If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   The NHL, a sport that didn't require players to wear helmets until 1979, is getting sued by former players who said the league "hasn't done enough to protect players from concussions"   (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 82
    More: Ironic, NHL, concussion, nyr, body checks, Maple Leafs, head injuries  
•       •       •

506 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Nov 2013 at 8:06 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-25 08:10:12 PM
How is that ironic? I would imagine that those players who didn't wear a helmet were probably the most prone to concussions
 
2013-11-25 08:11:55 PM
Doncha think?
 
2013-11-25 08:12:07 PM
oilersnation.com

KEEP YOUR HEAD UP, PUSSIES!
 
2013-11-25 08:17:54 PM
"IRONIC" tag feels violated.
 
2013-11-25 08:23:35 PM
Dammit Pronger?
 
2013-11-25 08:23:53 PM
I would have gone with the Asinine tag, personally. After all, they were the idiots that *told* the NHL "NO HATS FOR US REAL MEN"!
 
2013-11-25 08:24:04 PM
I am hoping that subby sufferred from a concussion and isn't just stupid.

Also, the NHL had a player playing without a helmet until 1997 due to a grandfather clause
 
2013-11-25 08:26:02 PM
This is the litigious society ya'll wanted...
 
2013-11-25 08:26:05 PM

ClavellBCMI: I would have gone with the Asinine tag, personally. After all, they were the idiots that *told* the NHL "NO HATS FOR US REAL MEN"!


Which would be meaningful if anything was said aout helmets by the players involved (there isn't in the article). They refer to various other things to show the NHL's inaction.
 
2013-11-25 08:26:09 PM
Subby should have another doughnut.
 
2013-11-25 08:26:32 PM
TFA says that these guys' lawsuit is citing the NHL's refusal to ban fighting and body-checking as evidence against it, but realistically would the NHLPA even allow them to ban those things?  If the league's current players are forced to choose between their brains and their machismo, which would they take?
 
2013-11-25 08:28:24 PM
What's next, Sydney Crosby leaving the league cause Ovie keeps bullying him on the ice?
 
2013-11-25 08:30:54 PM

jpo2269: What's next, Sydney Crosby leaving the league cause Ovie keeps bullying him on the ice?


Crosby can't hear it when Ovechkin calls, Crosby has his phone set to Washington Capitals mode. No ring.
 
2013-11-25 08:40:19 PM
I suspect the recent quickish quietish NFL settlement has a lot to do with this.  Gotta strike while the iron is hot and all.  The league bean counters will likely come to the same conclusion the NFL guys did. And catch-ing for these guys...
 
2013-11-25 08:42:55 PM
I don't get how it came to this in the NHL or NFL.
The players know damn well there is a chance they may not be able to skate/walk out of the area of play on their own accord after the game or career.
It's a "deal with the devil" of sorts.
You can make serious bank and achieve a high level of fame at the expense of your health and lifespan.
No different than boxers or MMA fighters.
 
2013-11-25 08:46:19 PM

sno man: I suspect the recent quickish quietish NFL settlement has a lot to do with this.  Gotta strike while the iron is hot and all.  The league bean counters will likely come to the same conclusion the NFL guys did. And catch-ing for these guys...


Soon as I saw Rick Vaives name I knew it was a cash grab.
 
2013-11-25 08:46:35 PM
When a hockey player gets a concussion, how would you know? If these players have more brain cells than they do teeth they wouldnt be playing the sport to begin with.
 
2013-11-25 08:48:48 PM

Primitive Screwhead: I don't get how it came to this in the NHL or NFL.
The players know damn well there is a chance they may not be able to skate/walk out of the area of play on their own accord after the game or career.
It's a "deal with the devil" of sorts.
You can make serious bank and achieve a high level of fame at the expense of your health and lifespan.
No different than boxers or MMA fighters.


Did you see this list of players?

Bradley Aitken (Pittsburgh Penguins, Edmonton Oilers); Darren Banks (Boston Bruins); Curt Bennett (Blues, New York Rangers and Atlanta Flames); Richard Dunn (Buffalo Sabres and Calgary Flames); Warren Holmes, (Los Angeles Kings); Robert Manno, (Canucks, Maple Leafs and Detroit Red Wings); Blair James Stewart (Red Wings, Washington Capitals and Quebec Nordiques); Morris Titanic, (Sabres); and Rick Vaive (Canucks, Maple Leafs, Sabres, and Chicago Blackhawks).

I read that and thought, "Who?"

I doubt these guys made "serious bank" hence the lawsuit.
 
2013-11-25 08:52:34 PM

Mr_Ectomy: I doubt these guys made "serious bank" hence the lawsuit.


Fair enough.
I guess I can't blame them for trying and they may get something out of it but if it were up to me they wouldn't get anything.

img84.imageshack.us
 
2013-11-25 08:53:56 PM

Flappyhead: sno man: I suspect the recent quickish quietish NFL settlement has a lot to do with this.  Gotta strike while the iron is hot and all.  The league bean counters will likely come to the same conclusion the NFL guys did. And catch-ing for these guys...

Soon as I saw Rick Vaives name I knew it was a cash grab.


The monkey wrench in the works is when the two leagues respective concussions studies were done v. when the players played.  These NHL guys might be grasping at straws, some younger more recently concussed guys would have a better case...
 
2013-11-25 08:56:38 PM

Fallout Boy: When a hockey player gets a concussion, how would you know? If these players have more brain cells than they do teeth they wouldnt be playing the sport to begin with.


I'd venture to think that the majority of hockey players are a tad more intelligent than the other major 4 sports.

Baseball players: statistically the lowest percentage of college degrees of coaches and players. Tobacco chewing meatheads.

Football players: caveman mentallity, constant head trauma, there are a lot more educated and cerebral players on the field however than baseball players and...

NBA players: only required to attend one year of baking and car detailing classes before entering the league. Vast majority come from inner-city questionable upbringings.

NHL players: biggest alkis in sports. Know how to crash Ferraris, some attend college, the others end up moving into to strange housing environments and have tea with Ms. McGee. The polite Canadian factor plays a roll in the good guy image.

/this post was base totally on stereotypes
//no basis of fact should be taken
 
2013-11-25 09:00:19 PM
NHL players can fark themselves right in their own ass. The last remaining non-bloodsport that doesn't just allow fighting, but openly EMBRACES it. Especially  the fark-brained quasi-pro-wrestling fanbase that jerks off to it nightly.

Tell you what, line up any NHL player who wants to sue. Each of them takes a sharpened skate across the throat, with no medical assistance for at least 4 days. And bind their hands, so they cannot staunch the bleeding.

Those who don't clot in time? Wussies, Those who live? OK they can sue if they really want to. Everyone else? Way too pussy to play in the NHL.
 
2013-11-25 09:04:11 PM

Dr J Zoidberg: How is that ironic? I would imagine that those players who didn't wear a helmet were probably the most prone to concussions



It's like rain on your wedding day, dude.
 
2013-11-25 09:05:24 PM

Primitive Screwhead: I don't get how it came to this in the NHL or NFL.
The players know damn well there is a chance they may not be able to skate/walk out of the area of play on their own accord after the game or career.
It's a "deal with the devil" of sorts.
You can make serious bank and achieve a high level of fame at the expense of your health and lifespan.
No different than boxers or MMA fighters.


The issue is that there is an expectation that the employer will take actions to minimize the risk to employees. In this sense, you can make a case that the league should adopt rules that minimize concussions. This is then supported by the players citing evidence that the NHL knew concussions were an issue. In effect, the argument isn't that they faced risks of concussions, but they faced greater risks than they should have and the owners knew this.
 
2013-11-25 09:07:55 PM

ISO15693: Dr J Zoidberg: How is that ironic? I would imagine that those players who didn't wear a helmet were probably the most prone to concussions


It's like rain on your wedding day, dude.


Well, that could be ironic given certain circumstances. This headline? Nope. It is the exact opposite of ironic.
 
2013-11-25 09:11:42 PM

Dr J Zoidberg: How is that ironic? I would imagine that those players who didn't wear a helmet were probably the most prone to concussions


you might actually be surprised.  There are numerous accounts of player who played with and without helmets saying they tended to get harder when they wore a helmet, same thing with high sticks.

Regardless, the league did little to implement mandatory protective equipment because it was collectively bargained by the nhlpa that they didn't want to be forced.  Thus the grandfathered helmet rule, and currently the grandfathered visor rule.

In the long run, based on the collective bargaining history, I would be surprised if this isn't nearly the size and scope of the nfl lawsuit.  Theplayers should be suing their nhlpa advisors who didnt reccomend to them that they should be mandated to wear visors/helmets.
 
2013-11-25 09:13:26 PM

dywed88: ClavellBCMI: I would have gone with the Asinine tag, personally. After all, they were the idiots that *told* the NHL "NO HATS FOR US REAL MEN"!

Which would be meaningful if anything was said aout helmets by the players involved (there isn't in the article). They refer to various other things to show the NHL's inaction.


the league could easily introduce into evidence that the players themselves showed no concern, by the collective bargaining process.
 
2013-11-25 09:16:10 PM

sno man: Flappyhead: sno man: I suspect the recent quickish quietish NFL settlement has a lot to do with this.  Gotta strike while the iron is hot and all.  The league bean counters will likely come to the same conclusion the NFL guys did. And catch-ing for these guys...

Soon as I saw Rick Vaives name I knew it was a cash grab.

The monkey wrench in the works is when the two leagues respective concussions studies were done v. when the players played.  These NHL guys might be grasping at straws, some younger more recently concussed guys would have a better case...


Another problem is the names on that list played before the grandfather clause on mandatory helmets ran out with MacTavish' retirement.  And if memory serves guys like Leeman and Vaive wore helmets their entire career so it's not like they can claim they were unaware of the dangers of head trauma.
 
2013-11-25 09:17:10 PM

ncsu_wolfpack: you might actually be surprised. There are numerous accounts of player who played with and without helmets saying they tended to get harder when they wore a helmet, same thing with high sticks.


Yeah, and to an extent this does make sense. The NFL has a perfect example, I doubt you saw many of the tackles leading with the head back before players had helmets on. The basic idea, you can take bigger risks when you have more equipment on.

ncsu_wolfpack: In the long run, based on the collective bargaining history, I would be surprised if this isn't nearly the size and scope of the nfl lawsuit. Theplayers should be suing their nhlpa advisors who didnt reccomend to them that they should be mandated to wear visors/helmets.


Except that the lawsuit has nothing to do with helmets.
 
2013-11-25 09:17:49 PM

Flappyhead: sno man: Flappyhead: sno man: I suspect the recent quickish quietish NFL settlement has a lot to do with this.  Gotta strike while the iron is hot and all.  The league bean counters will likely come to the same conclusion the NFL guys did. And catch-ing for these guys...

Soon as I saw Rick Vaives name I knew it was a cash grab.

The monkey wrench in the works is when the two leagues respective concussions studies were done v. when the players played.  These NHL guys might be grasping at straws, some younger more recently concussed guys would have a better case...

Another problem is the names on that list played before the grandfather clause on mandatory helmets ran out with MacTavish' retirement.  And if memory serves guys like Leeman and Vaive wore helmets their entire career so it's not like they can claim they were unaware of the dangers of head trauma.


This.
 
2013-11-25 09:22:10 PM
dywed88:

Except that the lawsuit has nothing to do with helmets.

Doesn't it, though?  They can say we tried to mandate that players wear helmets, the players as a whole did not want to force older players to wear a helmet.  Who gave less of a damn about head trauma? What more could we do when they wanted to be tough, and play it out, or not even wear something as common sense as a helmet?
 
2013-11-25 09:39:36 PM
Yeah, Craig MacTavish (the player I remember being grandfathered in longer than any other) is basically a useless vegetable now (rolls eyes).

How about the assertion from all sides in the NFL that better padding is one of the causes that led NFL players to become more reckless and aggressive, therefore leading to higher incidences of CBT and other injuries?

I mean, the players were better protected due to the better equipment... why would things get more dangerous?
 
2013-11-25 09:39:46 PM
The hockey community frowns on your shenanigans


nbcprohockeytalk.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-25 09:45:50 PM

EJ25T: Yeah, Craig MacTavish (the player I remember being grandfathered in longer than any other) is basically a useless vegetable now (rolls eyes).


You haven't watched the oilers lately, I'm guessing.
 
2013-11-25 09:50:02 PM

ncsu_wolfpack: EJ25T: Yeah, Craig MacTavish (the player I remember being grandfathered in longer than any other) is basically a useless vegetable now (rolls eyes).

You haven't watched the oilers lately, I'm guessing.


bet he has.
(or by lately, do you mean this past week?)
 
2013-11-25 09:56:02 PM

sno man: ncsu_wolfpack: EJ25T: Yeah, Craig MacTavish (the player I remember being grandfathered in longer than any other) is basically a useless vegetable now (rolls eyes).

You haven't watched the oilers lately, I'm guessing.

bet he has.
(or by lately, do you mean this past week?)


kicking the snot out of Columbus, does not mean Craig MacTavish is doing a good job.  The team he,s put together is a joke.
 
2013-11-25 10:01:48 PM

ncsu_wolfpack: sno man: ncsu_wolfpack: EJ25T: Yeah, Craig MacTavish (the player I remember being grandfathered in longer than any other) is basically a useless vegetable now (rolls eyes).

You haven't watched the oilers lately, I'm guessing.

bet he has.
(or by lately, do you mean this past week?)

kicking the snot out of Columbus, does not mean Craig MacTavish is doing a good job.  The team he,s put together is a joke.


Well Columbus just smoked the Leafs tonight like a hippy on a blunt...
But yea, MacT has really made it tough for Eakins, trying to get the next Gretzky EVERY year...
 
2013-11-25 10:04:26 PM
Further solidifying their scrappy, hard nosed billy badass reputation
 
2013-11-25 10:06:37 PM
*Ctl-F "Gordie Howe only wore a helmet when his skull was fractured or he had a concussion.* Not found.*

WTF, fark hockey fans, were your bells rung a time too many?
 
2013-11-25 10:13:03 PM

sno man: ncsu_wolfpack: sno man: ncsu_wolfpack: EJ25T: Yeah, Craig MacTavish (the player I remember being grandfathered in longer than any other) is basically a useless vegetable now (rolls eyes).

You haven't watched the oilers lately, I'm guessing.

bet he has.
(or by lately, do you mean this past week?)

kicking the snot out of Columbus, does not mean Craig MacTavish is doing a good job.  The team he,s put together is a joke.

Well Columbus just smoked the Leafs tonight like a hippy on a blunt...
But yea, MacT has really made it tough for Eakins, trying to get the next Gretzky EVERY year...


Its late November. It's time for the leafs to hit the skids, like every other year.
 
2013-11-25 10:21:03 PM
What ever happened to the sacred Warrior Code that existed in hockey in the good old days?

/Does the NHL even have the money to settle this suit without folding like a Walmart lawn chair?
 
2013-11-25 10:25:34 PM

ongbok: What ever happened to the sacred Warrior Code that existed in hockey in the good old days?

/Does the NHL even have the money to settle this suit without folding like a Walmart lawn chair?


MLSE could probably cover it by itself.  There is actually a fair bit of coin in the league. Not so much evenly, looking at you Columbus...
 
2013-11-25 10:39:58 PM
I'm okay with helmet improvements, if they require the face mask like college teams do.  Sure not being able to take the helmet off for a fight will also help, but lets not let this lead to them taking away the blades.  You got to leave the guys some way to kill each other.  After that, a roller hockey league with padded boards and nerf sticks and pucks.
 
2013-11-25 10:51:03 PM

ncsu_wolfpack: dywed88:

Except that the lawsuit has nothing to do with helmets.

Doesn't it, though?  They can say we tried to mandate that players wear helmets, the players as a whole did not want to force older players to wear a helmet.  Who gave less of a damn about head trauma? What more could we do when they wanted to be tough, and play it out, or not even wear something as common sense as a helmet?


IIRC, players fought tooth and nail against helmets.
 
2013-11-25 10:59:16 PM

dywed88: The issue is that there is an expectation that the employer will take actions to minimize the risk to employees. In this sense, you can make a case that the league should adopt rules that minimize concussions. This is then supported by the players citing evidence that the NHL knew concussions were an issue. In effect, the argument isn't that they faced risks of concussions, but they faced greater risks than they should have and the owners knew this.


OK, fair enough but if you refused a helmet when it was offered, you should get nothing and like it.

This may be off track but I feel the bigger issue is not equipment but head hunters.
The NHL should have been enforcing stricter penalties and higher fines for blindsiding, elbows and other cheap-shots a long time ago.
It's one thing to face your opponent, be on the losing side and sustain an injury.
How many guys have had been laid out for weeks because they caught a flying elbow to the side of their head?
While the offender only gets a 5 games.
That's what I would be suing over.
 
2013-11-25 11:03:28 PM

Khazar-Khum: ncsu_wolfpack: dywed88:

Except that the lawsuit has nothing to do with helmets.

Doesn't it, though?  They can say we tried to mandate that players wear helmets, the players as a whole did not want to force older players to wear a helmet.  Who gave less of a damn about head trauma? What more could we do when they wanted to be tough, and play it out, or not even wear something as common sense as a helmet?

IIRC, players fought tooth and nail against helmets.


And that's precisely the crux of my argument.
 
2013-11-25 11:04:40 PM

Primitive Screwhead: dywed88: The issue is that there is an expectation that the employer will take actions to minimize the risk to employees. In this sense, you can make a case that the league should adopt rules that minimize concussions. This is then supported by the players citing evidence that the NHL knew concussions were an issue. In effect, the argument isn't that they faced risks of concussions, but they faced greater risks than they should have and the owners knew this.

OK, fair enough but if you refused a helmet when it was offered, you should get nothing and like it.

This may be off track but I feel the bigger issue is not equipment but head hunters.
The NHL should have been enforcing stricter penalties and higher fines for blindsiding, elbows and other cheap-shots a long time ago.
It's one thing to face your opponent, be on the losing side and sustain an injury.
How many guys have had been laid out for weeks because they caught a flying elbow to the side of their head?
While the offender only gets a 5 games.
That's what I would be suing over.


The only thing referring to helmets is the Fark headline. The players's lawsuit refers to the league rules regarding hits to the head and enforcers.
 
2013-11-25 11:07:41 PM

dywed88: I am hoping that subby sufferred from a concussion and isn't just stupid.

Also, the NHL had a player playing without a helmet until 1997 due to a grandfather clause


You sound like you submitted the same article with a different headline.
 
2013-11-25 11:09:09 PM

dywed88: The players's lawsuit refers to the league rules regarding hits to the head and enforcers.


Well, now I'm intrigued and a bit on board.

/stop making good arguments ;)
 
2013-11-25 11:21:31 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

These guys part of the lawsuit, too?
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report