity, there are rules to be followed and suspensions must be based on the player's actions and not who he hit.

 

[MoreOrr]

that's a good question. as a starting point, the main factor that has changed is the speed of the game. its just much faster now with the elimination of clutch/grab, removal of the redline. while the intentions were good, to place an emphasis on skill, along with it comes new complications and issues that were present before but have been magnified due to the increase in the speed.

as for the main topic, imo, AC, via rail, and any other sponsors have every right to voice out their opinions if they perceive that their image association with the nhl has been tarnished.

I appreciate the fact that you think it's a good question. But it can't be separated from from what you say is the "main topic" of this thread, Air Canada and others and their call for something to be done. My point of disagreement with some here is that I do think that the League cares about the safety of the players and is trying to find solutions to the concussion problems, and that the NHLPA realizes that too.

But regardless of whether some people agree with that opinion or not, the question still comes down to: What needs to be done? And what created this situation of increasing concussion rates to begin with? Because again, to identify the cause is the first step to finding a solution. And regardless of whether you agree or disagree that the League has been working to find solutions to this problem, there is another very important issue for the League. What kind of an NHL do its fans really want? Because certainly, depending on what tactics the League decides to use in order to ultimately combat an increasing concussion rate problem, it could and likely will effect how the game is played. The more and more the League continues cracking down on this or that type of physical play, the less physical the game ultimately becomes, and the degree of the intensity will certainly be effected as well. Many fans of the NHL love it for that very intensity. On the other hand, perhaps it's the speed of the game that can be control somewhat, thus lessening the force of the impacts that occur, but then again, there are plenty of fans that have been excited by the increased speed of the game since the lockout.

The League doesn't have any easy choices here, and as far as I can see it's been working within the expectations of the players who actually play the game. Regardless of whatever decisions are ultimately made, there IS going to be a segment of the fanbase who won't like the outcome. And now, Yes, the League does have to take into consideration a growing fanbase that isn't happy with the number of concussions that it sees occurring.

None of this is a simple dynamic for companies like Air Canada to think the NHL can act quickly to resolve, not Air Canada nor any of us as fans.

 

[AllByDesign]

Yeah. The Unified Rules have done nothing to help UFC grow to where it it today.

The problem you seem to have with AC has nothing to do with the hit and more to do with personal grudges.

No personal grudge with Air Canada. I've traveled on their planes before. I've also done work for them in the past. I should have a grudge, I was forced to travel with Celine after they emerged from bankruptcy... another story alltogether...

The point is that most people are staing the "The ends justify the means". I think it is a very short sighted opinion to have. Here is my problem broken down a bit further.

Example 1 - Nothing in the rules change. Air Canada goes back to business as usual and their labor issues have been swept cleanly under the rug, not to mention the additional revenue generated from all of the extra travellers that would prefer to fly with them because they stood up for a Canadien's player.

Example 2 - Small rule change occurs. Air Canada launches more free media releases on how their actions saved lives and improved the state of the game. Continue with the rest of Example 1.

All the while, Max paid the price for this free publicity and papers sold. I don't get involved in my customers or suppliers affairs. It is a direct path to loss of business.

 

[Native]

I appreciate the fact that you think it's a good question. But it can't be separated from from what you say is the "main topic" of this thread, Air Canada and others and their call for something to be done. My point of disagreement with some here is that I do think that the League cares about the safety of the players and is trying to find solutions to the concussion problems, and that the NHLPA realizes that too.

But regardless of whether some people agree with that opinion or not, the question still comes down to: What needs to be done? And what created this situation of increasing concussion rates to begin with? Because again, to identify the cause is the first step to finding a solution. And regardless of whether you agree or disagree that the League has been working to find solutions to this problem, there is another very important issue for the League. What kind of an NHL do its fans really want? Because certainly, depending on what tactics the League decides to use in order to ultimately combat an increasing concussion rate problem, it could and likely will effect how the game is played. The more and more the League continues cracking down on this or that type of physical play, the less physical the game ultimately becomes, and the degree of the intensity will certainly be effected as well. Many fans of the NHL love it for that very intensity. On the other hand, perhaps it's the speed of the game that can be control somewhat, thus lessening the force of the impacts that occur, but then again, there are plenty of fans that have been excited by the increased speed of the game since the lockout.

The League doesn't have any easy choices here, and as far as I can see it's been working within the expectations of the players who actually play the game. Regardless of whatever decisions are ultimately made, there IS going to be a segment of the fanbase who won't like the outcome. And now, Yes, the League does have to take into consideration a growing fanbase that isn't happy with the number of concussions that it sees occurring.

None of this is a simple dynamic for companies like Air Canada to think the NHL can act quickly to resolve, not Air Canada nor any of us as fans.

very well said, i truly appreciate your thoughtfulness in this matter and initiating a respectful and constructive discussion. it is indeed a multi-factorial dynamic with no straight line or simple quick solution to fix all. its a continual "work in progress" all in hopes to better our game, broaden our fanbase, instill growth and success for all those involved.

agreed, its not easy and i do believe the league has been trying to find solutions concerning concussions. while the rule changes post lockout have had positive results, they also opened the door to new issues. i don't think they had anticipated but in fairness, but its a situation that you need time to evaluate.

from the m11 helmet, ideas like no touch icing, burke's bearhug, neurological studies, the addition of people like shanahan, blake, etc. there are ideas and intelligent involvement out there to try and maintain the current game play but provide additional measures of safety at the same time. to try and balance the equation so to speak.

i do believe that bettman should have handled it better. he did no favors for the nhl. imo, he came off as sounding extremely crass and arrogant. he could have easily said that he appreciated AC's comments and to rest assured that head injuries have been their primary importance and have been thoroughly investigating solutions to the issue.

i think voicing your opinion, whether its us, sponsors, players, owner, whomever, show our passion for the game and i'd like to believe its for the good of the game. if it invokes progressive and positive change, a stimulus to push harder, then i'm all for it.

we had growing pains when we eliminated the clutch and grab. but we did it. we showed we could collectively evolve. we can do the same now. we can instill greater respect, moral obligations and safety. we have seen guys like richards and cooke ease up now and avoid those lateral blind side hits that they were guilty of before.

 

[leoleo3535]

I am sure you have all heard of the "STOP" program.

If not its is the program that features stop signs sewn on the back of players jerseys & a decal on the back of the helmet.

The program is in its 13th year and in a nutshell is:

The Safety Towards Other Players (STOP) Program
-raises awareness of the dangers of checking-from-behind in hockey
-program to support fair and safe play

Air Canada and Molson are major sponsors of this program.

So to say that they have now suddenly jumped on board this issue is a crock as they have been promoting this for years.

 

[leoleo3535]

Tim Hortons has also voiced its concerns to Bettman.

They sponsor 7 NHL clubs and are the major sponsor of the Heritage Classic.

 

[eliostar]

Because if the NHL doesn't, governments will in the name of workplace safty.

That's the job of the union, or assosiation in this case.
Actually it's a joint committee.

 

[eliostar]

Tim Hortons has also voiced its concerns to Bettman.

They sponsor 7 NHL clubs and are the major sponsor of the Heritage Classic.

Gary's reply was.
I don't tell you how to brew your coffee, don't tell me how to run my business.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2011/03/18/sp-nhl-air-canada.html?ref=rss

Air Canada calls new NHL concussion plan encouraging