Leafs claim Frazer McLaren on waivers from San Jose

[Optimus Reimer]

Teammates like to see a good fight, so do most coaches, and the fans as well, so why eliminate something that most people like.

Because for the league, at some point, it's going to just be a liability issue. It's all well and good for someone at 27 or 30 to say that they understand the risks of fighting but when they're in their 40's, not drawing an NHL paycheck and unable to remember their wife's name because of brain damage then they may have a different view about the risks and whether or not the league is responsible for their medical bills. The NFL is finding out right now in a big, big way that players consenting to the physical risks of the game by playing it doesn't stop them from suing them later on.

I agree with your point Nik, but what is to stop them from suing about a cross-check or a slash, or going head first in to the boards?  Fighting is just one area of hockey where they can get injured. 

In football, what is to stop a guy from suing because of a helmet to helmet collision?

Players are getting more concussions not because they are in fights, but because of harder body checks, cheap shots, and harder protective padding.  Personally, I would rather see the cheap shots banned more than fighting.

 

[Kin]

I agree with your point Nik, but what is to stop them from suing about a cross-check or a slash, or going head first in to the boards?  Fighting is just one area of hockey where they can get injured. 

In football, what is to stop a guy from suing because of a helmet to helmet collision?

Nothing, in theory, but that's where matters of degrees come in. There's "I have a lousy elbow because I took a bunch of whacks to the arm" and there's "I've been diagnosed with degenerative CTE because of dozens of bare-knuckled punches to the head".

 

[Kin]

Players are getting more concussions not because they are in fights, but because of harder body checks, cheap shots, and harder protective padding. 

I don't think that's true, first of all. I think the fact that the players in fights are bigger and stronger is going to lead to more concussions but it's almost beside the point. Lots of research on football is showing that repetitive sub-concussion trauma can be just as devastating to a player's health.

Personally, I would rather see the cheap shots banned more than fighting.

For the most part, cheap shots are banned. The NHL moved relatively quickly to ban blindside hits to the head. Anyways, as I say above, it's a side issue. There's really just no way around the fact that two big guys punching each other in the face are going to suffer health consequences.

You compare it to boxing but think about that for a second. Boxing is the most heavily regulated sport in the world. You need a license to box. Boxers have to wear protective equipment like mouth guards and gloves and with the exception of heavy weights aren't allowed to fight anyone more than a few pounds heavier than they are. There's a doctor at ringside and a fully trained referee who's job it is to manage the fight. Hockey has none of those safeguards.

 

[rdowdall]

I agree with your point Nik, but what is to stop them from suing about a cross-check or a slash, or going head first in to the boards?  Fighting is just one area of hockey where they can get injured. 

In football, what is to stop a guy from suing because of a helmet to helmet collision?

Nothing, in theory, but that's where matters of degrees come in. There's "I have a lousy elbow because I took a bunch of whacks to the arm" and there's "I've been diagnosed with degenerative CTE because of dozens of bare-knuckled punches to the head".

And I see that point of it.  Suing because you have arthritis and suing because you wake up and have no recollection of who your family is are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  It just seems to me that the league should be able to protect itself somewhat by saying "Look this is what you signed up for".  The future is unknown to both sides.  In my mind the league would only be culpable if they mislead the group of players about the effects of playing the sport that they have instituted.

At the end of the day, I do think fighting should be taken out of hockey.  That isn't to say that a fight will never happen in the sport, because they do in every other sport, but when they do happen, there should be stiffer penalties.

 

[Kin]

It just seems to me that the league should be able to protect itself somewhat by saying "Look this is what you signed up for".  The future is unknown to both sides.  In my mind the league would only be culpable if they mislead the group of players about the effects of playing the sport that they have instituted.

While I think there's a legitimate argument there I think there are two problems with that way of looking at it.

First, as a society, we're pretty consistent in saying that employers not only have to make their employees aware of the risks they face but they also have to take the appropriate steps to minimize those risks with proper safety equipment and procedure. You can't open up a coal mine, for instance, and be excused from safety regulations because you tell your miners that the mountain might drop on their heads. Likewise, I don't know if the NHL can get away with "Hey man, sometimes bareknuckle fights break out. Best of luck/"

Secondly, I think where the league might get into real trouble isn't so much with the concussions themselves but rather with having an adequate procedure for diagnosing and treating concussions. If a guy gets hit in the head in the course of a game, how do you know if he's alright? Asking him if he wants to stay in is pretty pointless if he may have a concussion. A lot has been written about how team doctors can often have the team, rather than the player's best interest at heart so there might not be enough oversight to make sure teams follow proper protocols. As above, if someone gets hurt on the job their employer does have a responsibility to make sure they get proper treatment.

 

[rdowdall]

While I think there's a legitimate argument there I think there are two problems with that way of looking at it.

First, as a society, we're pretty consistent in saying that employers not only have to make their employees aware of the risks they face but they also have to take the appropriate steps to minimize those risks with proper safety equipment and procedure. You can't open up a coal mine, for instance, and be excused from safety regulations because you tell your miners that the mountain might drop on their heads. Likewise, I don't know if the NHL can get away with "Hey man, sometimes bareknuckle fights break out. Best of luck/"

And that is where the discussion would come out.  It's not so much that the bareknuckle fight broke out, but more along the lines of how much onus is on the player for partaking in the fight.  If someone beats on you and you didn't want to actually be involved in it, a la Steve Moore, that would be a different situation than Chris Nilan fighting Wendel Clark where both participants engage in the fight willingly.  I realize that it's not as cut an dried as that, as a willing participant could also argue that they partook in the fight because they felt they had to in order to maintain their job.

In the example you give, if the mining company runs all the tests, calculates the proper structure for the mine, invests in the proper structural reinforcements, educates the miners on the dangers that can occur in the mine, and the mountain does still fall on them, is it still on the employer?  At what point does the onus go to the employee for accepting a job with inherent risk?

Secondly, I think where the league might get into real trouble isn't so much with the concussions themselves but rather with having an adequate procedure for diagnosing and treating concussions. If a guy gets hit in the head in the course of a game, how do you know if he's alright? Asking him if he wants to stay in is pretty pointless if he may have a concussion. A lot has been written about how team doctors can often have the team, rather than the player's best interest at heart so there might not be enough oversight to make sure teams follow proper protocols. As above, if someone gets hurt on the job their employer does have a responsibility to make sure they get proper treatment.

I agree totally with this, and I don't have an issue with league being responsible for the well being of the players.  My line of thought is where does line in the sand exist.  If Marc Staal never plays another game because of his eye injury, can he sue the league because they didn't force him to wear a visor?  If Erik Karlsson can't skate again, can he sue the league because they didn't force him to wear a Kevlar sock?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

author=Significantly Insignificant link=topic=1398.msg112151#msg112151 date=1362776370]

In the example you give, if the mining company runs all the tests, calculates the proper structure for the mine, invests in the proper structural reinforcements, educates the miners on the dangers that can occur in the mine, and the mountain does still fall on them, is it still on the employer?  At what point does the onus go to the employee for accepting a job with inherent risk?

Coming from the mining world, you are completely correct. Sometimes sh*t happens.

But I don't think that applies in the NHL's case.

In a mine, the mining company is required to supply all that you have listed as well as all Personal Protective Equipment to limit any inherent risk that is beyond their control such as working near an open hole or open brow. These are situations that are unavoidable in a mine and the mining company must provide a safe way of doing so, or not do it at all.

The point is, they must remove all risk, or lower it to an acceptable level.

In relation to the NHL, they must provide the proper equipment to lower the risk of being injured to the lowest level possible. This includes the best helmets, the best shoulder pads, mouth guards, etc; If the risk can not be lowered by providing the equipment, the action that causes the risk should not take place....

Fighting is one of those risks that can't be controlled in that way.

Much like the days where the old miner said he didn't need gloves or safety glasses, gone are the days of the hockey player who doesn't have to wear a helmet. Gone should be the days of the player that doesn't wear a visor as well...etc;

 

[Kin]

And that is where the discussion would come out.  It's not so much that the bareknuckle fight broke out, but more along the lines of how much onus is on the player for partaking in the fight.  If someone beats on you and you didn't want to actually be involved in it, a la Steve Moore, that would be a different situation than Chris Nilan fighting Wendel Clark where both participants engage in the fight willingly.  I realize that it's not as cut an dried as that, as a willing participant could also argue that they partook in the fight because they felt they had to in order to maintain their job.

In the example you give, if the mining company runs all the tests, calculates the proper structure for the mine, invests in the proper structural reinforcements, educates the miners on the dangers that can occur in the mine, and the mountain does still fall on them, is it still on the employer?  At what point does the onus go to the employee for accepting a job with inherent risk?

Obviously we're presenting two extremes where on one end the NHL is entirely negligible and on the other they're as conscientious as can be about player safety. How this case will be decided will be juries and judges deciding which end of the spectrum they think the NHL really falls on.

Personally, I think that the NHL I've followed for quite a few years now bears very little resemblance to the mining company you're talking about here. Not least of which because, as you mention, the NHL and it's GM's/Owners/Coaches basically tell certain players that fighting is their job and that if they won't do it they'll find someone else who will. To me, and this is where the analogy gets tortured, that's a little bit like the mining company hiring people for the expressed purpose of being in cave-ins. Even if these players are entirely informed about the very real dangers that can come from concussive and sub-concussive trauma in these fights I still think there's a problem with absolving the NHL of what might very well be their responsibility to not let these fights occur.

That's where the analogy doesn't hold up. A mine collapse isn't good for business. A mining company would choose to never have them happen if they could. The NHL, though, would be in the very real position of having to explain why they didn't get rid of fighting even after the link between head trauma and degenerative neurological conditions was pretty well established because "fighting fills the seats" or whatever they'd use to justify it.

I agree totally with this, and I don't have an issue with league being responsible for the well being of the players.  My line of thought is where does line in the sand exist.  If Marc Staal never plays another game because of his eye injury, can he sue the league because they didn't force him to wear a visor?  If Erik Karlsson can't skate again, can he sue the league because they didn't force him to wear a Kevlar sock?

Personally, I'd say a good place to draw that line would be at the sort of accidents you're talking about versus something like fighting which isn't accidental and which the league could get rid of if they wanted.

But to answer your question in the more general sense, I think the answer is really that we don't know. The NFL players lawsuit against the NFL has yet to go to court so we can't really say where that line is. Me, though, I wouldn't want to risk the chance that it does turn out bad for the NFL and that the leagues are found culpable even if there's a sort of implied consent through playing the game.

 

[Frank E]

Maybe it's the neanderthal in me, but I do enjoy a good fight.  I also enjoy a good boxing match, and even a good UFC fight.

But I'm starting to agree that the "staged" stuff is probably due to be banished.  Leave it up to the refs to decide whether or not the fight is due to an intensified situation, or is really just to guys coming on the ice to fight for no good reason.

Give them a game misconduct, and be done with it.  Sooner than later, those guys will be out of the lineup for good.

Baby steps.

 

[Kin]

Maybe it's the neanderthal in me, but I do enjoy a good fight.  I also enjoy a good boxing match, and even a good UFC fight.

I agree with all of that. I also get a kick out of a guy charging the mound in baseball or when the Pistons-Pacers brawled into the stands. The thing is, and like you say about the staged fights, there's a difference between liking watching people fight and believing that fighting is integral or necessary to the game of hockey.

I think that if you didn't leave it up to Refs, if you just automatically gave a one or two game suspension for a fight, you'd still see the sort of fights that are legitimate, genuine dust-ups but nobody would fight just to do it.

 

[rdowdall]

Obviously we're presenting two extremes where on one end the NHL is entirely negligible and on the other they're as conscientious as can be about player safety. How this case will be decided will be juries and judges deciding which end of the spectrum they think the NHL really falls on.

Personally, I think that the NHL I've followed for quite a few years now bears very little resemblance to the mining company you're talking about here. Not least of which because, as you mention, the NHL and it's GM's/Owners/Coaches basically tell certain players that fighting is their job and that if they won't do it they'll find someone else who will. To me, and this is where the analogy gets tortured, that's a little bit like the mining company hiring people for the expressed purpose of being in cave-ins. Even if these players are entirely informed about the very real dangers that can come from concussive and sub-concussive trauma in these fights I still think there's a problem with absolving the NHL of what might very well be their responsibility to not let these fights occur.

That's where the analogy doesn't hold up. A mine collapse isn't good for business. A mining company would choose to never have them happen if they could. The NHL, though, would be in the very real position of having to explain why they didn't get rid of fighting even after the link between head trauma and degenerative neurological conditions was pretty well established because "fighting fills the seats" or whatever they'd use to justify it.

I think the NHL has tried to take steps against head injuries, what with the blind side hit penalty, and the quiet room scenario.  However I do think they need to go farther.  I think the problem the league has with fighting is the fans.  Look at how charged this particular board has become around the topic.  Now expand that across all the fans of the game and it would really be hard for the NHL to come up with a decision just based on fan interest.  It's probably close to a 50 - 50 split.  I think there stand pat approach is simply because they don't want to risk alienating some fans, because those that want fighting out of the game are still watching.  It's a sad justification for not taking a stand, when you could simply say "We are protecting our players."  It could open up a can of worms though the next time someone gets seriously injured from an open ice hit.

Personally, I'd say a good place to draw that line would be at the sort of accidents you're talking about versus something like fighting which isn't accidental and which the league could get rid of if they wanted.

But to answer your question in the more general sense, I think the answer is really that we don't know. The NFL players lawsuit against the NFL has yet to go to court so we can't really say where that line is. Me, though, I wouldn't want to risk the chance that it does turn out bad for the NFL and that the leagues are found culpable even if there's a sort of implied consent through playing the game.

See what I don't understand about the NFL lawsuit is that it could destroy the game.  Or at least make it even more cut-throat in a business sense, than it already is.  If the players win,  in order to protect itself, the NFL will push something in to the collective bargaining agreement about lawsuits after the player leaves the game.  I'm sure it would not be easy to push that in, but I am also sure the owners will want some protection against it going forward and will fight to have that protection.  If the owners don't get the protection then they will be hesitant to operate the league for fear of legal action.  To that end, I think in the long term the NFL will care even less about a players well being both during their playing years and after.  I

f the owners win, then they will care less about the players well being because they have no threat of recourse.  It's really a no win situation going forward for the players despite where the lawsuit lands. 

 

[Kin]

See what I don't understand about the NFL lawsuit is that it could destroy the game.  Or at least make it even more cut-throat in a business sense, than it already is.  If the players win,  in order to protect itself, the NFL will push something in to the collective bargaining agreement about lawsuits after the player leaves the game.  I'm sure it would not be easy to push that in, but I am also sure the owners will want some protection against it going forward and will fight to have that protection.  If the owners don't get the protection then they will be hesitant to operate the league for fear of legal action.  To that end, I think in the long term the NFL will care even less about a players well being both during their playing years and after.  I

f the owners win, then they will care less about the players well being because they have no threat of recourse.  It's really a no win situation going forward for the players despite where the lawsuit lands.

Well, and keeping in mind that this is all speculative, I don't really think that's the case. For starters, I'm not entirely sure the NFL could negotiate with the NFLPA to indemnify them from this sort of thing even if the NFLPA were on board. Secondly, I think you have to assume that any sort of judgment against the league would highlight the specific things they didn't do and have to do in future so as long as the league complied with any such ruling they'd probably be safe from future judgments.

But as to the larger point I think that what you've highlighted is why there are some very smart people who say that the NFL has some real question marks going forward and might not exist in the form we recognize it in 20 or so years. When no less an authority than the President of the United States says that if he had sons he might not let them play the game it's a pretty good sign that there's going to be a lot of people who are going to be very reluctant to let their kids engage in an activity that might very well be tantamount to signing them up for brain damage. If the flow of players stop, the quality dips and there's trouble on that front as well.

So while there might be some lasting damage done to the league via the retired players lawsuit I think the argument could be made that all it really will do is highlight something that's happening anyway.