NHL Hockey: Dangerous?
Part of my job involves a daily inventory of local media, so when I came across this one article it got me thinking. From Peter Worthington, The Toronto Sun -- yes I have to read that one too.
Is hockey dangerous?
Most serious Hockey injuries are concussions (15%) and spinal chord injuries, which avergae two or three a year. Deaths are rare.
Skiing: In ten years from '87 to '97, there were 347 deaths. 30-40 ski injury related deaths per year.
Baseball:
In 22 years between '73 and '95, 88 kids died in Little League Baseball. 68 hit by balls (39 to the chest, 21 to the head) 13 hit by bats.
Every year there are 6600 serious injuries in baseball -- from sliding into bases.
US Child sports in 2003:
19 deaths -- eight in football, 3 in soccer, 3 in races, 1 in basketball, one in rowing, and one in cheerleading.
Australia over the past 12 years:
2 deaths playing rugby, 45 spinal injuries, 49 paralyzed.
Annual sport related concussions in the USA: 250,000 !!!
2002, 15 American football deaths from head injury!
3 players a year die in college football
Athsma kills about 60 athletes a year in the USA. 20% of them basketball players, the rest mostly from track or gymnastics
Deadliest sporting activities per capita (deaths per 100,000 participants):
Horse racing, 128
Ski diving, 123
gliding, 55
mountaineering, 51
scuba diving, 11
college football, 3
boxing, 1.3
Ice Hockey, neither by injury nor fatality, is not even on the radar as far as dangerous sports go. In terms of injury by "contact" both baseball and football far exceed hockey.
So where does this leave the fighting debate?
If players aren't getting hurt in fights (not muggings a la Bertuzzi, but fights), and aren't getting hurt in Hockey in general, perhaps the old school knows a thing or two about "enforcement" and should be left alone to police their own game?
Is anti-fighting really just a fashion of people who don't understand the game. And why does sport have to have an obligation to be non violent? Boxing is violent. Football is violent, lacross, pro wrestling (not a sport, but the least deaths per year of everything we've mentioned so far), and hockey to name just a few. If an audience wants the game to be violent and another doesn't, ther are markets for both styles and the market will decide.
You don't have to watch the NHL.
Is hockey dangerous?
Most serious Hockey injuries are concussions (15%) and spinal chord injuries, which avergae two or three a year. Deaths are rare.
Skiing: In ten years from '87 to '97, there were 347 deaths. 30-40 ski injury related deaths per year.
Baseball:
In 22 years between '73 and '95, 88 kids died in Little League Baseball. 68 hit by balls (39 to the chest, 21 to the head) 13 hit by bats.
Every year there are 6600 serious injuries in baseball -- from sliding into bases.
US Child sports in 2003:
19 deaths -- eight in football, 3 in soccer, 3 in races, 1 in basketball, one in rowing, and one in cheerleading.
Australia over the past 12 years:
2 deaths playing rugby, 45 spinal injuries, 49 paralyzed.
Annual sport related concussions in the USA: 250,000 !!!
2002, 15 American football deaths from head injury!
3 players a year die in college football
Athsma kills about 60 athletes a year in the USA. 20% of them basketball players, the rest mostly from track or gymnastics
Deadliest sporting activities per capita (deaths per 100,000 participants):
Horse racing, 128
Ski diving, 123
gliding, 55
mountaineering, 51
scuba diving, 11
college football, 3
boxing, 1.3
Ice Hockey, neither by injury nor fatality, is not even on the radar as far as dangerous sports go. In terms of injury by "contact" both baseball and football far exceed hockey.
So where does this leave the fighting debate?
If players aren't getting hurt in fights (not muggings a la Bertuzzi, but fights), and aren't getting hurt in Hockey in general, perhaps the old school knows a thing or two about "enforcement" and should be left alone to police their own game?
Is anti-fighting really just a fashion of people who don't understand the game. And why does sport have to have an obligation to be non violent? Boxing is violent. Football is violent, lacross, pro wrestling (not a sport, but the least deaths per year of everything we've mentioned so far), and hockey to name just a few. If an audience wants the game to be violent and another doesn't, ther are markets for both styles and the market will decide.
You don't have to watch the NHL.
Comments
Ice Hockey, neither by injury nor fatality, is not even on the radar as far as dangerous sports go. In terms of injury by "contact" both baseball and football far exceed hockey.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but baseball is not even remotely requiring the physical sacrifices required of hockey players. Almost all hockey injuries are "contact injuries", as nearly every one is caused when you get hit by: another player, the puck, or a bad angle / high speed collision with the boards / glass / net.
Baseball is a total cupcake sport compared to hockey. I've played both enough to know. Aside from collisions at home plate and bean-balls, baseball is about as safe as it gets.
As far as fighting, it should not be banned in hockey per se, but the penalties for it should be MUCH stiffer, so that any fight is likely to be "for a good reason". The Bertuzzi thing shouldn't even apply as it wasn't a fight, but a lack of a fight that caused Bertuzzi to do something that stupid. Not an excuse, just pointing out it wasn't a "fight" per se.
As for rugby, it's pretty amazing that few people die, especially given that it's actually a hugely popular club sport in this country and in continental Europe, and it's of course a hugely popular club and professional sport in UK, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
Lot's of concussions, and usually a few broken bones though.
There's no comparison to be made.
heh heh
Originally posted by Moogs
Baseball is a total cupcake sport compared to hockey. I've played both enough to know. Aside from collisions at home plate and bean-balls, baseball is about as safe as it gets.
Which is why it's so damn boring.
Any sport is dangerous. A sport is athletic and competitive which means that people push their bodies or their implements to their physical limits. So hockey is dangerous like any sport. The matter seems to be whether hockey tolerates more unsportsmanlike behavior by association, where the sport doesn't come down hard enough on that sort of thing. I might also point out how baseball seems to have turned a blind eye to rampant steroid use, something that's arguably much more dangerous and unsportsmanlike than fighting. That's to say nothing of the recent events in Vancouver which were drastic and inexcusable. Anyway this isn't a "my favorite sport is better than your favorite sport" thread.
There are two things I would do to change professional hockey, and I don't care how much Don Cherry makes funs of these things:
1. Players should wear protective gear for their faces. Maybe I value my noggin a little more than these players, but I consider this refusal to do so as stupid as not wearing a protective cup.
2. Penalties for fighting and injuries should be much stiffer. I hate lesser talent getting ice time because they're designated "enforcers." Wayne Gretzky might have needed one but most guys should be tough enough for the regular bump and grind of the sport to play it without need for sideshow body guards. I also hate how teams try to use fighting as a tactic, and it's become so trivial for this reason. Any time a team is losing, someone seems to start a fight to try to get their team going. Pretty desperate, and it should be rewarded as such. The biggest problem with all of these recent events, as Moogs pointed out, is that not only is fighting tolerated, not only do people confuse a consensual fight with the assault Bertuzzi committed, but that the penalty for such a thing, probably because the NHL execs don't seem to understand the difference either, is too lax. Of course, in the end, Bertuzzi = money, so the conflict of interest is revealed when the NHL has to discipline its revenue-generating players.
Originally posted by Eugene
The issue with hockey is preventable injury, not incidental injury.
Right. And God knows *every* hit batter was a *complete* accident.
Every sport has the opportunity for accidental and intentional harm. Your point is... not.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Your point is... not.
And fights are part. of. the. game.
No, I'm not saying that particular incident was a fight, but what's going to happen when the ref is standing idly by during a sanctioned dropped-glove face-to-face fight that goes horribly wrong?
And yes, in baseball, beaning should carry far greater penalties than already implemented. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by Eugene
And fights are part. of. the. game.
No. They're. Not.
They are *tolerated* to a *point*. If they were part of the game, there wouldn't be penalties for them, now would there?
They are tolerated because with such a high-intensity high-contact small-arena phsyically-confined sport (of which hockey is unique), crap happens. It gets out of control sometimes, and a certain amount of steam blowing is allowed.
No, I'm not saying that particular incident was a fight, but what's going to happen when the ref is standing idly by during a sanctioned dropped-glove face-to-face fight that goes horribly wrong?
I'd bet you dollars to donuts (mmmm... donuts), that the chances of some nebulous 'horribly wrong something' going wrong during a fight are *far* less than during a hard check into the boards. Ever *tried* fighting on skates? You know why they hang onto each other so hard? Because if they don't, they'll fall flat on their faces and look really silly. You know why the refs don't bother stepping in until they go down? Because while they're standing, it's almost impossible to do any real damage to each other, but once they hit the ice, they can bring leverage to bear.
The blowing off of steam is allowed, actual physical damage is not. It's just that simple. And come on, they're wearing *armor* ferchrissakes.
And yes, in baseball, beaning should carry far greater penalties than already implemented. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Well at least you're consistent, I'll give you that.
Originally posted by Kickaha
No. They're. Not.
Those. weren't. my. words.
So I get back to the aesthetic. Is that the real problem with fighting? I might even agree that fighting is stupid, but is it dangerous? Hockey seems to be doing quite well relative to other sports.
I think it has a perhaps undeservedly bad reputation for being dangerously rough, because people see a fight and assume a whole lot of injurious stuff is going on, stuff that doesn't happen in other sports.
I'd say it's one of the toughest games around, but it seems to be safe and fair within the context of sport. Players dish it out and sometimes they fight, but I've yet to see any serious fight related injury.
PS, players ought to protect their eyes.
Originally posted by Matsu
PS, players ought to protect their eyes.
Personally, I think full face protection should be mandatory, but I know you guys will disagree.
It'll probably take a few years of high profile injuries to players like Roenick before that happens...
As predicted a long time ago by Don Cherry, now that face shields are becoming more prevalent, high sticking has skyrocketed. Were they to become mandatory it would become an epidemic. Poor idea.
Originally posted by Matsu
Deadliest sporting activities per capita (deaths per 100,000 participants):
Horse racing, 128
Ski diving, 123
Ski diving? sounds lethal.
gliding, 55
mountaineering, 51
scuba diving, 11
college football, 3
boxing, 1.3
hmmm...
death by mass equine trampling while wearing silly jockey silks,
death by harsh meeting with unyielding earth from the gravity challenged
(and some might argue these are darwinaward contestants for extreme sport risks anyways)
death by inhalation of the evil colorless, odorless, tasteless dihydrogen monoxide
OT: some of the college pigskin deaths might include heatstroke/heartattack of 400+lb linemen in the sun
boxing seems more and more barbaric the more we learn about brain injury
but I'm surprised Automobile racing didn't make the list (F1/NASCAR/CART) lose a few drivers
the other notable omission I'd suggest that usually rates highly is "Hunting",
but it wouldn't surprise me if the stats for 'gun accident' get massaged.
but I'm surprised Automobile racing didn't make the list (F1/NASCAR/CART) lose a few drivers
CART is on its last legs. Thanks, Tony George, you ****wad.
Anyway, fatalities off the top of my head...
IRL-
2003 Tony Renna - while testing at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, there's no footage of this crash at all, which is very unfortunate from the investigative perspective.
1996 Scott Brayton - practice laps at the Indy 500, it was a fairly harmless looking crash IIRC.
CART-
1999 Greg Moore - skidded onto the grass during a race at the California Speedway, went airborne after hitting a bump, causing the top-side of the car to hit the barrier first...there was nothing left of the car except for the driver compartment, which tumbled sideways for a few seconds before coming to a rest.
1999 Gonzalo Rodriguez - The car went straight into a barrier during practice at Laguna Seca and tumbled right over it.
1996 Jeff Krosnoff - Two cars got together near the end of the Molson Indy Toronto race. I believe the other driver was Stefan Johannson. Krosnoff's car went airborne into the catch fencing which caused it to flip wildly into a large tree.
F1-
Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger in 1994
NASCAR Winston/Nextel Cup-
2001 - Dale Earnhardt
2000 - Kenny Irwin
2000 - Adam Petty
The IRL has had the most number non-fatal severe injuries by far since they race on high-speed ovals exclusively and the cars almost always slide backward, engine first into the walls. A couple of drivers have been paralyzed, and a lot of other have had major back injuries. The IRL also follows the NASCAR formula for close racing, using restrictor plates to even out the competition. It makes for artificially close racing. That's okay in NASCAR where the drivers are protected by roll-cages and closed cockpits, but in the IRL it's a major tragedy just waiting to happen.
There has been one horrific CART crash since the last fatality where Alex Zanardi's car wasn't up to speed on the pit exit lane and it skidded up onto the track, right into the path of Alex Tagliani's car. It speared it right in the side of the nose and sheared it right off, along with Alex Zanardi's legs from the upper-thigh down. He lost 75% of his blood while being attended to. The fact that he's alive today is a testament to the CART doctors and the rest of the safety team. For the most part, CART drivers have avoided major injury except as a result of a freak accident.
This racing talk does bring something to mind though. To you NHL guys who think mandatory full or half face masks would be a bad idea, what do you think about something like the HANS device in auto racing? It's like a horseshoe collar that rests on your shoulder and restricts violent head/helmet movement in the event of a crash. It's mandatory in F1 and CART, but I don't think it is in the IRL, which probably needs it the most. NASCAR has a rule that forces drivers to wear a head and neck restraint of some sort, but it's much more relaxed than the explicit mandate for the HANS device.
Also, do you guys think current NHL players should have the choice to go completely helmetless?
As far as face shields, Don Cherry is a loon. Yah sure, only "Euros" wear visors. Joe Sakic, Brendan Morrison, Mark Recchi, Scott Young... what a bunch of pansy Euros those guys are (to name a few).
I believe that the "1/3 visors" should be a minimum requirement. Those are the ones that basically go low enough to cover all of your eye socket and a small part of your nose and cheek bone. 1/2 visors are a better idea (the ones that go down to the tip of your nose generally but the main point is to protect players' eyes above all else.
Mandatory full face guards would be a joke IMO. I've worn the things and they are a complete nuissance and still would not offer 100% facial protection. They can easily be cracked, in which case the injury caused could be much more serious (think stabbing) than had it not been there. The longer the piece of plastic the easier it will be to crack it, because by definition the plastic has to be thin and flexible.
The thing about it is, the eye is so sensitive to any kind of harsh contact, that it's not worth risking anyone's sight, just to avoid having to wipe your visor off once a shift with a towel. It's not that big a deal and you don't even know its there most of the time.
If they don't mandate it, I think they should at least take a specified amount of money from the players who refuse to wear one, and use that money for some charitable cause related to eye sight (or some such).
Other than vanity, I just can't think of a single good reason not to wear at least a 1/3 visor. And even vanity isn't that great an argument since I think players look more "cool" with them on than not.
I disagree. Even a half dozen a year would be enough to warrant such a mandate IMO. Ask Brian Berard and Al McInnis and others who've been clipped by stick blades (or worse, hit by pucks), how they feel about it. Some guy for the Stars got drilled by a slapshot right in the orbital area earlier this year. He could've easily been blinded for life in that eye though fortunately he wasn't.
Brian Berard tried a comeback, at first with a visor. But he didn't like it and took it off.
Mirian Hossa of Ottawa wears a shield, and when he took a slapper to the face it shattered the visor and left deep cuts in his face.
The visor does little to prevent any type of injury. High stick come from underneath by nature, and thus stick blades still come into the face and eyes. A full face shield would prevent most of this, but the clear ones distort peripheral vision a lot and the cages have too much visual obstruction.
What needs to be done is get the players to learn to keep their sticks down. the penalties involved with high sticks need to be reworked and be far more punishing.
Here's my suggestion:
Lvl 1: No blood drawn
5 minute minor penalty.
Lvl 2: Blood drawn
5 minute major plus additional automatic 10 minute misconduct for offending player.
Lvl 3: Severe high stick
5 minute major, Game misconduct, minimum $10,000 fine, suspension review.