Goons find a loophole

[Gaucho]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

Ken Campbell ‏@THNKenCampbell 2h
A couple of goons circumvent one of NHL's 187,000 fighting rules by removing each other's helmets. Words fail me.
Actually words don't fail me. Trying to protect these mouth-breathing knuckle draggers from themselves is utterly pointless.
They took each other's helmets off. I don't suppose there was anything premeditated about that, was there?

[Idoit40fans]

Thats pretty funny.

[JoseCuervo]

That's just smart

[Sigwolf]

Maybe someone should get the hint and stop trying to protect grown adults from themselves...

[mikey287]

They should be able to remove their own helmets...hopefully this becomes part of "the code". Helmets off, like men.

[nocera]

The helmets are on to protect the head from hitting the ice after a knock down. Why anyone would think it's "manlier" to fight without a helmet, risking serious injury or even death is beyond me. But still, this is funny.

I do believe the linesmen are now instructed to stop a fight when a helmet is removed.

[mikey287]

Does that actually happen? It could maybe possibly happen at some point, sure. But it's a very unnecessary rule. Mandatory visors, not allowed to lose helmets during a fight, why not just say you can't fight anymore? Why confuse the issue with this nonsense...?

I'm not the biggest fan of fighting in the world, but it has a very real place in the game and it needs to stay.

These types of rules are akin to "treating the symptoms" - it just doesn't need to be in place...

[columbia]

Does that actually happen?

Indeed it does.

[mikey287]

Is this one of those confirmation bias things like injuries on icings?

[nocera]

Unfortunately at least one hockey player has died due to his head hitting the ice after a fight.

[MRandall25]

Unfortunately at least one hockey player has died due to his head hitting the ice after a fight.

Wasn't that in the 40s?

[mikey287]

Nah, you're thinking of Bill Masterton, MR25. He didn't die as a result of a fight, and it happened with the expansion North Stars in 1967. It was an on-ice collision, not a fight.

I think nocera is referring to a Jr. A player a few years ago. So in the hundreds of thousands of fights in the last 100+ years, there has been one catastrophe...one very unfortunate catastrophe that is extremely regrettable, granted. I'm just not making a rule for NHLers based on that.

[nocera]

Yeah. I get that the chances of it are extremely minimal, but isn't it better to have a preventative rule rather than a reactionary one should a NHL player die?

[Froggy]

There is a much greater risk of breaking your hand punching a helmet than there is serious injury from hitting your head on the ice after a fight, I'd think.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

That rule is more to protect the NHL from a lawsuit in the event a player is seriously injured due to his head hitting the ice after a fight.

[Idoit40fans]

Then just make fighting "illegal" and assess a 5 minute major for it. Boom you dont allow fighting.

[columbia]

I don't know that this will have any practical effect.
Sure, people on occasion crack their head on the ice in the aftermath of a fight. Is it going to prevent any significant injuries? Theoretically, yes, but it's not like those are really happening.

Having said that, I don't see how it harms the game. For those who kind of like fights- including me - they will still happen.

[nocera]

Then just make fighting "illegal" and assess a 5 minute major for it. Boom you dont allow fighting.

It seems they're trying to find a happy medium between pro fighting and anti fighting. Making sure someone doesn't die due to falling is one step. I wouldn't be surprised if "staged" fights are eliminated completely. The heat of the moment fights are likely here to stay for now.

[mikey287]

Yeah. I get that the chances of it are extremely minimal, but isn't it better to have a preventative rule rather than a reactionary one should a NHL player die?

There's no precedent for the NHL being proactive. But snarky comments aside, I just don't see what this actually does besides create a slight tear in the fabric of the game. A lot more players get hurt from skate cuts, a lot more players get hurt from hard-capped equipment, a lot more players get hurt from the lack of respect the players have for each other in general...why aren't these real concerns addressed? Instead, you're (the NHL) worried about the voluntary removal of helmets during a fight (which, with this visor stuff, will probably end up causing more injuries...but that's neither here nor there).

It just doesn't make sense...it's just like the goaltending equipment, they sit there and play around with utter nonsense instead of addressing real issues. This helmet thing is no different.

[nocera]

I'm not particularly worried about this rule or about players removing helmets. I'm just looking at it from the point of view that there is a chance, however slight, of injury/death, so I don't know how one could say this rule is ridiculous. What's ridiculous is the "no tuck" rule. At least you can see why the helmet rule exists.

[columbia]

And we have a head cracking on the ice during a fight:
http://video.tsn.ca/?dl=pipe42/latest/1 ... 937/clip/0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The new rule didn't prevent it, but pretending it doesn't happen is just silly.

[nocera]

And we have a head cracking on the ice during a fight:
http://video.tsn.ca/?dl=pipe42/latest/1 ... 937/clip/0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The new rule didn't prevent it, but pretending it doesn't happen is just silly.

Yeah that was scary. Refs are going to have to step in once helmets are removed or hand out an additional penalty for purposefully removing your opponent's helmet.

[mikey287]

This is just like the confirmation bias that occurs with icing. Some little instigator with a checkered past and a concussion history takes on a goon two weightclasses up from him gets in a fight that has nothing to do with the silly helmet rule and ticks his head on the ice and then it's "won't somebody please think of the children!"

I don't want to see injuries, ever. But there's just certain things that are just more trouble than they're worth...

The guys that usually take the helmets off fight by the code anyway...meaning, they probably know how to fight. It's not them you have to worry about. It's these guys that don't know what they're doing, running around, it's those guys...and the rule is irrelevant to them. Meanwhile, it prevents good guys from fighting the right way when they need to...it's more or less pointless, and will probably net more injuries than it prevents on the whole because of the visors and all that noise...

[KG]

That was one of the stupidest hockey videos I ever saw. Taking the other players helmet off...I thought they were going to hug and kiss after that...

[tifosi77]

Yeah. I get that the chances of it are extremely minimal, but isn't it better to have a preventative rule rather than a reactionary one should a NHL player die?

There was a study about 15 or so years ago that looked at the incidence of stick fouls in relation the the rules on 1) mandatory protective equipment, and 2) rules on fighting. They found that the overwhelmingly highest incident of stick fouls - particularly high sticking - occurred in leagues with the highest baseline of mandatory protective equipment (e.g. full face shield) and the most restrictive rules on fighting. The worst offender was NCAA Div I. (My own anecdotal experience as a player bears this out)

The more you attempt to proactively protect players, the more liberties those same players are willing to take with one and other. There's a level of comfort knowing that they can swing away with relative impunity.

Personally, I'd rather not have the contact to my head and face in the first place than have lots of contact that's behind a Lexan visor and polycarb helmet.

(Incidentally, the same pattern is true in motor racing as well. Yes, motorsport at all levels is immeasurably safer today compared to when I was born in the early 70s. But that has come with an attendant degradation of overall driving savvy where you see a lot more contact between cars today than you ever did in the 50s or 60s. Again.... I'd rather not have the contact at all than have a 'safe' contact.)