Ohlund HEAD SHOT on Kessel

[stevkrause 1,247]

Ok, I'm not a physicist, but...

The mass carrying all the momentum is not the surface of the shell, but the player behind the shell (and also behind the padding beneath it). Therefore, the transfer of that momentum energy still has to travel through the absorbant layer of padding. The padding absorbs the same energy whether inside or outside of the shell.

The difference would come in the return energy generated by the resistance from compressing the padding. The shell diffuses energy from a small area on the stiking side, to a larger area on the opposite side. With all the padding inside the shell, the player on the outside of the shell would take half the return energy from compressing all the padding beneath it (and that concentrated in a smaller area). With padding on the outside, they would take only half the return energy from whatever amount of padding is compressed at the impact point. (Maybe 10-20%)

Given the amount of force in hard body check, I can't imagine that the resistance of the padding would be all that significant.

The logic here is flawed... the force will most certainly be absorbed differently to the recipient of the hit depending on the shell, as that is the first point of impact - if it is stiff and does not give (ie hard shells) it is going to drive the force forward, not absorb it... it has nothing to do with the inertia and the force of the momentum, but rather how it is absorbed...

For example, say you drop a bowling ball filled with foam on a target... now, invert the materials, put the foam on the outside and the hard shell on the inside - same weight, same materials - are you honestly going to try and argue that the impact will be the same?

Same general rule here...

[zettie85 106]

That fact that some of us make assumptions and overgeneralize makes some of us, well...

I said (in the Wisniewski thread I think) that I don't like Kronwall's headhunting. Do a little research before you try to label me. Thanks.

I'm not searching threads to avoid mislabeling someone.

The fact is though, hitting has always been a part of the game. Over the past couple of years it's been criticized. Why? Because American media tells us to. Up until Bettman's personal little project of shoving teams into non-hockey markets, there was never any problems. After that, people began to critique the game over and over and over, coming to the conclusion that it's to violent.

All I'm trying to say is stop trying to change the game from the way it's always been played.

At the NHL level it's about winning, not about having fun with your friends and respecting everybody. You respect the person, not the player. If he's gawking around you crush him. Maybe he'll learn maybe he won't. I totally agree with the fact that the padding used today is less of a padding and more of an armour which needs to definitely change. Hockey reformists have already ruined the game that I loved growing up. Changing the game has put us in the this situation in the first place. Until fighting and open ice hitting is removed from the game there will be arguments between the traditionalists and reformist. Nobody wins.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I'm not searching threads to avoid mislabeling someone.

The fact is though, hitting has always been a part of the game. Over the past couple of years it's been criticized. Why? Because American media tells us to. Up until Bettman's personal little project of shoving teams into non-hockey markets, there was never any problems. After that, people began to critique the game over and over and over, coming to the conclusion that it's to violent.

All I'm trying to say is stop trying to change the game from the way it's always been played.

At the NHL level it's about winning, not about having fun with your friends and respecting everybody. You respect the person, not the player. If he's gawking around you crush him. Maybe he'll learn maybe he won't. I totally agree with the fact that the padding used today is less of a padding and more of an armour which needs to definitely change. Hockey reformists have already ruined the game that I loved growing up. Changing the game has put us in the this situation in the first place. Until fighting and open ice hitting is removed from the game there will be arguments between the traditionalists and reformist. Nobody wins.

I guess I'm an anomaly, because I've been a fan for well over 20 years now and I do not want to see the origins, or the tradition from the game removed and I love the game in it's pure form - but I also think evolution of the game where it belongs is an addition to the quality of the game, not a subtraction... so I'm basically a 50/50 traditionalist/reformist I guess...

[Buppy 1,720]

The logic here is flawed... the force will most certainly be absorbed differently to the recipient of the hit depending on the shell, as that is the first point of impact - if it is stiff and does not give (ie hard shells) it is going to drive the force forward, not absorb it... it has nothing to do with the inertia and the force of the momentum, but rather how it is absorbed...

For example, say you drop a bowling ball filled with foam on a target... now, invert the materials, put the foam on the outside and the hard shell on the inside - same weight, same materials - are you honestly going to try and argue that the impact will be the same?

Same general rule here...

It's your logic that's flawed. With your hypothetical foam-filled ball, the mass behind the foam does not (can not, in fact) travel through the foam. That energy propagates around the shell and is delivered to the point of impact.

A more accurate example would be to take a rigid surface like a piece of hard plastic, place it on the floor, place a piece of foam on top of it, then drop a bowling ball on it. Then reverse the foam and the plastic and drop the ball again. Provided the amount of foam that gets compressed stays the same, the impact when the ball hits the floor is identical.

The initial force exerted against the ball will be less if it hits the foam first, but I believe that is rather trivial in comparison the large impact when the two masses collide.

The other difference is the area of impact. A hard shell is more likely to cause soft tissue damage like cuts or bruises, since less soft tissue absorbs the energy. Could maybe be more likely to cause broken bones, even. (If the materials generate enough resistance.) A concussion though, comes from the brain striking the inside of the skull. The area of impact that generates the g-forces is irrelevant (as long as it doesn't actually damage the skull). You could get a concussion from being hit in the legs, provided enough Gs are delivered to the head. (Of course, the amount of force required for that would probably do fatal damage to the rest of your body, but that's beside the point...)

Anyway, interesting physics debate aside, my point was that if you want to look at equipment to prevent head injuries, the logical place to start is the equipment designed to protect the head.

[stevkrause 1,247]

It's your logic that's flawed. With your hypothetical foam-filled ball, the mass behind the foam does not (can not, in fact) travel through the foam. That energy propagates around the shell and is delivered to the point of impact.

A more accurate example would be to take a rigid surface like a piece of hard plastic, place it on the floor, place a piece of foam on top of it, then drop a bowling ball on it. Then reverse the foam and the plastic and drop the ball again. Provided the amount of foam that gets compressed stays the same, the impact when the ball hits the floor is identical.

The initial force exerted against the ball will be less if it hits the foam first, but I believe that is rather trivial in comparison the large impact when the two masses collide.

The other difference is the area of impact. A hard shell is more likely to cause soft tissue damage like cuts or bruises, since less soft tissue absorbs the energy. Could maybe be more likely to cause broken bones, even. (If the materials generate enough resistance.) A concussion though, comes from the brain striking the inside of the skull. The area of impact that generates the g-forces is irrelevant (as long as it doesn't actually damage the skull). You could get a concussion from being hit in the legs, provided enough Gs are delivered to the head. (Of course, the amount of force required for that would probably do fatal damage to the rest of your body, but that's beside the point...)

Anyway, interesting physics debate aside, my point was that if you want to look at equipment to prevent head injuries, the logical place to start is the equipment designed to protect the head.

Well, lets agree to disagree on the effect regarding concussions then, but even to cut down on cuts, broken bones, etc... isn't that alone worth the change?

And yes, the helmets/chinstraps need to be mandated as well.... I agree with you there 100%

[DEVILSWATERBOY 10]

Wow what a hit looked clean to me but I did notice that Kessel had his head down, old time hockey baby ( get your head up man) head up he would avoid hit plan and simple

[newfy 695]

Yeah, this definitely comes to mind:

Really no reason for such a hit, especially so early in the season.

You have to b the softest poster on this board. If youg et the chance to make a hit like that you do it every single time. Its hockey, it doesn't matter what part of the season it is.

[Rivalred 630]

You have to b the softest poster on this board. If youg et the chance to make a hit like that you do it every single time. Its hockey, it doesn't matter what part of the season it is.

Yup... I am about as soft and warm as American Apple Pie.

You got me...

[sureWhyNot 19]

Hit was clean. The only notable hit thus far I think called for a suspension was Wisniewski's forearm shiver on Doan.

These guys are athletes who are paid millions of dollars to play hockey. Just like in any other professional sport with contact, their is risk to playing - in the case of hockey, the risk is reduced immensely by keeping your f'ing head up. It is the first thing you are taught as a youngster, and it only becomes more vital along the way that you have your head up, and on a swivel.

If you seriously think that they will ever remove hitting from hockey - or even worse, are lobbying for them to remove hitting from hockey you really should look into following another sport, or head to your local rink on Friday nights at around midnight and take in some beer league, no contact games - they probably suit your taste much better then the NHL.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Unfortunately I could see Bettman eventually attempting to get rid of hitting in hockey. After all in his mind, if body checks look bad in basketball, they look bad in hockey too.