Although I whole heartily agree with the severity of the problems concerning blows to the head, I worry about the trend to domesticate the game that has endeared fans of hockey to its reckless abandon and sheer energy. I worry the fierceness and aggression that defines its appeal will be whitewashed in the name of political correctness.
Most certainly there is intent when a hit is delivered, the intent being in most cases to demobilize the opponent not to injure.
Although blows to the head are unfortunate they are inevitable.
I believe the issue at hand to be easily managed. Equipment has exceeded requirements. In the pursuit of safety for the individual, design and materials used in protective pads have made them a menace to the whole. A simple elbow, that Mr. Hockey made famous, can now be classified as a weapon not because of intent to injure but because the pads are now rock hard. Shoulder and elbow pads are nothing short of body armor.The equipment hockey players wear is meant to absorb energy, not generate lethal consequences. One could argue the players are bigger and stronger in today's game, yet, I believe the advances in technology present proportionally a greater risk than remedy.
Creating a blanket ruling penalizing blows to the head, regardless of if they are intentional, could spell the end of body contact in hockey.
Please let us think these things through before we institute yet another change to our great game in the name of appealing to demographics that care little for its survival.
originally posted June of 2007
Allow me to add something I have learned all these years after I made this entry.
The demographic I am referring to is real and necessary to the growth of hockey in non traditional hockey markets.This very group of casual fans that may not appreciate 'professional hockey' are the very people needed to establish grass roots.
What I would ask is the distinction between 'professional' hockey and recreational hockey be recognized.
No comments:
Post a Comment