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

[BenBreeg 493]

5 minutes ago, Deker said:

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

What does that have to do with the point I made?  Did they choose what helmet he wore?  We live with risk every day.  Some mitigations are mandated by the government or a league, some are left to the individuals.  Unless they think people will buy them, why in God’s name would they make one for a situation that practically never happens?

[clarkiestooth 235]

50 minutes ago, Deker said:

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

Please. Stop with the pearl clutching already. 

[caveman27 208]

9 hours ago, Deker said:

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.

I meant frontal hit without a helmet.

[caveman27 208]

3 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

What does that have to do with the point I made?  Did they choose what helmet he wore?  We live with risk every day.  Some mitigations are mandated by the government or a league, some are left to the individuals.  Unless they think people will buy them, why in God’s name would they make one for a situation that practically never happens?

Yeah.

I kind of thought the ear protectors, which I do keep on, were meant to protect the ear from errant high sticks, not slap shots. 

[Deker 2]

5 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

What does that have to do with the point I made?  Did they choose what helmet he wore?  We live with risk every day.  Some mitigations are mandated by the government or a league, some are left to the individuals.  Unless they think people will buy them, why in God’s name would they make one for a situation that practically never happens?

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? 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Deker

[BenBreeg 493]

1 hour ago, Deker said:

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? 

Twice that we have ever heard of given the millions of times a puck is shot/dumped/deflected/etc constitutes practically never in my book and probably anyone else who actually objectively looks at risk through a rational lense.

i didn’t comment on what i WANT helmet companies to do, I have no reason to want them to do anything.  My comment is about what is going to drive their product decisions.  Unlike concussions, there is not a problem the market sees that would warrant a new product to solve.

You can’t eliminate risk in many cases, you decide how much residual risk you are comfortable with.  

[chippa13 1844]

19 hours ago, Deker said:

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. 

There have been 2 careers ended by fluke pucks near the ear. There have been a stunning number of careers ended due to concussions, and many more that should have been. Ask Marc Savard and Paul Kariya how they recovered from concussions.

[marka 526]

Howdy,

13 hours ago, clarkiestooth said:

Please. Stop with the pearl clutching already. 

In your history with the sport, has there ever been a time when you've supported an increase in safety via equipment improvements?  I ask because this seems to be your attitude with every safety advance topic that I recall you commenting on.

When a player gets hit in the head by a puck and dies, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask the question "Can helmets be better and prevent this type of thing?"  And then, you know, actually see if there's a way to make it better vs. just dismissing it as a fluke thing and we're all going to die anyway, so get over it.

Mark

[stick9 892]

Wanting better helmets is all well and good, but you gotta get the players to wear them. In league where Bauer 4500's are still prevalent, I doubt that happens. Gretzky said he'd retire if they outlawed his Jofa bucket. Joe Thornton threatened to do the same if forced to wear a visor.

 

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Its a freak accident but making a "better" helmet cost money. And last time I check, these businesses aren't around for charity. The "Cost Benefit" isn't there for companies to pour in mad $$$$$ for R&D to create said helmet. This is a brutal occurrence that RARELY happens. Every time we strap up to step on the ice, there is always a chance that we won't make it. It sounds crazy only because odds are high stacked in our favor that we can return to the locker room and complain how much we stink ha. This is always an opportunity to be thankful for being alive. Technology will always improve but it can't prevent death 100% of the time. That's the harsh reality of sports and life.

Edited March 17, 2021 by 215BroadStBullies610

[clarkiestooth 235]

7 hours ago, marka said:

Howdy,

In your history with the sport, has there ever been a time when you've supported an increase in safety via equipment improvements?  I ask because this seems to be your attitude with every safety advance topic that I recall you commenting on.

When a player gets hit in the head by a puck and dies, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask the question "Can helmets be better and prevent this type of thing?"  And then, you know, actually see if there's a way to make it better vs. just dismissing it as a fluke thing and we're all going to die anyway, so get over it.

Mark

 

Interesting statement. I work in the field of medicine (infectious disease), so I'd like to think I support advancements in technology and support health and safety, LOL.  How 'bout you?  If by "every safety topic" you mean that I stand behind the fact that you can't eliminate concussions by changing a helmets design, I'm sticking with the time honored principals of physics and physiology.  You can't eliminate concussions with a helmet. Better to focus on rule changes and player technique. 

I suggest you reread my initial statement. There are risks in life. Sometimes things happen, and you can't blame someone or something. 

 

[Deker 2]

1 hour ago, clarkiestooth said:

 

Interesting statement. I work in the field of medicine (infectious disease), so I'd like to think I support advancements in technology and support health and safety, LOL.  How 'bout you?  If by "every safety topic" you mean that I stand behind the fact that you can't eliminate concussions by changing a helmets design, I'm sticking with the time honored principals of physics and physiology.  You can't eliminate concussions with a helmet. Better to focus on rule changes and player technique. 

I suggest you reread my initial statement. There are risks in life. Sometimes things happen, and you can't blame someone or something. 

 

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.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Deker

[Miller55 333]

Nobody is saying they are opposed to it, just that they don't expect to actually see this happen. BTW, you can just wear a ski helmet if you are concerned.

36 minutes ago, Deker said:

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.

 

[beerleaguecaptain 999]

Not sure it helps but this is why I dont remove those ear flaps.... 

[mojo122 535]

And I see more people trying on helmets looking in the mirror to see how it looks and not caring at all about how it fits....

 

[SirJW 207]

There is more to it than just make it better. A better helmet would break on impact, like bike and motorcycle helmets. Football and Hockey can't design a helmet like that. Mission tried. So they go other routes and continue to get better. Now take the culture part of it and you add another dimension. Don't say looks don't matter, there are countless helmets that made it all the way to production but were shunned by the consumer. Cooper Armadillo comes to mind. Then you have habits and resistance to change, we all have those tendencies.  They asked Gretzky to change to a more protective helmet as a better example  and he wouldn't do it. There are  many other factors why there isn't a perfect helmet. 

 

[BenBreeg 493]

9 hours ago, Deker said:

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.

Let me start by making a statement, take it how you will, but it is not an attack.  You need to learn to argue the points people are making, not what you think you are hearing.  NOBODY said a rule change would have prevented what happened.  NOBODY said they are opposed to helmet companies making helmets safer.  Straw man arguments just lead to people not taking you seriously.

What WAS said: There are multiple ways to address most problems.  The difference between no helmets and today's helmets is huge, but we are close to the point of diminishing returns.  Concussion research evolves but they still don't know everything.  Helmets have probably hit the point where they have done all they can to help mitigate, which is not much since many (most?  don't have data) concussions aren't from direct impact.

What WAS said: Someone who works in a field that uses data and probability feels that rule changes would have a bigger IMPACT (he didn't say it would have prevented it as you accused him of) on many high-risk scenarios.

Argue your points as vigorously as you want, but argue against what people are actually saying.

 

[clarkiestooth 235]

33 minutes ago, BenBreeg said:

Let me start by making a statement, take it how you will, but it is not an attack.  You need to learn to argue the points people are making, not what you think you are hearing.  NOBODY said a rule change would have prevented what happened.  NOBODY said they are opposed to helmet companies making helmets safer.  Straw man arguments just lead to people not taking you seriously.

What WAS said: There are multiple ways to address most problems.  The difference between no helmets and today's helmets is huge, but we are close to the point of diminishing returns.  Concussion research evolves but they still don't know everything.  Helmets have probably hit the point where they have done all they can to help mitigate, which is not much since many (most?  don't have data) concussions aren't from direct impact.

What WAS said: Someone who works in a field that uses data and probability feels that rule changes would have a bigger IMPACT (he didn't say it would have prevented it as you accused him of) on many high-risk scenarios.

Argue your points as vigorously as you want, but argue against what people are actually saying.

 

 

Well. said.  If anyone is interested in reading a book on this topic, Game Change by Ken Dryden is fantastic. He chronicles the life of Steve Montador, while really getting into the concussion crisis in the NHL. He does a great comparison between "old time hockey" and today's game. And he offers some actionable solutions. No pulpit blathering for Mr. Dryden.

[Deker 2]

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).

15 hours ago, SirJW said:

There is more to it than just make it better. A better helmet would break on impact, like bike and motorcycle helmets. Football and Hockey can't design a helmet like that. Mission tried. So they go other routes and continue to get better. Now take the culture part of it and you add another dimension. Don't say looks don't matter, there are countless helmets that made it all the way to production but were shunned by the consumer. Cooper Armadillo comes to mind. Then you have habits and resistance to change, we all have those tendencies.  They asked Gretzky to change to a more protective helmet as a better example  and he wouldn't do it. There are  many other factors why there isn't a perfect helmet. 

 

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?

[clarkiestooth 235]

2 hours ago, Deker said:

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....

 

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

 I don't want this happening to me or anyone I know. 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?

Dude, you're now not even responding correctly to your own posts.

[Deker 2]

1 hour ago, clarkiestooth said:

 

Dude, you're now not even responding correctly to your own posts.

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.

[BenBreeg 493]

4 hours ago, Deker said:

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?

You literally either don’t read or I don’t know what, but people gave their argument why companies probably won’t, because they don’t see it as pervasive enough a problem to warrant it, and that is what drives product decisions, how much more clear can we present this?  You disagree, fine, quit restating the same effing  question and acting like nobody else has informed opinions.

[Miller55 333]

Seriously brah, you sound like a little kid. In real life, even if having earflaps on hockey helmets might offer more protection, Bauer and CCM and not going to just start doing it to prevent a very uncommon mishap.

More likely, if you really want something, is to create some sort of clip-on after market device to protect that area, and then the small niche market for people who want it will be able to put it on whatever helmet they want. However, even with that, I would not quit my day job in the hopes of making a living selling hockey ear protectors.

There just is not a market for it. It would cost a ton of money for companies to try and generate a market for it. So just go on sideline and buy an old Jofa 390.

[Deker 2]

36 minutes ago, Miller55 said:

There just is not a market for it. It would cost a ton of money for companies to try and generate a market for it. So just go on sideline and buy an old Jofa 390.

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.

[Miller55 333]

22 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 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.

Well, so far it doesn't look like people are going nuts buying up all the old Jofa 390s. I think that might be at least a crude market indicator.

Yes, it is their money. I don't care if they waste it, but they didn't become a successful company by making bad decisions. I wasn't saying that they shouldn't do it; I was saying that they won't... Because it's not a profitable enterprise and, like it or not, they are a for-profit corporation.

And how long did it take from Masterson until helmets were required? And how much longer until they actually were worth anything in terms of protection? 30+ years later, and now over 50 years later and they still haven't made a perfect helmet. My point is that these things don't happen in a vacuum, and they don't happen over night. Do you understand how difficult of a process it was too get helmets into the league? And then to regular their quality? And then visors? You're dealing with red tape out the wazoo, and players and agents, unions etc. I agree, it's unfortunate, but it takes a long time and a lot of money, effort and yes, aggravation, to get anything done in the real world.

 

If you like Jofa, I'd suggest you buy it now, because you're gonna be waiting a very long time for Bauer or CCM to make one like it... Regarding Timur, it's terribly sad what happened. We can speculate, but we don't really know what would be. Like the old saying goes, "if I had eggs, I'd have sausage and eggs, if I had sausage..." 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Miller55