Crosby's Concussions

[darksabre]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/penguins/2011-08-22-agent-denies-crosby-setback-report_n.htm

 

Amidst differing reports on Crosby's progress, what if the worst possible thing for the NHL occurs? What if Crosby doesn't come back? Or when he does, what if he's not the same player?

 

The slow progress he's made doesn't bode well.

[OverPowerYou]

What's the worst that happens? Buffalo wins more Stanley cups than Pittsburgh in the next 10 years because Crosby can't play.

[bunomatic]

It would be terrible for the game but with the growth of hockey and its growing popularity there will be others to fill the void. There are so many good young stars in the game today and by all accounts many more coming through the ranks. Maybe not of Crosbys caliber but there will be some that reach his level.

[darksabre]

It would be terrible for the game but with the growth of hockey and its growing popularity there will be others to fill the void. There are so many good young stars in the game today and by all accounts many more coming through the ranks. Maybe not of Crosbys caliber but there will be some that reach his level.

 

But how would the league explain losing yet another star player to avoidable injuries?

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

But how would the league explain losing yet another star player to avoidable injuries?

 

This is how they should explain it:

 

Physicality is part of the game. I don't care what anyone says, hockey without hitting is not hockey. It's intense target practice.

 

I'm not sure if anyone else on this board agrees but taking hitting out of hockey would be just as big of a travesty as taking physical play out of football.

 

Players get out of line, and hit the wrong way, others make mistakes, and accidents happen. Address it by getting more serious on the discipline front, don't fundamentally change the game. I feel that this is the way the league should address this if it does become an issue.

Also, I'm assuming that by "avoidable" you are referencing the fact that had crosby been paying attention and not skating away from the play, he wouldn't have taken and elbow to the face :thumbsup:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQziwabMKk

[thesportsbuff]

I was actually thinking about making this thread earlier. :blink: As much as I "hate" Crosby, this would truly be a travesty for the game if Crosby came back and was anything less than the player he used to be. Maybe a little bit of a fall off would be acceptable -- but what if he goes Connolly on them and isn't even close? Or worse, if he comes back and suffers another serious concussion this year, could he call it quits? There's a lot of good players and young talent to fill that void, but there is NO other Sidney Crosby... he is the best player in the game right now, and it's barely even a debate anymore the way Ovechkin played last year.

[BetweenThePipes00]

This is how they should explain it:

 

Physicality is part of the game. I don't care what anyone says, hockey without hitting is not hockey. It's intense target practice.

 

I'm not sure if anyone else on this board agrees but taking hitting out of hockey would be just as big of a travesty as taking physical play out of football.

 

Players get out of line, and hit the wrong way, others make mistakes, and accidents happen. Address it by getting more serious on the discipline front, don't fundamentally change the game. I feel that this is the way the league should address this if it does become an issue.

Also, I'm assuming that by "avoidable" you are referencing the fact that had crosby been paying attention and not skating away from the play, he wouldn't have taken and elbow to the face :thumbsup:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQziwabMKk

 

SIGH .... why is it ALWAYS the fault of the guy who got hit? HE WAS LOOKING AT THE PUCK! how is that not paying attention? In this case, I don't believe it was anyone's fault ... there was little if any intent on the part of Stoeckel, he was going hard and probably didn't expect Crosby to cruise into his path like that ... but it was just one of those things that happens, not something that Crosby could have or should have avoided. Sometimes guys run into each other, we don't have to assign blame.

 

That said, if we are looking for the true cause of Crosby still being out, the place to look is probably the fact that he played the next game and got hit again.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

SIGH .... why is it ALWAYS the fault of the guy who got hit? HE WAS LOOKING AT THE PUCK! how is that not paying attention? In this case, I don't believe it was anyone's fault ... there was little if any intent on the part of Stoeckel, he was going hard and probably didn't expect Crosby to cruise into his path like that ... but it was just one of those things that happens, not something that Crosby could have or should have avoided. Sometimes guys run into each other, we don't have to assign blame.

 

That said, if we are looking for the true cause of Crosby still being out, the place to look is probably the fact that he played the next game and got hit again.

now now, i never said it's always the fault of the player getting hit B-) In fact, i DID say that "Players get out of line, and hit the wrong way, others make mistakes, and accidents happen."

 

As a professional hockey player, he should know better than to look away from where he's skating while the play is going the opposite way.

 

If anything, the hit almost resembles a deer being hit by a car. is it anyone's fault? No, not really, but that doesn't mean the deer wasn't being stupid.

 

I didn't expect to get such a negative reaction to the post, just trying to be funny. In fact, everything about that post that was meant to be serious seems to have been glazed over.

[Andrew Amerk]

It would be terrible for the game but with the growth of hockey and its growing popularity there will be others to fill the void. There are so many good young stars in the game today and by all accounts many more coming through the ranks. Maybe not of Crosbys caliber but there will be some that reach his level.

 

One of the problems that the NHL has, is that they indeed DO have plenty of young stars, but do NOT know how to promote them.

 

Crosby is important (as much as I dislike him) because he is the current face of the game. He is the biggest drawing card for the NHL.

 

Personally, I find Ovi to be a much more interesting and charismatic character. The league needs to find a way of promoting it's other stars and characters - and I am not talking about Marvel comics.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

One of the problems that the NHL has, is that they indeed DO have plenty of young stars, but do NOT know how to promote them.

 

Crosby is important (as much as I dislike him) because he is the current face of the game. He is the biggest drawing card for the NHL.

 

Personally, I find Ovi to be a much more interesting and charismatic character. The league needs to find a way of promoting it's other stars and characters - and I am not talking about Marvel comics.

This is an excellent point, and i couldn't agree more.

[BetweenThePipes00]

now now, i never said it's always the fault of the player getting hit B-) In fact, i DID say that "Players get out of line, and hit the wrong way, others make mistakes, and accidents happen."

 

As a professional hockey player, he should know better than to look away from where he's skating while the play is going the opposite way.

 

If anything, the hit almost resembles a deer being hit by a car. is it anyone's fault? No, not really, but that doesn't mean the deer wasn't being stupid.

 

I didn't expect to get such a negative reaction to the post, just trying to be funny. In fact, everything about that post that was meant to be serious seems to have been glazed over.

 

Well yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back I guess, because every time these discussions come up the "you can't take hitting out of the game" group can't blame the victim fast enough. My favorite was the hit on Horton in the Finals ... the "Yeah, the puck was long gone and the hit was two full strides late ... but he can't be looking for a return pass! He has to be more aware, so he deserves what he gets!" The rules are the rules for a reason. If you don't have the puck, and you are looking at the puck, you are not supposed to have to worry about someone taking a pot shot at your head.

 

Again, all this is not really directed at you, or even the Crosby play, because I don't think Stoeckel meant to hit him in the head at all. But I feel like venting .... it never takes long for someone to blame the guy who got hit, and I don't understand it. Hitting SHOULD stay in the game, and guys ARE going to get hit in the head sometimes ... but there are consequences. Penalties get called every game for accidental high sticks and trips and pucks getting shot over the glass and everyone is OK with it, but when someone suggests a penalty for an accidental hit to the head, people lose their minds defending some sort of macho code and blaming the guy who got hit. It's like blaming the glass for not being high enough on a clearing attempt ... sorry, that's the rule, go sit for two minutes. That rule hasn't stopped guys from clearing the puck high off the glass, so why would a penalty for hitting the head stop all hitting?

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

Well yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back I guess, because every time these discussions come up the "you can't take hitting out of the game" group can't blame the victim fast enough. My favorite was the hit on Horton in the Finals ... the "Yeah, the puck was long gone and the hit was two full strides late ... but he can't be looking for a return pass! He has to be more aware, so he deserves what he gets!" The rules are the rules for a reason. If you don't have the puck, and you are looking at the puck, you are not supposed to have to worry about someone taking a pot shot at your head.

 

Again, all this is not really directed at you, or even the Crosby play, because I don't think Stoeckel meant to hit him in the head at all. But I feel like venting .... it never takes long for someone to blame the guy who got hit, and I don't understand it. Hitting SHOULD stay in the game, and guys ARE going to get hit in the head sometimes ... but there are consequences. Penalties get called every game for accidental high sticks and trips and pucks getting shot over the glass and everyone is OK with it, but when someone suggests a penalty for an accidental hit to the head, people lose their minds defending some sort of macho code and blaming the guy who got hit. It's like blaming the glass for not being high enough on a clearing attempt ... sorry, that's the rule, go sit for two minutes. That rule hasn't stopped guys from clearing the puck high off the glass, so why would a penalty for hitting the head stop all hitting?

I understand.

 

As for the idea that a penalty for hitting to the head would result in no fewer incidents is also probably correct.

 

You're assuming that players would not treat the offense any differently than a delay of game or a high stick, or a tripping call, and I'd have to agree with that.

 

I do think discipline needs to be made more severe. (for intentional head shots) aka not steckel.

 

I think something along those lines WOULD reduce the incidents, and at the very least, there would be some more justice when a player gets too out of line.

[Andrew Amerk]

Very interesting article on Crosby and his concussion:

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1043394--sidney-crosby-s-return-not-worth-the-risk-of-further-injury?bn=1

[RazielSabre]

I do hope he does come back, his a great hockey poster boy and deserves a shot and the records, or at least deserves a long and successful career.

[Weave]

Has any player that was out for such a long time for concussion symptoms ever returned and played at their previous high level? I can't think of any.

 

My memory suggests that Lindros slipped after he got dinged hard. LaFontaine was never the same after his long recuperation. I don't recall Karyia living up to past exploits. We all have recent memories of the change in Connolly post-concussion. Anyone else?

[DR HOLLIDAY]

Rushing him back way before he was ready and the other hit that he received into the boards is probably the real reason his condition is so bad right now...........A lot of people messed up on that one.

[wjag]

This is how they should explain it:

 

Physicality is part of the game. I don't care what anyone says, hockey without hitting is not hockey. It's intense target practice.

 

I'm not sure if anyone else on this board agrees but taking hitting out of hockey would be just as big of a travesty as taking physical play out of football.

 

Players get out of line, and hit the wrong way, others make mistakes, and accidents happen. Address it by getting more serious on the discipline front, don't fundamentally change the game. I feel that this is the way the league should address this if it does become an issue.

Also, I'm assuming that by "avoidable" you are referencing the fact that had crosby been paying attention and not skating away from the play, he wouldn't have taken and elbow to the face :thumbsup:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQziwabMKk

 

You also need to apply the same standards to everyone. So if Crosby dishes it out, he gets the same punishment as if Adam Mair did it. Right now, the playing field is not balanced.

[RazielSabre]

This is how they should explain it:

 

Physicality is part of the game. I don't care what anyone says, hockey without hitting is not hockey. It's intense target practice.

 

I'm not sure if anyone else on this board agrees but taking hitting out of hockey would be just as big of a travesty as taking physical play out of football.

 

Players get out of line, and hit the wrong way, others make mistakes, and accidents happen. Address it by getting more serious on the discipline front, don't fundamentally change the game. I feel that this is the way the league should address this if it does become an issue.

Also, I'm assuming that by "avoidable" you are referencing the fact that had crosby been paying attention and not skating away from the play, he wouldn't have taken and elbow to the face :thumbsup:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQziwabMKk

 

The hit was unnecessary, taking serious disciplinary action against hits like that I'd have no problem. Stupid hit, Crosby was at no fault there.

[nfreeman]

I continue to support a 100% ban on blows to the head, without regard for intent. This is the only way to substantially reduce (but not eliminate, which would be impossible) concussions in the NHL. There would be a bit less hitting, but not much.

 

Instead, we have the best player in the league facing an early termination to his career at age 24. For what?

[Weave]

I continue to support a 100% ban on blows to the head, without regard for intent. This is the only way to substantially reduce (but not eliminate, which would be impossible) concussions in the NHL. There would be a bit less hitting, but not much.

 

Instead, we have the best player in the league facing an early termination to his career at age 24. For what?

 

Are you advocating discipline for accidental hits too? (Steckel's hit was purely accidental IMO) I'm not at a place where I want to see discipline for accidental hits but I am supportive of zero tolerance for intentional hits that result in contact to the head.

 

But I also don't think it needs to go that far. I think the same result can be obtained by really hammering the penalties (30-40 games) when a hit that is dangerous but otherwise legal results in head injury (Chara, I'm looking at you).

 

 

Where it really gets dicey is, what do you do with legal, clean hits that don't impact the head but result in a player bouncing his head off the ice or along the boards? At that point the result is out of the hands of the hitter. He ends up at the fate of the hittee. Do we harshly penalize those too? Maybe the question is rhetorical in my mind because I really don't think there is a wrong or right answer in that scenario.

[nfreeman]

Are you advocating discipline for accidental hits too? (Steckel's hit was purely accidental IMO) I'm not at a place where I want to see discipline for accidental hits but I am supportive of zero tolerance for intentional hits that result in contact to the head.

 

But I also don't think it needs to go that far. I think the same result can be obtained by really hammering the penalties (30-40 games) when a hit that is dangerous but otherwise legal results in head injury (Chara, I'm looking at you).

 

 

Where it really gets dicey is, what do you do with legal, clean hits that don't impact the head but result in a player bouncing his head off the ice or along the boards? At that point the result is out of the hands of the hitter. He ends up at the fate of the hittee. Do we harshly penalize those too? Maybe the question is rhetorical in my mind because I really don't think there is a wrong or right answer in that scenario.

If it were up to me, I would assess a minor penalty for any unintentional head shot and a major and game misconduct for any intentional head shot. Intentional hits to the head by repeat offenders would also result in serious suspensions -- i.e. no suspension for the first one, then 5 games, 10 games, 20 games, etc.

 

I think this would result, as with obstruction/hooking/holding penalties post-lockout, in a lot of penalties during the first season (some undeserved), and a lot of complaining by traditionalists. The coaches and players would adjust, though, and the result would be a great game with plenty of hitting and with many fewer players getting seriously hurt.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

You also need to apply the same standards to everyone. So if Crosby dishes it out, he gets the same punishment as if Adam Mair did it. Right now, the playing field is not balanced.

I absolutely agree. Upping the punishment does nothing if consistency is not enforced.

 

The hit was unnecessary, taking serious disciplinary action against hits like that I'd have no problem. Stupid hit, Crosby was at no fault there.

Noone said it was a necessary hit by the definition of the word, but even hinting at the idea that steck was at fault here is preposterous.

 

Watch the video again, as crosby turns his head to look at the puck, steckle starts to hustle in an attempt to join the rush, at which point, crosby (who is not looking forward) meanders into steckles path.

 

In your opinion crosby was at no fault, i accept that and in fact i mostly agree with that assessment. But to simply assume that Steckle WAS at fault because the other player involved was not is pure poppycock.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

If it were up to me, I would assess a minor penalty for any unintentional head shot and a major and game misconduct for any intentional head shot. Intentional hits to the head by repeat offenders would also result in serious suspensions -- i.e. no suspension for the first one, then 5 games, 10 games, 20 games, etc.

 

I think this would result, as with obstruction/hooking/holding penalties post-lockout, in a lot of penalties during the first season (some undeserved), and a lot of complaining by traditionalists. The coaches and players would adjust, though, and the result would be a great game with plenty of hitting and with many fewer players getting seriously hurt.

They would need to incorporate video replay into that decision though right? It's not something that they could call right off the bat? Determining whether or not a headshot was intentional would be easier seen in hindsight, not in the heat of the moment as it happens IMO. A player doubling over makes it look bad, regardless of intention.

[nfreeman]

They would need to incorporate video replay into that decision though right? It's not something that they could call right off the bat? Determining whether or not a headshot was intentional would be easier seen in hindsight, not in the heat of the moment as it happens IMO. A player doubling over makes it look bad, regardless of intention.

Good question. I would say that in many situations the refs would have a good view of the incident, so it would not be necessary, but if we're talking about a major and game misconduct, perhaps it would make sense to have the NHL office review all of them as they do with goals.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

Good question. I would say that in many situations the refs would have a good view of the incident, so it would not be necessary, but if we're talking about a major and game misconduct, perhaps it would make sense to have the NHL office review all of them as they do with goals.

I feel like it would be the only way to determine whether or not a major and a game misconduct would be necessary. Even if it is blatantly obvious. Intent could be determined via numerous camera angles.

 

As i said previously, if I was the on ice official a player toppled over looks bad, regardless of intention. I think the video review would be the only way to deem whether or not the hit was deserving of a game misconduct.