30 replies to this topic

[John96]

Just heard that the Ontario Hockey League unveiled new sanctions that will suspend players if they have more than 10 fights in a season.  I just caught this, I don't know all the ins and outs of the rule and it does sound like there are other parts of this stuff.

David Branch and the OHL have been aggressive in trying to curb fighting before, adding the helmet rules, staged fight rule, as well as various others.  

Last season, 31 players hit 10 fighting majors, two of them over twenty, and one over thirty.

[Fugazi]

John96, on 18 September 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Just heard that the Ontario Hockey League unveiled new sanctions that will suspend players if they have more than 10 fights in a season.  I just caught this, I don't know all the ins and outs of the rule and it does sound like there are other parts of this stuff.

David Branch and the OHL have been aggressive in trying to curb fighting before, adding the helmet rules, staged fight rule, as well as various others.  

Last season, 31 players hit 10 fighting majors, two of them over twenty, and one over thirty.

Sounds like the OHL is gonna try to get more Hockey while getting rid of the thug part of the game. More power to them

[D5Shark]

John96, on 18 September 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Just heard that the Ontario Hockey League unveiled new sanctions that will suspend players if they have more than 10 fights in a season.  I just caught this, I don't know all the ins and outs of the rule and it does sound like there are other parts of this stuff.

David Branch and the OHL have been aggressive in trying to curb fighting before, adding the helmet rules, staged fight rule, as well as various others.  

Last season, 31 players hit 10 fighting majors, two of them over twenty, and one over thirty.

If it is only a 1 or 2 game suspension, I have no problem with this. I wonder when the second suspension would be? Would you get a new suspension after every subsequent fighting major? After every 5?

[John96]

D5Shark, on 18 September 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Would you get a new suspension after every subsequent fighting major?

I don't know any of the details but that is the inkling I'm getting.

[John96]

Fugazi, on 18 September 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Sounds like the OHL is gonna try to get more Hockey while getting rid of the thug part of the game. More power to them

I diagree on this one and I know I'm probably in the minority.  I don't think this rule was needed.  The game was phasing this stuff out itself with less and less general manages keeping enforcers on their teams and less and less coaches playing them.   I don't see a need to add a completely arbitrary number to decide who fights too much and who doesn't.  So some fight more than others, it wasn't ruining the game.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather let hockey figure itself out and change on the ice, rather than off it.  I know that doesn't work all the time, but in the case of fighting, I believe it does.

I wonder if maybe the OHL is trying to capitalize on the lockout and draw fans in.  We'll see how it works on that front and how much the game changes on the ice.  

There are some who think David Branch is steadily working to remove fighting altogether and after the last few years, I wouldn't argue anymore.

[SJeasy]

John96, on 18 September 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

I diagree on this one and I know I'm probably in the minority.  I don't think this rule was needed.  The game was phasing this stuff out itself with less and less general manages keeping enforcers on their teams and less and less coaches playing them.   I don't see a need to add a completely arbitrary number to decide who fights too much and who doesn't.  So some fight more than others, it wasn't ruining the game.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather let hockey figure itself out and change on the ice, rather than off it.  I know that doesn't work all the time, but in the case of fighting, I believe it does.

I wonder if maybe the OHL is trying to capitalize on the lockout and draw fans in.  We'll see how it works on that front and how much the game changes on the ice.  

There are some who think David Branch is steadily working to remove fighting altogether and after the last few years, I wouldn't argue anymore.

There is the issue of liability on insurance.  That could be an additional reason with the results coming in on concussion research.

The other issue is attendance/popularity.  The NHL is getting positive results from speeding the game.  Fights slow it down.  The OHL is a for-profit operation.

Just a thought.  How long before UFC and boxing succumb to the concussion issue?

[Sharkhaywood]

SJeasy, on 18 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

There is the issue of liability on insurance.  That could be an additional reason with the results coming in on concussion research.

The other issue is attendance/popularity.  The NHL is getting positive results from speeding the game.  Fights slow it down.  The OHL is a for-profit operation.

Just a thought.  How long before UFC and boxing succumb to the concussion issue?

I don't think concussions are as big a problem in the UFC as they are in boxing.  UFC involves alot of wrestling and submissions and the times a guy is flat out knocked out isn't very often.  The refs are also pretty quick to stop a fight when the guy is defenseless than boxing.  I haven't read of too many UFC guys having issues with concussions.

[Nola]

SJeasy, on 18 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

Just a thought.  How long before UFC and boxing succumb to the concussion issue?

Will boxing? Pretty clear what the risks are with boxing. Don't think it's much of a secret.

[danvilleshark]

Nola, on 19 September 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Will boxing? Pretty clear what the risks are with boxing. Don't think it's much of a secret.

When do parents start taking HS football programs to court driving the costs so high the game is removed?

UFC is not quite like boxing, you do of course get blows to the head and guys get knocked out, but in boxing you might see a guy get hit 200 times in the head and lose by decision and think his head is ok.

I dont know but that is a tough way to make a living.

[MarbleMadness]

I caught Bob Costas on Bill Maher last night and it was interesting how he talked about helmets in football almost being a bad thing as it gives guys the added sense of security when in fact they protect the skull but essentially just allow the brain to continue doing the egg beater maneuver in there.


That said I'm out of touch but has there been a string of high school head trauma cases?

[danvilleshark]

MarbleMadness, on 19 September 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I caught Bob Costas on Bill Maher last night and it was interesting how he talked about helmets in football almost being a bad thing as it gives guys the added sense of security when in fact they protect the skull but essentially just allow the brain to continue doing the egg beater maneuver in there.


That said I'm out of touch but has there been a string of high school head trauma cases?

Given the nature of our "I will sue you" society I have no doubt this will come. Look for Californai to lead here.

[SJeasy]

MarbleMadness, on 19 September 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I caught Bob Costas on Bill Maher last night and it was interesting how he talked about helmets in football almost being a bad thing as it gives guys the added sense of security when in fact they protect the skull but essentially just allow the brain to continue doing the egg beater maneuver in there.


That said I'm out of touch but has there been a string of high school head trauma cases?

They are working on helmets that reduce the egg-beater routine, but the technology is in its infancy.  I am not even sure that a technology could be discovered that will remove the risk or even reduce it by a number like 95%.

DShark,
I am not sure that California will lead.  The big researcher is the Mayo Clinic which is in Minnesota.

[danvilleshark]

SJeasy, on 19 September 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

They are working on helmets that reduce the egg-beater routine, but the technology is in its infancy.  I am not even sure that a technology could be discovered that will remove the risk or even reduce it by a number like 95%.

DShark,
I am not sure that California will lead.  The big researcher is the Mayo Clinic which is in Minnesota.

California will lead in the area of going to court and making people pay.

Mayo is indeed a fine facility in Rochester Minn, streamed a sharks game from there a few years ago....ok wifi.

Saddest place I have ever been to is the pediatric ward on Thanksgiving at Mayo......

[GT3BB]

SJeasy, on 19 September 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

They are working on helmets that reduce the egg-beater routine, but the technology is in its infancy.  I am not even sure that a technology could be discovered that will remove the risk or even reduce it by a number like 95%.

DShark,
I am not sure that California will lead.  The big researcher is the Mayo Clinic which is in Minnesota.

As long as the brain remains floating in liquid inside the skull, a concussion free helmet almost defies the laws of physics.

[danvilleshark]

GT3BB, on 19 September 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

As long as the brain remains floating in liquid inside the skull, a concussion free helmet almost defies the laws of physics.

I think no helmet football would be safer than what we have now. I have had many a rugby player tell me this over the years.

[SJeasy]

GT3BB, on 19 September 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

As long as the brain remains floating in liquid inside the skull, a concussion free helmet almost defies the laws of physics.

Thanks, that was my point.  They have been tinkering with the inner cushioning to curb the effect.  My take is that this technology won't go far in reducing issues.

[GT3BB]

SJeasy, on 19 September 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Thanks, that was my point.  They have been tinkering with the inner cushioning to curb the effect.  My take is that this technology won't go far in reducing issues.

Probably not, they can fiddle with the pads, helmets, and the boards, but until they can figure out a way to lessen the secondary internal impact, that of the brain slamming into the inside of the skull from the rebound of the initial impact, concussions are going to be around for some time.

[MarbleMadness]

SJeasy, on 19 September 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

They are working on helmets that reduce the egg-beater routine, but the technology is in its infancy.  I am not even sure that a technology could be discovered that will remove the risk or even reduce it by a number like 95%.

DShark,
I am not sure that California will lead.  The big researcher is the Mayo Clinic which is in Minnesota.

I mean you need to reduce that sudden stopping motion which as you say is gonna be near impossible. Maybe we can rock some 5mph bumpers on there heads like  american cars in the 70's/80's. Lol.

[MarbleMadness]

danvilleshark, on 19 September 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

I think no helmet football would be safer than what we have now. I have had many a rugby player tell me this over the years.

Exactly. On two counts really. First players less willing to literally tackle head first, and the whole hockey pad argument where the pads have gotten so strong they are injuring others.

[John96]

SJeasy, on 18 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

There is the issue of liability on insurance.  That could be an additional reason with the results coming in on concussion research.

The other issue is attendance/popularity.  The NHL is getting positive results from speeding the game.  Fights slow it down.  The OHL is a for-profit operation.

Just a thought.  How long before UFC and boxing succumb to the concussion issue?

The concussion research say a lot, at least what has been published.  I recall an interview with Gary Bettman where he pretty clearly took a shot at the credibility of one particular group's research.

Agree that fights slow the game down, but they are part of a dimensions that some fans find lacking in today's hockey.  I'd guess most of the hometown Windsor Spitfires won't be too excited with this new rule.