There is nothing better than watching an NHL game being played in Edmonton, a city with one of the harshest winter climates in North America, from the comfort of an air-conditioned lounge room in the middle of an Australian summer.
And what a game we had on Monday afternoon, Sydney time, with the Minnesota Wild continuing their Canadian road trip in Alberta with a trip to the simply stunning new Rogers Place for a meeting with the Edmonton Oilers.
The spectacle of an Edmonton side packed full of young talent starting to finally deliver on their potential, who finally have a shot at bringing back playoff hockey to the city – not to mention an overtime winner from the Minnesota captain worthy of any highlights reel – was overshadowed by Edmonton’s young superstar captain being forced off the ice.
This was an NHL game, so you might be forgiven for thinking that Connor McDavid was cleaned up in a check along the boards, or was maybe punched in the face after having taken his umpteenth slash to the hand and squaring up for a fight himself.
But alas, no. It was just a simple trip and fall.
McDavid’s head did, however, hit the ice. And under the recently improved, second-year NHL concussion protocols, neutral medical spotters watching on video in a centralised bunker in New York contacted the arena officials and had McDavid removed for a mandatory scat test.
As an Australian surrounded by rugby league and the NRL where head injuries force players out of the game with lifelong problems year after year; heading off for a concussion test seems the intelligent thing to do!
The long-term dangers that playing through any sort of brain trauma, and that is exactly what a concussion is, poses to an athlete are widely understood and accepted by the medical and general Australian sporting community alike.
But hockey and the NHL are a different beast.
The ‘man up’ culture is on a whole other level in the sport and the backlash from players, coaches and even the angles that North American media have run with may as well see the sport as a parallel universe when it comes to accepting the concussion protocols as normal.
This absolute doozy of a quote came from McDavid’s Edmonton teammate Patrick Maroon following the Oiler’s overtime loss:
“That’s part of hockey, and that’s why we have all this gear that protects us. Yes, if someone gets seriously hurt, we’re concerned. But he just fell, got tripped. I just don’t get it. It’s a man’s game.”
19-year-old McDavid himself showed a little bit more common sense in his emotional post-loss chat with the media, but was still livid that he was forced off the ice for his own protection:
“I hit my mouth on the ice. You reach up and grab your mouth when you get hit in the mouth, it’s a pretty normal thing. Obviously, the spotter thought he knew how I was feeling. So he pulled me off.”
This is the biggest question for me. How did the spotter know how he was feeling? At least in rugby league, a doctor stands in front of the player to look for the slightest hint of a concussion in the player’s eyes, speech or behaviour. Surely it would be common sense for someone on the medical staff to conduct a simple preliminary evaluation like this to see if a proper 15-minute scat test is required?
Running the excuse that you can’t trust team medical staff is ridiculous. They are professionals with integrity and put the health of their players first. If the medical staff refuse to put the best interests of the player first and allows him to continue when he shouldn’t, then the club is fined and run the risk of being docked points. It’s not hard.
What this whole situation has highlighted more than anything is that the league needs to do more to educate the clubs, players and even the media.
I’m sure I’m not the only Australian hockey fan who is dumbfounded by the negative reaction that this has received while living in the current age of medical science. Not to mention legal precedents of past players damaged for life and suing because protocols such as these didn’t exist!
Come on guys, it’s 2016. This should not be a thing anymore.
Jordan Scardetta
Roar Rookie
you're right about concussion protocols for sure. Being a Pens fan, I know all too well how damaging concussions to star players can be. I know these players are competitive beasts and want to win every game, but a bit of perspective can also help with the emotive response to the issue. It's one of 82 regular-season games, it's not game seven of a conference or cup final. Maybe the players are thinking it could be exploited, and are worried about the neutrality of the spotters, who knows. I like the idea of leaving it in the hands of team doctors whose professional reputation would be at stake for placing a player at risk of further injury, but can also see how this is easily exploited. Not sure what the ideal system is but the steps are in the right direction.
Andie Sawmill
Roar Rookie
That Hall hit! Beautifully clean hockey hit, just unlucky for Larsen that he was totally blindsided. That sort of hit within the game isn't being questioned. It's hockey, that's the game. The only question I'm asking is why there has been such outrage around the concussion protocols proven to be beneficial for the player's health and the league's financial bottom line.
Andie Sawmill
Roar Rookie
It would be naive to think that staff wouldn't be influenced, but that's why you put proper verification and most of all penalties as far as docking points for if a team medical staff member doesn't put the health of his player first.
Jordan Scardetta
Roar Rookie
there's a fine line to be trodden in the NHL between what makes it an appealing sport, the speed and physicality, and protecting the safety of the players. The most recent example of it is the Taylor Hall hit on Philip Larsen. It's a perfectly clean body check, Hall glides in to contact, doesn't charge up through the hit, delivers the hit to the body, yet Larsen is still seriously injured. It's the kind of hit that can't be mandated out of the game, because the game would lose it's appeal. But you can see why people are concerned about it, because it's injurious. The NHL may be spooked by the enormous NFL concussion/CTE lawsuits of the past decade, which is why they have the neutral spotters to mitigate risk. I feel like players are better educated now, and a frustrated dressing room after a tight loss probably isn't the best place to get balanced insight on the matter.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
"Running the excuse that you can’t trust team medical staff is ridiculous. They are professionals with integrity and put the health of their players first. " There is about a hundred years and change of proof that club doctors - in hockey as well as every other contact sport - can and will be silent when team management puts players with brain injuries back on the field. Because if they dont, pro-brain injury people like yourself will accuse them of holding back the team, and then they are no longer team medical staff.
Andie Sawmill
Roar Rookie
Interesting point you bring up in regards to concussion in the UFC, Swampy. I'm sure someone with a legal background can tell us what the difference is between fight sports and hockey/football codes.
Andie Sawmill
Roar Rookie
Hey Northerner. If they players are still questioning and complaining then it could be argued that the league hasn't done enough to educate their players and media on the medical science behind why they have the concussion protocols that they do. My point is that it shouldn't even be questioned. Do the test and get on with it. It's for the player's safety and to protect the league from further getting sued. 2016 huh... Totally agree with your second point. They don't call a goal, an assist and a fight a Gordie Howe hattrick for nothing!
Swampy
Guest
I imagine the UFC has some sort of waiver with regards to managing future health issues resulting from concussion or even a health fund. I would suggest ice hockey go down a similar path. I wouldn't go changing it too much to pander to nannies. By the way, ice is a fairly solid object. I'd much rather be punched by a giant Russian than smack my head against a 1000 tonnes of ice. I'm more a fan of other sports but I've twice been to an nhl match and they have been the best games I've ever watched live - for skill and speed. The odd bit of bloodlust just an added bonus. Being an Aussie though it's hard to get involved day to day.
Johnno
Guest
northerner What do you mean by an american from outside the "hockey belt", curious. By watered down do you mean the NHL has got softer as well as less emphasis on skill, now it's just a fitness game of endurance or power rather than Hockey skills. Buff guys on ice in other words.
northerner
Guest
I'm sort of confused by this. The guy was wearing a helmet ( unknown in hockey 50 years ago) and was whisked off for a check up when he hit his head. What exactly should the code do beyond that? Sure, there's a macho thing going on. But also, hockey is a lot more than thuggery and anyone who thinks it's all about biff is probably an American from outside the "hockey belt" who doesn't understand the skills involved in the game. Maurice Richard wasn't above a bit of pretty solid body contact, and neither was Gordie Howe, nor yet Bobby Hull, but all those guys had a level of skills not seen so much these days in the overblown, watered-down NHL.
Johnno
Guest
Agreed Andie, what makes hockey so unique as you say is the physicality and human stamina, it's a wonderful spot with a rich history, I love watching it. It's more fun than the NRL and rugby union if you ask me, such a multi skilled sport is ice hockey so many skills both mental and physical are needed. I think the backlash is any change to a culture brings backlash, it will die down. But where a sport can die is if it's fundamentally changes to much. F1 has gone down in popularity since it become to safe, and to technological rather than car racing skill. NRL crowds and tv ratings dipped since it banned the biff and shoulder charge. Test match rugby league still allows biff in that it doesn't automatically send off a player. There is a market for high contact sport, and I've been watching more NHL since the NRL got soft. I hope hockey doesn't ban the shoulder charge into fibre-glass walls or the biff. European ice hockey/Olypmic ice hockey I think bans fights and they play on a larger rink. As a result of this, the sport is much slower and less physical it's quite boring, it's like watching field hockey on grass.
Andie Sawmill
Roar Rookie
I totally agree Johnno. What makes hockey unique is that physicality and human stamina is still such a huge part of the games. The NRL for example could take a leaf out of their book in this regard to stop the 'cheap shots' and unaccountability that is now plaguing that particular code. But the point of the article was to question why there was such a backlash to the concussion protocols when the medical and legal precedents have been made so clear. Is it purely a lack of education of players and media from the NHL?
Johnno
Guest
Maybe concussion protocols have to improve and the "it's a man's game culture" is out of date, but it should stay a dangerous sport. That's part of the attraction to it, they have already banned group fights in hockey now it's just one on one and when a player is dropped to ground the fight stops. The biff should stay part of ice hockey as well as shoulder charges into the fibre-glass walls. That's what brings the fans in, you cut out the rough stuff and only make it a sport for skills not thugs, the fans will leave in droves. Fans have left the NRL a lot coz of no biff or shoulder charge.