The Life of NHL Dentists • Hacker News Board

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#71

Post by alkonaut » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #43

alkonaut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “fighting culture” in the NHL (perhaps more in the AhL and college leagues?) can’t die soon enough. It’s already better than it used to be in the 80s and 90s but there is some way to go. A good first step would be actual match penalties for proper fights. It has worked elsewhere.

There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. Teams have goons and enforcers. It’s the goon’s job to hurt star players. A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game, the series, or potentially the season. It’s those hits that cause inju…

> There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions.

I think that theory is BS. Fighting is a well known cause of concussions. https://www.nhl.com/news/concussion-panel-recommends-hockey-...

> Teams have goons and enforcers. > An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out of you.

This sounds like the NHL in 1999, not 2019. Enforcers are mostly gone thank god.

> A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. > If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game.

The rules are very different now (or compared very differently at least) compared to 20 yeears ago too. 20 years ago you saw people glorify open-ice blindsidee hits saying "heads up!". Now hitting someone when their head is low invariably is a suspension. The responsibility is on the tackling player. An attacker with his head too low is not a valid target.

> and almost never result in serious injury

The figures range from 5 to 10% of concussions coming from fighting. It's not a lot, and probably not the most serious ones - but they are all unnecessary unlike the others which are part of the game.

My theory is that glorifying violence is bad full stop. I don't care whether NHL players get a few more concussions. They make millions and have great healthcare. The problem is my kid who watches this and thinks that's how you play hockey. Fighting doesn't disappear because it results in match penalties. It just stops the glorification. Linesmen should never back off two fighting players, crowds cheering with their popcorn. It's disgusting.

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#72

Post by alkonaut » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 10:56 AM UTC

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #52

alkonaut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “fighting culture” in the NHL (perhaps more in the AhL and college leagues?) can’t die soon enough. It’s already better than it used to be in the 80s and 90s but there is some way to go. A good first step would be actual match penalties for proper fights. It has worked elsewhere.

Care to back that up with an argument or should we all just accept that your preferred culture is the "correct" one?

It's glorification of violence. (Which is an argument only if you don't like glorification of violence.).

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#73

Post by OJFord » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 10:56 AM UTC

Doxin wrote: post #70

estomagordo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a hockey fan who only kept playing until the junior years, I don't think I'll ever understand why anyone would play without the cage. Wouldn't you adjust to the vision distraction really quickly?

One thing I notice when googling for hockey cages is that a lot of them incorporate horizontal elements. That doesn't seem like good design to me. Your eyes are spaced horizontally. This makes it pretty easy to ignore narrow vertical elements: if one eye gets blocked there's a good chance the other eye can still see around it. The same thing doesn't go for horizontal elements. If one eye is blocked the other is likel…

I started playing at university (UK) , and always wore a cage. Honestly, it's really only an issue when you first put it on each time, once you start skating you're really not aware of them.

Like wearing glasses, I imagine.

I used to play with a guy that had one of those half cages with visor top half, would be tempted to try that if I needed to replace mine, but not enough to get one before then.

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#74

Post by OJFord » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 11:06 AM UTC

krisgee wrote: post #18

bsznjyewgd wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but the NHL BANS full face protection unless you're recovering from an injury. (Ex-all star Dany Heatley spent most of his career wearing a comically big half-visor after suffering a serious eye injury, I wonder if he would've opted for a full visor if given the choice.) Some players already dislike the currently mandated half-visors (visors can distort vision, or fog up, etc.) and do weird shenanigans…

>There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection. Having grown up playing hockey in a pretty rough league that's not true. You just hook your hand under the back of the helmet and pull, it'll pop right off.

With a full cage? Either the wearer has deliberately made that possible, or it'll hurt.

I was kept mine so that I could get it on and off without unclipping the cage, but as snug as possible while still allowing that. So pulling it off isn't quick, and I wouldn't fancy someone else doing it.

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#75

Post by J-dawg » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 11:43 AM UTC

gwern wrote: post #29

koboll wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? That's an amazing fact

I've heard this before, but about England and only as something relatively rare: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/smile-a-perf...

In 'Road to Wigan Pier', George Orwell found that many working class people saw their teeth as an inconvenience to get rid of as soon as possible.

> Several dentists have told me that in industrial districts a person over thirty with any of his or her own teeth is coming to be an abnormality. In Wigan various people gave me their opinion that it is best to get shut of your teeth as early in life as possible. 'Teeth is just a misery,' one woman said to me. In one house where I stayed there were, apart from myself, five people, the oldest being forty-three and the youngest a boy of fifteen. Of these the boy was the only one who possessed a single tooth of his own, and his teeth were obviously not going to last long.

http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier/5.html

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#76

Post by blaser-waffle » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #30

rustybelt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hearing this, all I can think of is how Zdeno Charing broke his jaw in multiple places in this year's Stanley Cup Final and was back the next game. Hockey players are insane.

Most people think it’s just a game, and are surprised or confused by this. This isn’t a game to them, it’s their job, and one they fought hard their entire lives for. The system selects for elite talent from all over the globe that is wired to persevere at all costs. For the extremely few who make it to the finals of the top league in their sport, especially late in their career, they know they may never get another…

Pro-level athletes are training hard, and spend an awful lot of time being miserable, both due to constant training, and lots of time away from home.

After all that misery now you've got a real shot at a Cup? You bet your ass they're going to stay in the game until they can't.

And then there is the financial incentives for winning the championship...

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#77

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #71

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. Teams have goons and enforcers. It’s the goon’s job to hurt star players. A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game, the series, or potentially the season. It’s those hits that cause inju…

> There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. I think that theory is BS. Fighting is a well known cause of concussions. https://www.nhl.com/news/concussion-panel-recommends-hockey-... > Teams have goons and enforcers. > An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out…

> Now hitting someone when their head is low invariably is a suspension. The responsibility is on the tackling player. An attacker with his head too low is not a valid target.

The rules are way more strict now, but this isn’t accurate. It has to be intentionally targeting the head, or feet leaving the ground. There is no responsibility on the player unless contact with the head was deemed to be avoidable. That doesn’t apply to the hit overall, as there is never an obligation to avoid contact - just that if you do make contact, and you have the option of where to hit them, you aren’t allowed to choose the head.

The rule states:

In determining whether contact with an opponent’s head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:

(i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not “picked” as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.

(ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.

> I don't care whether NHL players get a few more concussions. They make millions and have great healthcare.

That’s the biggest issue in professional contact sports, particularly football and hockey, so any argument that dismisses it is not going to be very compelling.

There is no such thing as good health care for concussions. It’s permanent brain damage.

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#78

Post by gwern » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #75

gwern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this before, but about England and only as something relatively rare: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/smile-a-perf...

In 'Road to Wigan Pier', George Orwell found that many working class people saw their teeth as an inconvenience to get rid of as soon as possible. > Several dentists have told me that in industrial districts a person over thirty with any of his or her own teeth is coming to be an abnormality. In Wigan various people gave me their opinion that it is best to get shut of your teeth as early in life as possible. 'Teeth i…

Yes, the rate of dentures in England was astonishingly high: many, if not most, people would get out most or all of their teeth at some point in their life. There's no question of that, the national dental surveys show that. The question is one of bridal customs.

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#79

Post by alkonaut » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #77

alkonaut wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. I think that theory is BS. Fighting is a well known cause of concussions. https://www.nhl.com/news/concussion-panel-recommends-hockey-... > Teams have goons and enforcers. > An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out…

> Now hitting someone when their head is low invariably is a suspension. The responsibility is on the tackling player. An attacker with his head too low is not a valid target. The rules are way more strict now, but this isn’t accurate. It has to be intentionally targeting the head, or feet leaving the ground. There is no responsibility on the player unless contact with the head was deemed to be avoidable. That doesn’…

I’m obviously not in favor of increasing concussions - but luckily I don’t buy into the argument that fighting increases concussions, so it’s not even a tradeoff in my view. Reducing fighting can cut the 5-10% of concussions that come from fighting in pro leagues and help reduce them elsewhere as an added bonus. A less ridiculous sport is icing on the cake.

Re: The Life of NHL Dentists

#80

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #63

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. Teams have goons and enforcers. It’s the goon’s job to hurt star players. A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game, the series, or potentially the season. It’s those hits that cause inju…

Teams have goons and enforcers They don't, really, and the stats show a fairly steady decrease in fighting. There might be a 'theory' but the evidence is fighting is on the way out. You could make the argument that removing players who specialize in fighting and the ceremony and ritual surrounding it it makes fighting more dangerous - a recent case in point would be Ovechkin knocking out Svechnikov earlier this year.…

Yes it’s definitely on the decline, and nothing like before the rule changes, but it’s still an issue. Crosby has been punished heavily his whole career and suffered several concussions, so the Penguins had to make changes to give him more protection.

The theory is backed by the evidence. It’s correlation, but the link seems obvious. Concussions went way up after the original instigator rule. They went up even more after the “no hits to the head if you can hit somewhere else rule”.

The number of man games lost in the playoffs has also gone up steadily.

So by all metrics, outcomes have gotten worse. Pests and cheap shots have no deterrent, and compared to fighting, those are what cause real damage.

Your arguments sound plausible, but the numbers tell a far different story, and the coaches who have star players vocally disagree with you.

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-instigator-penalty-needs-to...

”The instigator rule may be limiting fights, but it isn’t protecting the players. It’s allowing dirty players to thrive. And that has to be worse for hockey than two players facing off in an effort to guard their teammates.”

Don’t get me wrong, I get the moral argument and the issue with glorifying violence. I don’t have an opinion on fights, but I find the change in outcomes to be interesting in the behavioral economics sense.