Could this serious head injury have been prevented with the proper gear?

[boo10 323]

52 minutes ago, Deker said:

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 think you're underestimating how many people have to be interested in a product before a company deems it worthy of investment.  Over the years we've seen a number of players get their throats slit by skates, yet very few people have interest in a Kevlar turtleneck, (and that's a product that was brought to market).  Just because there is a valid need for a product isn't enough, a company will not invest in producing that product unless they can sell enough to make a profit.

[krisdrum 233]

@Deker you keep asking these "what if" questions.  They are impossible to answer unless you are a forensic scientist with access to ALL the data from that event.  I get it, it is tragic and it has you (and many others) shook.  But to play "what if" on something we don't have any real data on is just grasping around in the dark.  Your hypothesis is better ear protection would have mitigated the damage.  Maybe my hypothesis is if he had eaten peanut butter and jelly that morning instead of just peanut butter, it would have mitigated the damage.  Obviously that is a ridiculous example, to prove my point, without facts and data there is no way to pinpoint a solution to mitigate the event in the future.

Now you say you don't care if CCM and Bauer go off and spend their money on R&D to create a better helmet.  I'm going to disagree there.  That investment will ultimately get passed along to you and me, and the rest of us as consumers.  Whether it is pricing on whatever new technology they do create ($300? $400 for the new helmet?) or by spreading the extra costs into increased prices for all their gear.  As the saying goes, "there is no free lunch". 

To @Miller55 point, if you think there is a big enough market, go to the drawing board and create some prototypes.  Test them out, prove they work, and test the market. 

[start_today 770]

Wear those wrestling ear flaps under your hockey helmet, and then a motorcycle helmet over your hockey helmet. I cannot understand why USA hockey and the NHL have not mandated this. I can only assume they are getting back door payments from head injury doctors (like Charliestooth?!?!). Until we can get big healthcare to quit profiting from player injuries, there’s actually no institutional incentive to make any serious changes and protect players.

[chippa13 1844]

I feel like I've suffered a head injury every time I click into this thread.

[clarkiestooth 235]

....just turn the helmet sideways when wearing it.  Problem solved. Can we now agree to draw the curtain on the Helmet Safety Summit? 

[Miller55 333]

6 hours ago, krisdrum said:

 

To @Miller55 point, if you think there is a big enough market, go to the drawing board and create some prototypes.  Test them out, prove they work, and test the market. 

I absolutely do not think that. I was suggesting that Deker give it a shot of he is concerned enough.

[krisdrum 233]

4 minutes ago, Miller55 said:

I absolutely do not think that. I was suggesting that Deker give it a shot of he is concerned enough.

Yep, that was my (and your) point, that if @Deker thinks the market is crying for this protection feature, that they should test those waters.

[stick9 890]

How about the larger point. Why aren't people clamoring for better medical facilities in these areas or rinks?

[mojo122 535]

7 hours ago, chippa13 said:

I feel like I've suffered a head injury every time I click into this thread.

Leading candidate for post of the year!

[Davideo 99]

CCM also used to have helmets with full ear protection. They were typically known as dorky helmets for little kids/new players. As has been discussed, simply having a more protective helmet available doesn't mean that they will be used.

 

[Deker 2]

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...

[ProfessorBarDownski 11]

Practice, game, pick up, stick and puck or even pond, this isn’t a game you approach casually. It’s a dangerous game and with one unlucky deflection, collision, at high speeds can be life altering. That’s why players must be mentally AWAKE and AWARE every time they step on the ice. Yes accidents happen, but thinking fast can keep you out of harms way. My heart hurts for this guy and his family. God be with them. 😔

[BenBreeg 493]

@Deker you are literally the poster child for why the internet is such a black hole for mature dialogue.  

-You know nothing about risk assessment

-You know nothing about product management

-You know nothing about business cases

Yet you keep cutting and pasting the same arguments (feeble as they may be) and now have resorted to name calling because people disagree with you.  People who know more than you about the topic.  

Since you are so infatuated with cups, I assume you wear that fancy carbon fiber one the pros switched to after Molina had his injury?  How much of the general sports population wears that?

If you are so convinced there is a market for this, then run with it.  Come up with a business plan, do some basic prototyping, it's cheap as hell now with 3D printing and there are workspaces everywhere for startups.  Throw it up on Kickstarter and follow your dream.  Put you money where your mouth is and quit acting like an immature brat.

[chippa13 1844]

Deker, please accept that this discussion has run its course. You asked if a different helmet could have prevented the tragedy. Many responded with "possibly, but with the extremely low probability, it doesn't appear to be a concern for manufacturers or the general hockey public" or something along those lines. That should be the end of it. Your constant repost of the same comments is the internet equivalent of a 4 year old constantly saying, "Why?" Please stop.

 

Signed,

The rest of us

[stick9 890]

Honestly, if this is the sort of thing that keeps you up at night, do something about it. Don't clamor for someone else to take up your cause. 

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. 

[Miller55 333]

15 hours ago, Davideo said:

CCM also used to have helmets with full ear protection. They were typically known as dorky helmets for little kids/new players. As has been discussed, simply having a more protective helmet available doesn't mean that they will be used.

 

I'm about to buy one of these to keep myself safe for the next time I open this thread...

[shoot_the_goalie 281]

https://youtu.be/79gc9y4Ffjg

[Deker 2]

1 hour ago, shoot_the_goalie said:

https://youtu.be/79gc9y4Ffjg

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.

[flip12 714]

5 hours ago, Deker said:

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.

Napoleon was actually of average or slightly above average height for his day. 5’2” is his commonly cited height. But that’s in French units, which converts to about 5’6” in Imperial.

What about this?

 

[BenBreeg 493]

5 hours ago, Deker said:

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.

So one thing has become become clear, there should be a huge market for helmets to protect against long-term brain injuries similar to what must have happened when your mother dropped you on your head, they should sell by the truckload.  Bowing out of this shit show.

[Giltis 116]

The main issue with this thread is that @Deker asked a valid question but with a foregone conclusion. 

Then he basically entered the argument in bad faith. In no way was this ever a discussion, more just that he wanted validation of his opinion/stance.

I see this all the time now because it's so easy to find something on the internet that loosely supports their argument.

[krisdrum 233]

6 hours ago, Deker said:

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.

You've overstepped.  I don't think anyone brought into question your profession or academic ability.  Don't fight dirty just because you aren't getting the result you want from the case you are laying out.  Instead, look at the case and adjust.  You obviously haven't laid out a compelling enough case.

As for the video - the dude is a resident.  Since you seem to like to explain things that don't need explaining, let me explain.  He is still in training.  Has graduated medical school (good for him) and is now working as a physician under the supervision of more experienced personnel while he continues to gain knowledge and experience.  He also talks a lot in maybes (like you have).  Maybe the puck hit the neck and severed the artery.  Maybe it fractured the temporal bone.  maybe, maybe, maybe.  He has no data, no evidence, no facts to hang his argument on.  And like you, even hypothesized that a full cage might have mitigated the injury, but probably not.  To his benefit he makes the obvious statement that 100s of thousands if not millions of folks have likely been hit with a puck in a similar area of the head, with very few (if any) of them seeing the catastrophic outcome this young man did. 

I think the point has been made before, we can't eliminate risk, only hope to mitigate it.  Maybe a better helmet design could further mitigate the risk of this case, but the question is "is it worth the effort considering how prevalent serious injury is?"  That is the question CCM and Bauer and Warrior are all asking themselves right now.  What is the Return on Investment if we explore designing a safer helmet to mitigate these types of injuries?  Considering the amount of merger and acquisition we've seen in the hockey equipment world over the last 20 years, I have to imagine margins for most equipment is razor thin.  Throwing a ton of money into a new helmet design would make those margins even thinner and could potentially sink a company if they aren't careful with how they approach it.  Hate to break it to you, but at the end of the day, staying in business is their top priority, your safety is further down on their list.       

Edited March 24, 2021 by krisdrum

[marka 526]

Howdy,

On 3/19/2021 at 6:50 PM, stick9 said:

How about the larger point. Why aren't people clamoring for better medical facilities in these areas or rinks?

 

Because everything is a fluke accident and will never happen, of course.

🙂

IIRC, don't youth games often have a requirement for some level of emergency care being onsite?  When I ref youth games here there's an EMT there, but I dunno how common that is.

As an out of shape 51 year old, I can say that I've wondered what happens if I manage to seriously hurt myself tripping over the blue line at 1am in the morning.

OP, you're not going to convince anyone here that's not already convinced at this point.  I agree with you that hockey could stand to have a fresh look at helmets, but this type of feedback has been part of any discussion around improving safety that I've ever heard of.

Mark

[clarkiestooth 235]

7 hours ago, Deker said:

 

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.

 

On 3/15/2021 at 5:14 PM, Deker said:

 Would this have been prevented if the player was wearing a full cage? I have a Bauer Re-Akt 150 helmet with full cage and now I'm afraid to turn my back to the puck. Am I safe from this happening to me if I'm wearing a full cage?

Looks like master deker has graduated from real life coward to internet tough guy. Not really worth any more discussion. And its probably time for his mother to bring him his smoothie.

[Deker 2]

2 hours ago, krisdrum said:

As for the video - the dude is a resident.  Since you seem to like to explain things that don't need explaining, let me explain.  He is still in training.  Has graduated medical school (good for him) and is now working as a physician under the supervision of more experienced personnel while he continues to gain knowledge and experience.

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?

2 hours ago, krisdrum said:

I think the point has been made before, we can't eliminate risk, only hope to mitigate it.  Maybe a better helmet design could further mitigate the risk of this case, but the question is "is it worth the effort considering how prevalent serious injury is?"  That is the question CCM and Bauer and Warrior are all asking themselves right now.  What is the Return on Investment if we explore designing a safer helmet to mitigate these types of injuries?  Considering the amount of merger and acquisition we've seen in the hockey equipment world over the last 20 years, I have to imagine margins for most equipment is razor thin.  Throwing a ton of money into a new helmet design would make those margins even thinner and could potentially sink a company if they aren't careful with how they approach it.  Hate to break it to you, but at the end of the day, staying in business is their top priority, your safety is further down on their list.       

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.