Rule 48: not working as planned.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From Toronto Star:

The NHL’s three-year-old rule on illegal hits to the head isn’t working and tougher sanctions are needed to reduce concussions, concludes new research led by Toronto’s St. Michael’s Hospital.

The study, published online Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, found that the number of head injuries has actually increased since the rule that made targeting an opponent’s blindside illegal came into effect in the 2010-2011 hockey season.

...

The League hoped and dreamed that this would solve the problem, but it hasn't. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Edited July 18, 2013 by cusimano_brothers

[Dave 324]

Consistent punishment might be useful. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. So players roll the dice because, who knows, they might get away with it.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

That's what happens when you base your punishment on the result of the hit instead of the hit itself. An illegal hit should be punished as much if the other guy bounces right back up as it is if he's going to be out 8 weeks.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Too much video, not enough action.

[number9 3,297]

That's what happens when you base your punishment on the result of the hit instead of the hit itself. An illegal hit should be punished as much if the other guy bounces right back up as it is if he's going to be out 8 weeks.

Pretty much sums that up

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I think the article is supposed to read "diagnoses" instead of "injuries". There was a major lack of awareness in the years leading up to rule 48 and likely too few diagnoses.

[toby91_ca 620]

I would not be surprised at all if total consussions actually decreased and it's just that the undetected concussions decreased that much more, which makes it appear as though concussions increased.....if you follow what I'm saying

[frankgrimes 1,836]

Well there is no easy answer to concussions, these things are damn complicated and can happen other completely different circumstances. The rule 48 was just another stupid kneejerk-reaction by the NHL.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

That's what happens when you base your punishment on the result of the hit instead of the hit itself. An illegal hit should be punished as much if the other guy bounces right back up as it is if he's going to be out 8 weeks.

Exactly.

In general they need to get players back to hitting the way they used to. Skates on the ice, solid contact to the body. No leaping, no exploding up, no fly-by hits. They need to set a clearer standard on hits from behind too. There will be a lot of aggravating calls we fans think are soft using the current standard, but eventually players should get the idea hitting a guy in the numbers is something you can't do. You have to let up.

They also need to crack down on ALL blows to the head, like elbows. It's crazy that they're making this huge effort with hits but not elbows. A hit that involves contact with the head is at least usually an attempt at a hockey play. An elbow to the head is a clear cheapshot that should be simple to differentiate from a hockey play.

It probably would be some ugly hockey at times as players and refs adjust, but hopefully would preserve hard hitting while helping to protect players heads.

I would not be surprised at all if total consussions actually decreased and it's just that the undetected concussions decreased that much more, which makes it appear as though concussions increased.....if you follow what I'm saying

It's a good point. because in that same time frame haven't they set clearer protocols for concussions? And there's certainly more awareness of it now than a few years ago.

[puckbags 863]

That's what happens when you base your punishment on the result of the hit instead of the hit itself. An illegal hit should be punished as much if the other guy bounces right back up as it is if he's going to be out 8 weeks.

Agreed, which is exactly why the double minor for drawing blood on a high stick is a stupid penalty also. Blood is so deceptive ..a tiny nick in the right place and it can bleed forever. Thats my rant ..clearly I don't like the high sticking rule lol

[55fan 5,133]

Guys need to pretend that their opponents aren't wearing helmets. If you're actually concerned about giving him a concussion, you're less likely to give him one.

They'll happen no matter what- that's the nature of a fast-paced, hard-hitting game- but nothing will lower the total more than the guys remembering that they're hitting a head inside that helmet.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

It would also help to teach kids to keep their heads up and how to take a hit. Most of the injuries I see from hits that aren't blatant attempts to injure are because the guy either has his head down and isn't aware or he tries to sidestep the hit and gets his knee wrecked.

[MabusIncarnate 5,344]

Maybe it's time to revisit the design of the protective helmets in general, not look at how to adjust the rules further.

[Aznknight 139]

Or get rid of the instigator rule. Bring back the Proberts and Browns.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Maybe it's time to revisit the design of the protective helmets in general, not look at how to adjust the rules further.

They've been working on them, but the challenge is getting players to accept new stuff, particularly if it looks different.

[T.Low 1,011]

If you want to protect your multi-million-dollar asset, start by using a $500 helmet, not a $50 helmet.

[number9 3,297]

http://thehockeywriters.com/ineffective-headshot-rule-signals-time-to-eliminate-instigator-rule/

If rule 48 isn't going to work, get rid of instigator rule?

[DickieDunn 2,571]

If you want to protect your multi-million-dollar asset, start by using a $500 helmet, not a $50 helmet.

Tell that to the playersy

[StormJH1 231]

That's what happens when you base your punishment on the result of the hit instead of the hit itself. An illegal hit should be punished as much if the other guy bounces right back up as it is if he's going to be out 8 weeks.

Bingo. I want to punch my computer screen every time I hear one of those Shanahan videos where he says "The Department has taken into consideration that there was no apparent injury caused by the play". (1) How do you KNOW that with a head injury 1 or 2 days after the hit? (2) Why does that really even matter? I've said it a million times - what Bert did in 2004 was despicable and I had no problem with giving whatever punishment they were going to give him, including multi-year bans, but it was also very unlucky. There are plays every night - both intentional and accidental - in the NHL that have the potential to cause that degree of injury if a player falls slightly different, or hits up against another object differently. If the PPOC (principal point of contact) is the hear or if there is clear intent to target the head, it's really no longer up to the offender whether that guy he's hitting stands right back up again, or if it ruins his career like Marc Savard.

As for the helmet technology, if a $500 helmet really could make the difference, I'd imagine there'd be a stronger push for that. I'm just not sure that closed head injuries work that way. It reminds me of when that Georgian guy died on the luge track before Vancouver 2010, and people were mad that they didn't have padding on the support beam he hit. At 90mph, I'm not sure there's a material they could have put up there that would have prevented death or very serious injury.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

It doesn't matter how much you spend on a helmet if it's 2 sizes too big because it doesn't feel comfortable if it fits properly.

[T.Low 1,011]

Night and day difference between a NASCAR helmet and a hockey helmet. The technology exists.

[jollymania 162]

There haven't been that many illegal checks lately and very few of them have been causing concussions. The diagnosis for a concussion in the NHL is very broad right now and many players will get them from legal plays. I think players and organizations are also faking head injuries, especially when players are already playing injured.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

Did Shanahan screw this job up on his own or was he "coached"?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Did Shanahan screw this job up on his own or was he "coached"?

I'm unable to find the article again but I had read somewhere that when he was first hired he came out guns blazing with suspensions. After a few months of it though GM's, the NHLPA and people within the NHL were angry at him for the level of suspensions and he got a talking too. Ever since then it went back to the wheel of justice.

It may be me wanting to believe it because I've always like Shanny, but it sounds like they got to him.

[55fan 5,133]

I'm unable to find the article again but I had read somewhere that when he was first hired he came out guns blazing with suspensions. After a few months of it though GM's, the NHLPA and people within the NHL were angry at him for the level of suspensions and he got a talking too. Ever since then it went back to the wheel of justice.

It may be me wanting to believe it because I've always like Shanny, but it sounds like they got to him.

I remember reading that somewhere too.

The gist of it was that he needed to back off because one of the owners/GM's/coaches was upset that he had lost so many guys/important guys/whatever due to suspensions.

I also remember that it was one of those "sources that speak on conditions of anonymity" type of things, so who knows how reliable it was.

It could be fact, but I read it on the internet, so the usual grains of salt need to be applied.