Concussions in the NHL, Waiting for Science

[Cereal]

Was about to post this in "Around the NHL" but it has relevance here.

 

Colby Armstrong tried to hide concussion for two days... http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/7371838/colby-armstrong-toronto-maple-leafs-indefinitely-concussion

 

All these concussions are so bad for the NHL. I've never had a concussion, so I'm really curious how plausible it'd be to hide it or play through it?? (Yes, I do realize that some concussions are much more serious than others.)

[shrader]

kind of. There's a lot more to it than just that though. When you put all of the components together, there is a lot more to soft vs hard. What prevents the most damage in ALL cases? let me ask you a question. as a construction worker, do you wear a hard hat, or soft hat? what is going to protect you more from a falling object? a hat that will crush due to the acceleration of a downward falling object, transferring most of the falling objects energy to your head, or one that will sustain most of the blow, transferring only a margin of the energy to your head?

 

It's the same concept in hockey. When someones elbow is flying at your head (albeit illegally), I would rather have a hard helmet with a foam core that will absorb most of the energy of blow BEFORE it gets to my head. A soft helmet altogether (no hard plastic parts) will absorb the initial energy, but the follow thru, and impulse will travel elsewhere, causing more whiplash and a concussion. A hard core will only directly transfer the energy straight onto your head. It's hard to explain to someone with an engineering background let alone someone without.

 

I applaud your patience here. You essentially said that far more weighs into an issue than just one single thing. The immediate response was, "well, what do you think about that one thing", completely ignoring your entire point. I don't know how people can put up with that kind of thought process. If I told someone the answer is 4 and then someone asked me what 2+2 is, I'd probably go punch a wall.

[dEnnis the Menace]

I applaud your patience here. You essentially said that far more weighs into an issue than just one single thing. The immediate response was, "well, what do you think about that one thing", completely ignoring your entire point. I don't know how people can put up with that kind of thought process. If I told someone the answer is 4 and then someone asked me what 2+2 is, I'd probably go punch a wall.

 

the conversation as a whole has become frustrating for me for many reasons. one of being that I can't explain this any clearer, nor can MP.

[darksabre]

Point received, and now I see what you meant

 

 

 

+1

 

btw, I'm glad you're here to go through all this stuff. It's been a good read. :thumbsup:

[SDS]

My issue isn't with his later points. My issue is that he led his argument by punching dog in the mouth and then trying to bring reason into it. You don't start a fight and then try and have a conversation.

 

He is either incapable of reason or not interested in it or both. Everyone is wrong and he is right. He's the expert without any training and anyone who does have training is wrong. Given that style of debate, punching should have been followed with a kick. It is aggravating and non-productive to say the least.

 

And BTW, I started off with reason and it was clear where this conversation was going... nowhere.

[darksabre]

He is either incapable of reason or not interested in it or both. Everyone is wrong and he is right. He's the expert without any training and anyone who does have training is wrong. Given that style of debate, punching should have been followed with a kick. It is aggravating and non-productive to say the least.

 

And BTW, I started off with reason and it was clear where this conversation was going... nowhere.

 

So rather than pushing through like the other posters did here, you simply dismissed the poster as incompetent and then walked away. Nice.

[SDS]

So rather than pushing through like the other posters did here, you simply dismissed the poster as incompetent and then walked away. Nice.

 

No, I didn't. I provided multiple counterpoints/opportunities for him to at least acknowledge that someone somewhere might have actually looked at this and came to a different conclusion. He proceed to push his opinion, without regard to any counter evidence. I find "lay people" who so easily dismiss out of hand the efforts of people who devote their lives to such pursuits to be obnoxious beyond belief.

 

Note, I have not presented myself as an expert - I acknowledge, with humility that I do not know everything and readily concede, that others who are paid to do so have a much greater chance of knowing the details than I do. Asking questions is one thing. Telling everyone they are wrong is another.

 

Lastly, "dog" isn't new around here or TBD. If you have followed his opinions on a variety of other topics, you would have already known where this conversation is headed. And last lastly, I'm pretty sure everyone here has come to the same conclusion about his arguments that I have. Sorry for being ahead of the curve.

[shrader]

Lastly, "dog" isn't new around here or TBD. If you have followed his opinions on a variety of other topics, you would have already known where this conversation is headed. And last lastly, I'm pretty sure everyone here has come to the same conclusion about his arguments that I have. Sorry for being ahead of the curve.

 

I think that's the big one here. Some of us are far more familiar with this story than others. I know there were many other times, but I figured the TSW link I posted would shed a little light on what we're dealing with here.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Good read SDS , thanks, although I don't know If I agree with the assesment that increasing the time of impact is a bad thing. If a race car for instance hits a safer barrier naturally the time of impact is expanded , but the amount of impact is reduced which is more important in my opinion. I do however agree added weight also plays an important factor and how it would relate to neck injury. A happy medium with padding on both sides, hard shell in the middle, would be most beneficial seems to me.

 

 

Note: By way of deflection I do understand part of the thought process/dilema, but with the amount of square hits that are occuring in the sports world/ helmet to helmet, outer padding increases the amount of surface mass contacted resulting in an expanded energy dispertion/less overall impact to the brain in my opinion. On the other hand you can't increase overall injuries because of the amount of friction created.

 

I just noticed you added an edit/note to the end of your post.

How many helmet to helmet hits/square hits to the head do you see in hockey? did you pull this straight from your TSW thread?! again, this is YOUR OPINION...learn some physics, then get back to us. if you were to have the gazoo helmet brought up, then yes, the added surface area would help dissipate the energy, but seeing as how a 3ft diameter helmet is NOT FEASIBLE, having a hard surface on the outside better disperses the energy on the smaller diameter. Again. Fact. The other fact is that it's not impact TO THE BRAIN, but rather the brain shifting or "sloshing" around in the fluid IN your skull. It's not just impact. In fact, IIRC, a thump without any whipping (whiplash) is actually better on your brain than a non direct, whiplash inducing hit.

 

Also, WTH are you talking about creating injuries due to friction? if friction is a problem for you, use lube.

[BuffaloFan32]

What about making the ice softer? Is there a way to engineer a thin layer of ice with some flexibility (maybe with shock absorbers underneath)? When players are skating around, parallel to the plane of the ice, it would not need to give but when a player falls, perpendicularly to the ice, there could be some shock absorption. Maybe there is some chemical they could add to the water before it freezes to keep it from cracking.

[shrader]

What about making the ice softer? Is there a way to engineer a thin layer of ice with some flexibility (maybe with shock absorbers underneath)? When players are skating around, parallel to the plane of the ice, it would not need to give but when a player falls, perpendicularly to the ice, there could be some shock absorption. Maybe there is some chemical they could add to the water before it freezes to keep it from cracking.

 

Hilarious (and I hope that was what you were going for).

[dEnnis the Menace]

What about making the ice softer? Is there a way to engineer a thin layer of ice with some flexibility (maybe with shock absorbers underneath)? When players are skating around, parallel to the plane of the ice, it would not need to give but when a player falls, perpendicularly to the ice, there could be some shock absorption. Maybe there is some chemical they could add to the water before it freezes to keep it from cracking.

 

:w00t: :w00t: That's awesome.

[Figster]

I just noticed you added an edit/note to the end of your post.

How many helmet to helmet hits/square hits to the head do you see in hockey? did you pull this straight from your TSW thread?! again, this is YOUR OPINION...learn some physics, then get back to us. if you were to have the gazoo helmet brought up, then yes, the added surface area would help dissipate the energy, but seeing as how a 3ft diameter helmet is NOT FEASIBLE, having a hard surface on the outside better disperses the energy on the smaller diameter. Again. Fact. The other fact is that it's not impact TO THE BRAIN, but rather the brain shifting or "sloshing" around in the fluid IN your skull. It's not just impact. In fact, IIRC, a thump without any whipping (whiplash) is actually better on your brain than a non direct, whiplash inducing hit.

 

Also, WTH are you talking about creating injuries due to friction? if friction is a problem for you, use lube.

 

 

 

You know, I've done my best to try to carry on a discussion, listen to other peoples opinions, and express mine in a polite manner...

[korab rules]

kind of. There's a lot more to it than just that though. When you put all of the components together, there is a lot more to soft vs hard. What prevents the most damage in ALL cases? let me ask you a question. as a construction worker, do you wear a hard hat, or soft hat? what is going to protect you more from a falling object? a hat that will crush due to the acceleration of a downward falling object, transferring most of the falling objects energy to your head, or one that will sustain most of the blow, transferring only a margin of the energy to your head?

 

It's the same concept in hockey. When someones elbow is flying at your head (albeit illegally), I would rather have a hard helmet with a foam core that will absorb most of the energy of blow BEFORE it gets to my head. A soft helmet altogether (no hard plastic parts) will absorb the initial energy, but the follow thru, and impulse will travel elsewhere, causing more whiplash and a concussion. A hard core will only directly transfer the energy straight onto your head. It's hard to explain to someone with an engineering background let alone someone without.

 

and Carter, SDS's comment there isn't trying to stunt innovation, it's just saying that if you know absolutely nothing about something you're setting out to do, you better research the topic a little bit more than "smash your head on a brick wall" or "smash two billiard balls together". Knowledge of how the human brain reacts to impact inside the skull, and a little physics is needed before you can say that everyone else who has a background on the topic is wrong. I'm all for innovation. I mean, hell, an electrical engineer on my senior design project learned fluid dynamics and actually solved a problem that two of us Mech E's couldn't. But before she said well, it should be this way, she learned a lot of the fundamentals of the heart, the circulatory system, and some basic fluids equations (our senior design project was to develop a working heart surgery training simulator for LVAD implantations for Strong Hospital in ROC.) A little more research and not discounting a lot of DOCUMENTED FACTS will go a long way.

But if they just put padding on the outside of the helmet I think it would work.

[dEnnis the Menace]

You know, I've done my best to try to carry on a discussion, listen to other peoples opinions, and express mine in a polite manner...

 

as have I. albeit up until the last part of my last post. You have a way of denouncing everyone's FACTS as Opinions, and your opinions are just that, opinions. This was a problem here not too long ago on another topic that has fallen to the wayside... :doh:

 

I've tried to, in an engineering sense, explain this in the most patient manner. I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm done with this topic because I am presenting engineering and physics facts to you, and you are presenting opinons without any backing up of your opinion with nothing other than "I think" or "just my opinion" or "Let's see who can smash their head more times against a wall." With my last comment, it is apparent to me that my sarcastic, and spiteful side are going to creep into the conversation.

 

But if they just put padding on the outside of the helmet I think it would work.

 

:huh: :huh: Really?

[korab rules]

 

 

 

:huh: :huh: Really?

 

No, not really! :angry:

[Figster]

No, I didn't. I provided multiple counterpoints/opportunities for him to at least acknowledge that someone somewhere might have actually looked at this and came to a different conclusion. He proceed to push his opinion, without regard to any counter evidence. I find "lay people" who so easily dismiss out of hand the efforts of people who devote their lives to such pursuits to be obnoxious beyond belief.

 

Note, I have not presented myself as an expert - I acknowledge, with humility that I do not know everything and readily concede, that others who are paid to do so have a much greater chance of knowing the details than I do. Asking questions is one thing. Telling everyone they are wrong is another.

 

Lastly, "dog" isn't new around here or TBD. If you have followed his opinions on a variety of other topics, you would have already known where this conversation is headed. And last lastly, I'm pretty sure everyone here has come to the same conclusion about his arguments that I have. Sorry for being ahead of the curve.

 

Not sure where all this animosity is coming from SDS,

[dEnnis the Menace]

No, not really! :angry:

 

just from past history I knew it was sarcasm....however, I don't think I picked the right emoticon to denote the inflection of my really. in all honesty it should have been something more like this:

 

ORLY?!

[Figster]

as have I. albeit up until the last part of my last post. You have a way of denouncing everyone's FACTS as Opinions, and your opinions are just that, opinions. This was a problem here not too long ago on another topic that has fallen to the wayside... :doh:

 

I've tried to, in an engineering sense, explain this in the most patient manner. I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm done with this topic because I am presenting engineering and physics facts to you, and you are presenting opinons without any backing up of your opinion with nothing other than "I think" or "just my opinion" or "Let's see who can smash their head more times against a wall." With my last comment, it is apparent to me that my sarcastic, and spiteful side are going to creep into the conversation.

 

 

 

:huh: :huh: Really?

 

Try reading some of the same info SDS pointed out to me and maybe you will understand why friction and cohesion becomes part of the problem when you add padding to the exterior of a helmet.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Try reading some of the same info SDS pointed out to me and maybe you will understand why friction and cohesion becomes part of the problem when you add padding to the exterior of a helmet.

 

I did, but what you said doesn't make sense to me. you said:

 

On the other hand you can't increase overall injuries because of the amount of friction created.

 

so here, you are saying that you cannot create injuries due to friction?

 

honestly what I posted was out of line, and I apologize for that.

 

However. that still doesn't change the fact that you're saying here that padding on the outside does not increase injuries due to friction. In football, I'd agree with you, but we're talking hockey. Imagine if Max P would've been wearing a soft helmet colliding with the stantion (sp?), and then sliding off of it. if he had the extra friction, his head would've stuck more, and the energy would've dispersed down further into his neck exacerbating the already gruesome injury, compounding the fractures. if it's an 80%/20% world, then yeah, that falls in the 20%, but how many other hits do you see where a guy hits the wall and his head slides down it, or when a guy is up against the boards, and he has his head down protecting the puck, with his head on the glass? he gets hit, and his body is going to be disconnected from his head! (ok, a little exaggeration, but still, you get the point). Now neck injuries are the main concern, and not head injuries.

 

Great you may think, but I'd take a concussion over a broken neck or vertebrae any day.

[korab rules]

I did, but what you said doesn't make sense to me. you said:

 

 

 

so here, you are saying that you cannot create injuries due to friction?

 

honestly what I posted was out of line, and I apologize for that.

 

However. that still doesn't change the fact that you're saying here that padding on the outside does not increase injuries due to friction. In football, I'd agree with you, but we're talking hockey. Imagine if Max P would've been wearing a soft helmet colliding with the stantion (sp?), and then sliding off of it. if he had the extra friction, his head would've stuck more, and the energy would've dispersed down further into his neck exacerbating the already gruesome injury, compounding the fractures. if it's an 80%/20% world, then yeah, that falls in the 20%, but how many other hits do you see where a guy hits the wall and his head slides down it, or when a guy is up against the boards, and he has his head down protecting the puck, with his head on the glass? he gets hit, and his body is going to be disconnected from his head! (ok, a little exaggeration, but still, you get the point). Now neck injuries are the main concern, and not head injuries.

 

Great you may think, but I'd take a concussion over a broken neck or vertebrae any day.

 

It's not true in football either - the Sooners tried them in practice in the 70's, but abandoned them because it resulted in increased cervical spine injuries.

 

http://www.helmethut.com/Dr.Ken5.html

[dEnnis the Menace]

It's not true in football either - the Sooners tried them in practice in the 70's, but abandoned them because it resulted in increased cervical spine injuries.

 

http://www.helmethut.com/Dr.Ken5.html

 

I was saying about friction being less of an issue in football than hockey, but that might be false as well.

 

I thought that article was very informative, and going back and re reading it has further cemented my point of view.

 

It needs to be 7:30 so I have something else to talk about.

[Bmwolf21]

Two things I came across this evening - first, I was sitting in the waiting room while my kid was getting a haircut, so I picked up a copy of Car & Driver. In it there was an article about the HANS device. Not once in the article did the word "concussion" appear. Not really making a point, just thought it was an interesting coincidence given our debate.

 

(For those who are interested: http://www.caranddri...ng-racings-neck)

 

Second - I was browsing Sabres highlights on YouTube and came across the Neil headshot on Drury. I guess if there is one thing we can say, it's that now there is more interest in stopping shots like that and realizing how powerful and damaging those hits are. It is a few years too late, to be sure, but I can't imagine the announcers today saying the same things they did when it happened - not a penalty, no mention of the blind side shot, late hit, all that.

[Figster]

Good read SDS , thanks, although I don't know If I agree with the assesment that increasing the time of impact is a bad thing. If a race car for instance hits a safer barrier naturally the time of impact is expanded , but the amount of impact is reduced which is more important in my opinion. I do however agree added weight also plays an important factor and how it would relate to neck injury. A happy medium with padding on both sides, hard shell in the middle, would be most beneficial seems to me.

 

Note: By way of deflection I do understand part of the thought process/problem, but with the amount of square hits that are occuring in the sports world/ helmet to helmet at high imact something has to be done.Outer padding increases the amount of surface mass contacted resulting in an expanded energy dispertion/less overall impact to the brain. On the other hand you can't increase overall injuries,(probably more so to the neck), because of the amount of friction created, so in a nut shell, there in lies the dilema,

 

can we do soft and slick...

 

After studying this helmet design obstacle I'll call it in more depth I come to the conclusion my race car into safer barrier vs. helmet to helmet contact at high speeds anology is wrong. Longer sustained contact on a helmet could be the equivalent of someone grabbing your face mask and twisting your head while applying impact. Its as much or more of a problem/danger then the actual bruising to the brain that could occur from high speed helmet to helmet contact.

 

Its possible in my opinion that a free floating outer padding could be designed that would go around the helmets exterior which would eliminate the sustained impact problem while still providing extra protection. If the outer padding is free to move from side to side and spin on impact the friction/cohesion problem would be eliminated in my opinion.

[spndnchz]

http://www.csnbayarea.com/12/20/11/Around-the-league-What-about-equipment/v11_package_landing_blog.html?blockID=616304&feedID=10698