Deker

Yes I know what a resident is. He still has 4 years of medical education and likely 3-4 more years of pre-med under his belt which is probably 7-8 more years than most of you. If you look at this doctor's YouTube channel, he specializes in sports injuries. I hate to break it to you but he is going to have more credibility in this subject matter than most of you. Specifically, he said that he hopes equipment manufacturers take from the incident and consider "providing some additional coverage around the ear" and perhaps "lowering or extending the helmets down a little bit further." I had hoped there'd be a thoughtful discussion on this but instead I'm getting attacked by keyboard warriors. Some who think they're really tough. Isn't that right Napoleon clarkiestooth? Ok, agreed. They are in it to stay in business. They would design safer helmets if they knew there was a demand and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in the world who'd prefer a safer helmet for himself and/or his kids. But if all they see are people like in this thread dismissing the incident as a fluke and that it would never happen to them, then of course it's going to take time, maybe a long time, or maybe never. Just like after Bill Masterton died in 1968, similar people dismissed it as a freak accident and bullheadedly refused to wear helmets for over a decade. What was the point of that? Did they think wearing a helmet would make them cowards? Regarding the question "is it worth the effort considering how prevalent serious injury is?" This is not just "serious injury." This is DEATH. I can understand holding off on designing say new shin pads if the risk is just breaking bones. But if there is a certain unprotected part of your head/neck that can KILL you if hit with a puck, then that is a different story and should be treated as such.

Thank-you for posting that. For most of you (not all but most of you) posting in this thread, take a look at that video and pay particular attention to the 4:16 mark where the doctor says about the tragic incident: "A typical hockey helmet that people wear doesn't really cover all those different bones of the face. There certainly is not much protection up to the neck and there's limited covering kind of around those bones by the ear. One thing I hope medical providers and equipment manufacturers take from this is, trying to look and see if there's any changes that could be made with the equipment. You know, we're not going to see people in like a full football helmet out there on the ice but is there anything with providing some additional coverage around the ear, is there anything with lowering or extending the helmets down a little bit further that potentially could make a difference for something like this in the future." This is exactly what I have been trying to say in this thread. Take it from a real MD who went to medical school and not someone in this thread who claims he "works in the field of medicine." The real doctors out there know that this is code for "I was not smart enough to get into medical school." To the guy who said that, remember this saying: "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know." Look up "Napoleon Complex", it's when the French Emperor felt he needed to overzealously conquer in order to compensate for his short height. The same goes for intelligence. Stop pretending to be intelligent with your "principals of physics and physiology" and take it from a real MD in that video posted above.

As I mentioned before, it sometimes takes a tragedy to elicit change. Would this helmet still be considered "dorky" if Timur Faizutdinov had worn it and he was alive today? Why do you wear jocks? There is a very small chance you will be hit there (I have not been hit there in over a decade of hockey). You wear a jock IN CASE you will be hit there, however small chance that may be. That helmet does look outdated, but with today's technology they could come up with something occupying much less space but still providing protection in that area. After Bill Masterton died in 1968 from not wearing a helmet, it did take a long time for helmets to catch on. It took over 10 years. And the reason is because there were stubborn bull headed people like in this thread saying that it was just a freak accident and that it would never happen to them. If people from Bauer and CCM are reading this thread, YOU are the people from preventing them to research better and safer helmets for whatever reason you may have (perhaps you care more about "looking" like a hockey player than actually "being" a hockey player, I've seen alot of those). In my experience, the more you care about how you "appear", the more you suck at hockey, just my personal experience. A fact, Sidney Crosby keeps his ear guards on...

I disagree that there's no market for it. Maybe before the tragedy there was no market, but after the world just saw happened to Timur Faizutdinov, I'm sure there are alot of players that would want more protection in that area, including parents for their kids. I think companies like Bauer and CCM should test out that market. Those are big companies and it's their money, so why do you care if it would cost them money to test out that market? Before Bill Masterton cracked his skull and died in 1968, there was no market for helmets. Now look at the market today. I like that Jofa helmet. I'd wear that. But I'm hoping Bauer or CCM makes something similar that uses today's materials & technology. So getting back to the topic of this thread, if Timur Faizutdinov was wearing that Jofa helmet, would he have been as critically injured as he was? That extra coverage seems to be the area where he was hit.

The gist of this thread is regarding that tragedy and gear to prevent it. Back then it wasn't exactly clear where he was hit and that's why I asked if a full cage could have prevented it. Turns out probably not because the cage doesn't protect the ear/temple area. Look, I'm ok with you wearing the helmet you've always been wearing. I'm just hoping that companies come up with a model that emphasizes protection in that area. It probably won't be the best looking helmet but I'm sure there would be a market for it.

Look at the title of this thread: "Could this serious head injury have been prevented with the proper gear?" It was intentionally named that. In the post I was referring to, the guy basically said that it's better to focus on rule changes and changes in player technique rather than the helmet itself. But why NOT focus on the helmet? You have valid points about concussions in general but maybe you guys made a mistake and meant to post them in another topic? I'm talking about a particular area of the helmet, the ear/temple area, that currently does not have any padding whatsoever and could possibly be expanded for more coverage, not about concussions in general (which I agree with you that we cannot eliminate all of them). SirJW, you're making the most sense out of those who are just saying it was a fluke, forget about it, if it happens it happens, etc. I'm not asking for a complete re-design of the helmet or forcing everyone to switch to a new helmet. Why not leave existing helmet models and people are free to continue using them but create a new model that concentrates more on safety at the ear/temple area that people can choose to get or not to get? I would bet there is a market for that, given the tragedy that just occurred. I'm betting there would be a market for it particularly for parents who would want their kids wearing something safer. After what just happened, I would want my kids wearing something safer in that area, wouldn't you?

How can a rule change and player technique have prevented what happened to Timur Faizutdinov? No longer allow slapshots? Teach players not to turn their head when a shot is made? Ludicrous. Helmets won't eliminate all concussions but the technologically advanced helmets of today are significantly safer than the helmets of the 60's, 70's and 80's saving countless lives. They now do significant helmet testing and have concussion ratings for helmets. It's an example of how technology evolved and made the game safer for everyone. Before the 60's, NHL players didn't wear helmets at all. Then in January of 1968, Bill Masterton of the North Stars was checked, lost his balance, fell backwards, and cracked his head against the hard ice. He died 30 hours later. Although it didn't happen right away, this tragedy sparked a movement towards wearing helmets and today everyone is required to wear one. It didn't happen right away because there were people like you saying that falling, cracking your head on the ice and dying was a freak accident and that it'll never happen to them. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to evoke change for the better. I'm hoping that this tragedy with Timur will have a similar effect and help make helmets safer in the future. I'm still scratching my head why some people in this thread would be against helmet companies trying to make their helmets safer. Unless you own the company, why WOULDN'T you want them to try to make their helmets safer? If everyone thought like that, then we'd still be wearing the helmets of the 60's and 70's or worse, no helmet at all.

Practically never happens? Did you see the post above where it happened to NHL player Bryan Little which effectively ended his career: He was hit in the exact same spot in the ear/temple area. And there is someone else who posted in this thread that something like this happened to him as well where he required ear surgery with a hammer. Like I said, I've never been hit in the groin in over a decade of playing. But I still won't play without wearing a jock. Just because it doesn't happen that often, why would you NOT want the helmet companies to make something safer in future versions of their helmets? Do you realize that someone just DIED because of not enough protection in his helmet in that area?

Do you think Timur Faizutdinov's family felt that his helmet offered sufficient protection?

I leave mine in. I really don't know if that's enough though. If you feel it, it feels very flexible and I don't know if that would protect you against a 90 mph slapshot. Keep in mind that the shot that killed Timur didn't look that hard. Can you imagine in the 70's and 80's when some NHL players didn't wear any helmets at all?

I'm not advocating any rule changes, just a safer helmet which you can choose to get or not to get. If something can be made better or safer, then doesn't common sense say to do it? I've played over a decade of hockey and I've never been hit in the groin. It's not a common area to get hit (at least for me). But I still wouldn't get on the ice without wearing a jock, even knowing that I likely won't get hit there. Do you see the point? Even if the ear/temple area of the helmet is not a common place to get hit, If the companies can make that part of the helmet better and safer, then why wouldn't you want them to do it?

Do you think this helmet would have helped: It seems to cover the ear area much better than my current helmet. I would definitely feel more comfortable wearing that. I'm hoping future helmet designs go in that direction especially after what has just happened.

I think a frontal hit would be much more absorbed by the foam/padding in the frontal part of the helmet. In the area of the ear, there's practically nothing but that plastic ear piece (which the player had removed). There's going to be a lot more impact when there's no foam/padding.

The chances of getting hit on the side of the head with a puck is far greater than getting your throat slit with a skate. Even though some people are referring to this as a "freak" accident, i think it was an accident waiting to happen. I posted a link above of this happening to an NHL player Bryan Little and it effectively ended his career. I think the issue is helmet design. They could easily put more padding in the ear area and perhaps even extend it and still have hole(s) to provide for good hearing. Concussions are an issue yes, but people recover from concussions. Getting hit in that ear/temple area (and we can see it wasn't that hard of a shot) can be deadly.

For those who think it's a freak accident, it's happened before. Here it is happening to Winnipeg Jets player Bryan Little and it basically ended his career: The issue it seems is that there is not enough protection in the ear area for players' helmets. Compare that area to goalie's helmets, for players' helmets there is just a piece of plastic protecting the ear. If you're paying $300 for a helmet, you would think it's going to protect against a shot to the side of the head. I guess I thought wrong. If this player dies, do you think it's going to change the way helmets are designed and have better protection in the ear area for future helmets?