Eleven Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Another huge issue with drastic changes to helmets, and this might've been said already, is the ongoing lawsuits. Drastic changes to the protective wear the league uses is essentially an admittance of guilt. It is not an admission of guilt and any improvements to helmet design would be precluded from evidence as a subsequent remedial measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 It is not an admission of guilt and any improvements to helmet design would be precluded from evidence as a subsequent remedial measure. Thanks for posting that. I'd started typing something similar but not nearly as succinct. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 It is not an admission of guilt and any improvements to helmet design would be precluded from evidence as a subsequent remedial measure. I disagree. It would at least be brought up as a case against them. The league would obviously claim that the information needed to force the change wasn't available to them when these players were subjected to the traumatic brain injuries that caused the long-term issues, but I think it will enter the mind of some and create more doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 It is not an admission of guilt and any improvements to helmet design would be precluded from evidence as a subsequent remedial measure. Oh yeah? I remember this time on the People's Court... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I disagree. It would at least be brought up as a case against them. The league would obviously claim that the information needed to force the change wasn't available to them when these players were subjected to the traumatic brain injuries that caused the long-term issues, but I think it will enter the mind of some and create more doubt. Dude. I know this stuff. Believe me, it's not admissible into evidence to establish liability and it's not an admission. EDIT: Maybe in Canada (I don't know, but I seriously doubt it because of the chilling effect it would have on people fixing dangerous conditions). Definitely not here. SECOND EDIT: Liability, not guilt. It's been a long day. Edited March 29, 2015 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastajoe Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 My helmet isn't listed. A couple years ago after hitting my head a couple times in a Bauer and getting a concussion I bought the Cascade M11 Messier Project helmet, supposed to be new design to reduce head trauma. I could tell the difference next time I got slew footed. I bought one for my son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 My helmet isn't listed. A couple years ago after hitting my head a couple times in a Bauer and getting a concussion I bought the Cascade M11 Messier Project helmet, supposed to be new design to reduce head trauma. I could tell the difference next time I got slew footed. I bought one for my son. The Messier is now the Bauer IMS 7.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Dude. I know this stuff. Believe me, it's not admissible into evidence to establish liability and it's not an admission. EDIT: Maybe in Canada (I don't know, but I seriously doubt it because of the chilling effect it would have on people fixing dangerous conditions). Definitely not here. SECOND EDIT: Liability, not guilt. It's been a long day. Hey Tank: Ok. Now that I have a minute. Take a look at this, it's Federal Rule of Evidence 407: When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove: negligence; culpable conduct; a defect in a product or its design; or a need for a warning or instruction. But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures. Every state that I can think of has a state law analog, either by court rule, statute, or case law. Maybe not Louisiana, because it's weird and everything is based upon French law, but there's no NHL team there anyway. There is a sound policy behind it. Let's take a really simple slip and fall. So Tom Smith slips on your tile floor and falls and breaks his left testicle. He sues you. You, as a responsible person, want to prevent more incidents from happening. So you put a large carpet mat on your tile floor. As a society, we want to encourage your responsible behavior. So we don't let the fact that you put down a carpet after Mr. Smith broke his testicle become an admission of fault. At all. UNLESS you are stupid enough to argue that it was somehow impossible or not feasible for you to put down a carpet before Mr. Smith fell. Then we allow it in, to show feasibility. But you won't make such an argument, because your lawyer won't let you. Neither will the league's lawyer. Sorry if my short replies earlier didn't tell the whole story. I was working my ass off and posting here to relieve my mind from work. Edited March 30, 2015 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Tank just got lawyered the eff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Tank just got lawyered the eff up. Oh, I hope that's not how it came off. I really just wanted to explain the concept and I didn't have time to do it earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Oh, I hope that's not how it came off. I really just wanted to explain the concept and I didn't have time to do it earlier. It didn't. I was just funnin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It didn't. I was just funnin'. It's all good, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I still think that your smell bad! :p But really, good post. I should've known that something like that wouldn't be brought in as evidence (it's common sense really). I do wonder what a crowd of people in a courtroom would think if they're talking about head injuries in a lawsuit and then see news at home that the league made sweeping changes to their equipment. Would it cast doubt? Would it make them view the league in a different light? No matter how much we try to put blinders on juries and judges while they cover a trial it's impossible to control the subconscious. These things will have some type of impact if it happens during the trial. I'd rather these leagues just figure out a way to pay former players for their troubles, improve their safety standards and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 That's exactly the kind of backwards thinking I'd expect the NHL to use. Goal scoring's down? Let's just allow more kick goals! Problem solved! When are we ever going to see more skill on display? Yet, when a player takes a pass off a skate to the stick we talk about the incredible skill displayed to move it up to the stick while at full speed. Frankly, I don't care how it goes in. If they can deflect it with their skates then so be it. This is very interesting. It might even deserve its own thread. I don't know what that Bauer rep is talking about when he says they don't associate their products with concussion prevention. As someone who was selling this stuff, our marketing people were pretty convinced that what we were selling was concussion prevention. So is that our fault as retailers or is it the manufacturers talking with a forked tongue? I'll be interested to see what the full study says. This is a big deal. At the same time, I'm not surprised at all. There's no doubt that hockey helmets don't provide protection on the same level as football helmets. If they did, they'd be the same size. The eye test can tell you that much. Having just finished my courses with USA Hockey as well on player safety, etc. it should be noted that USA Hockey also states that mouthguards and helmets are not effective in preventing concussion. They say that there is no scientific proof that either of those safety measures reduces concussion. There is implied safety through lessening of impact. They put it straight up that it's there to protect teeth (mouthguard) or skull fractures and other collision incidents (helmet). I think anything that snaps the head severely enough. The key is slowing the brain's movement inside the skull and that'll take a lot of work. The article itself talks about how football helmets evolved but have they proven to lead to less concussion? I'm not sure if I caught that claim anywhere in the article. So, they may due better on this new testing procedure but it might not actually lead to a reduction in injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yet, when a player takes a pass off a skate to the stick we talk about the incredible skill displayed to move it up to the stick while at full speed. Frankly, I don't care how it goes in. If they can deflect it with their skates then so be it. I don't think that the league wants players kicking at the puck with their bladed boots while high price goalies are reaching their arms out for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't think that the league wants players kicking at the puck with their bladed boots while high price goalies are reaching their arms out for it.They don't want players kicking while D or other forwards are out there either. I'd still suggest that the rule be modified to where if the puck goes off the foot and the entire blade is on the ice, it's a good goal. If not, it was kicked in and no goal. Regardless of the foot's motion, so intent doesn't need to be augered and safety is upheld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They don't want players kicking while D or other forwards are out there either. I'd still suggest that the rule be modified to where if the puck goes off the foot and the entire blade is on the ice, it's a good goal. If not, it was kicked in and no goal. Regardless of the foot's motion, so intent doesn't need to be augered and safety is upheld. Love this idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Love this idea. It is good. I had to think about it for a minute. I first took it as any part of the blade has to stay on the ice, then I re-read it — the entire blade. Taro, why not send the idea to the league? Maybe no one's ever thought of it this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They don't want players kicking while D or other forwards are out there either. I'd still suggest that the rule be modified to where if the puck goes off the foot and the entire blade is on the ice, it's a good goal. If not, it was kicked in and no goal. Regardless of the foot's motion, so intent doesn't need to be augered and safety is upheld. I like the idea. "No goal; the puck was directed in with a high skate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) "It was a good goal, because the offensive players skate blade never left the ice" Promotes safety and scoring Edited March 30, 2015 by Woods-Racer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) They don't want players kicking while D or other forwards are out there either. I'd still suggest that the rule be modified to where if the puck goes off the foot and the entire blade is on the ice, it's a good goal. If not, it was kicked in and no goal. Regardless of the foot's motion, so intent doesn't need to be augered and safety is upheld. I don't think this promotes safety any better than the current rules do. It basically tells guys they can kick the puck in which will, no matter the rules, lead to more cases of guys kicking their skates up. Not that it's a bad rule, just saying that it doesn't promote safety. On top of this tweak I would want them to clarify that the skate must stay on the ice throughout the entire play. If the puck contacts the skate while it's entirely on the ice but through the motion the skate does come up then it should be waved off. I don't like anything that lets guys kick the puck in because I think it creates way more dangerous plays, but if you're going to do it go all the way. This is my third edit, but: this would also rule out goals that happen right now that are allowed that still should be. Your skate comes off the ice when you're skating... If a guy shoots the puck and it deflects off a teammate's skate who has his foot in the air purely because it's his skating motion should it be ruled out? Edited March 30, 2015 by Tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I don't think this promotes safety any better than the current rules do. It basically tells guys they can kick the puck in which will, no matter the rules, lead to more cases of guys kicking their skates up. Not that it's a bad rule, just saying that it doesn't promote safety. On top of this tweak I would want them to clarify that the skate must stay on the ice throughout the entire play. If the puck contacts the skate while it's entirely on the ice but through the motion the skate does come up then it should be waved off. I don't like anything that lets guys kick the puck in because I think it creates way more dangerous plays, but if you're going to do it go all the way. That's realistic, it would also do away with players jumping or lifting their legs in front of the net trying to screen the goalie. Not sure if injuries have occurred because of the aerobics in front of the net, but allowing the skate to remain on the ice and using motions to angle it in would add to the game I think. Edited March 30, 2015 by Woods-Racer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And who will be in charge of determining in if the entire skate blade is touching the ice or part of it is off the ice? Just what sports need, another call where the officials make judgement calls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And who will be in charge of determining in if the entire skate blade is touching the ice or part of it is off the ice? Just what sports need, another call where the officials make judgement calls I think Taro's proposal is FAR less of a judgement call than what is in place right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They don't want players kicking while D or other forwards are out there either. I'd still suggest that the rule be modified to where if the puck goes off the foot and the entire blade is on the ice, it's a good goal. If not, it was kicked in and no goal. Regardless of the foot's motion, so intent doesn't need to be augered and safety is upheld. Wouldn't that be a deflection and not a kick? I'm not certain a player could kick at the puck without lifting a part of his blade off the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.