babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » NHLPA blind to safety

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: NHLPA blind to safety
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 October 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been meaning to post this editorial for the last couple of days, as I think it raises some interesting points about the role of unions in health and safety issues.

NHL players union blind to safety (Toronto Star 10/17/2005)

quote:
An organization representing workers should have the health and safety of its members first and foremost in mind. The Canadian Auto Workers wouldn't dream of putting a General Motors employee into a hazardous situation. And if such an instance ever happened, the union would fight management tooth and nail.

Why is the National Hockey League Players' Association not doing the same?

Instead of protecting its members, it's allowing them to vote on whether or not NHL players should be forced to wear protection for their eyes. There shouldn't even be a question.



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe the 'union' should petition to ban body checking and make the puck out of a nerflike material.

*Sheesh*


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 October 2005 02:43 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So how many of your eyes have been knocked out by a flying puck, tough guy?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 20 October 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, the players are voting on it, no? It's a question if there are players who could plausibly vote no. I can't imagine why they would vote no, though.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 October 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think there's a machismo issue. I understand that the players have at least been polled on the issue before, if not formally voted, and the numbers were something like 70% against.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 20 October 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
robbie dee, I agree with you. With the advent of high-tech sticks, a puck to the forehead/eye socket area could easily kill. I think the players are living on borrowed time, and that a death by puck is overdue. Remember that poor 12 year old girl..the reason netting was installed? She was way up in the stands.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 20 October 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sundin likely to start wearing visor

Includes a handy photo showing what a puck can do.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
So how many of your eyes have been knocked out by a flying puck, tough guy?

None. I wear a visor, girlyman (is this another name calling thread?)

I don't think anyone has had an eye 'knocked out' by a puck in the NHL although there have been broken orbit bones and detached retinas.

These are grown men, consentually playing a contact sport. The can make the decision themselves if they need to wear a visor. 38% do wear them. As the younger players who are accustomed to wearing them come into the league those numbers will rise.

Helmets are no longer madatory in the NHL but everyone wears them. Most of the old school hold outs who weren't wearing helmets (like Brad Marsh) said players were much more aware of where their stick were and kept 'em below the shoulders for obvious reasons. Many visorless players say they have issues seeing clearly through them and feel the impairment actually slows their reaction time to a high stick or puck. Further to that some players wearing a visor have actually been injured by having an opposing players slick stuck under the visor.

If the league were to force players to wear visors and eventualluy a full cage I think you'd see a lot more players head hunting.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 October 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
These are grown men, consentually playing a contact sport. The can make the decision themselves if they need to wear a visor. 38% do wear them. As the younger players who are accustomed to wearing them come into the league those numbers will rise.

That's the point I wanted to get at, though. Suppose this was a construction site and some of the "old-timers" didn't like wearing a hard hat. Should the building trades union fight for their right to do that, or should it fight to uphold a rule that all workers have to use certain safety equipment to do their jobs?

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can see your point, but I don't think there is a comparison between a construction worker and an NHL player beyond the fact they are each entered into a contract to provide a service to their employeer. The NHL expects a certian percentage of their players to be out because of injuries. They have built in contingency plans like farm teams so they can bring in extra staff to replace injured players.

It would be crazy to compare pro sports with industry. Imagine if you ran a construction company the size of the NHLPA...a 500 or so staff. Every year:

10 or fifteen guys get concussions
20 guys tear the A or MCL
5 guys break bones
15 have back injuries
2500 stitches are put into various staff
10 guys dislocated shoulders and knees
20 under go survery to repair an injury that occureded on the job

WCB would shut your ass down.

I don't remember seeing many body checks happening on the job site when I worked construction. I never wore shoulder pads or a cup either. Should a constuction worker be forced to wear a cup in the odd chance she gets hit in the nuts?

Personally I think you'd have to be crazy not to wear a visor in hockey at any level, but some guys just won't.

Even the majority of guys wearing visiors in the NHL don't believe it should be mandatory.

Fear not though, the day will come when visors are mandatory....then cages....then no body contact...


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 20 October 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Better protection means rougher play, every time. A challenge to fight in juniors now is a crosscheck to the [helmeted] face.

The NHL made a sea-change overnight when that girl died, bringing netting in. Imagine what a very public, horrific death-by-puck incident will do. I hope it doesn't come to that.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 20 October 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
girlyman

Would you please be so kind as to explain why you consider this word to be an insult?


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 20 October 2005 05:51 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think he was responding facetiously to my calling him "tough guy."
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was.

I love people who only read half a thread and snap.

Move along Jimmy, nothing to see here.

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: Yukoner ]


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 20 October 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I snap at you Yuki you'll know it. Just don't like gratuitous heteronormative insults being flung around whether facetious or not.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 October 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*slaps JB on the back*
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 20 October 2005 06:33 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Would it be homo(GBLT)normative of you to classify that joke as inherently heternormative rather than sexist?

It is heteronormative of me to perceive that joke as inheretly sexist rather that heteronormative?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 20 October 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just don't see why the NHL rejected no-touch icing. I mean, it is not really that exciting to see two players race for a puck that usually results in an off-side anyways. Neither the League nor the NHLPA seem all that concerned about player safety.
quote:
I think there's a machismo issue. I understand that the players have at least been polled on the issue before, if not formally voted, and the numbers were something like 70% against.
Agreed.
Might I ask where you found that stat?

From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did you just call me Yuki?

Do know what that word means in Southern Tutchone?

If you did, you wouldn't use it.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 06:52 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*after a quick google*

Ironically, Yuki is also a feminine Japanese name. Are you insinuating I am a Japanese woman, Jimmy? Because, I can be, if you ask really nice.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 20 October 2005 07:10 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just don't like gratuitous heteronormative insults being flung around whether facetious or not.

Let me get this straight: 'girlyman' is a heteronormative insult because it implies that to be manly isn't to have feminine characteristics, but calling someone 'tough guy' (implying quite clearly that you think he's very emphatically NOT a 'tough guy', ie, exactly the same implication and form of insult as 'girlyman') ISN'T heteronormative?

Here's $.25, go buy an analysis or something. Either jump down both their throats or neither, don't give me this half-measures crap.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
byzantine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10235

posted 20 October 2005 07:21 PM      Profile for byzantine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quote: "Let me get this straight..."

Priceless.
On a slightly more serious note, this thread is beginning to remind me of "Longwang."


From: saskatchewan | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 20 October 2005 07:22 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yukoner:
Maybe the 'union' should petition to ban body checking and make the puck out of a nerflike material.

What!??! No more fighting at work. That guy in the mail room was really pissing me off and now I can't deck him?!?

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:

What!??! No more fighting at work. That guy in the mail room was really pissing me off and now I can't deck him?!?

As long as it is a clean hit you're fine.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 20 October 2005 07:38 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Heh. Glad you noticed.
quote:
On a slightly more serious note, this thread is beginning to remind me of "Longwang."

No freaking kidding. WTF.

From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 20 October 2005 07:45 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No-touch icing? Anyone?
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mmmmmmmmmm icing

*gurgle*


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
byzantine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10235

posted 20 October 2005 08:01 PM      Profile for byzantine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With the elimination of the two line pass prohibition I've noticed there are more instances where the offensive player gets to the puck in time to beat the icing call. So I'm agin' no touch icing. Care to drop the gloves?
From: saskatchewan | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 20 October 2005 08:41 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Care to drop the gloves?

Let me get this straight buddy. You think that a physical taunt could ever compare to the image of Yukoner wearing a little geisha dress?

I thought I had problems with insomnia before that post!


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 20 October 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:

You think that a physical taunt could ever compare to the image of Yukoner wearing a little geisha dress?


.....the dress wouldn't be that little. My pants are a 38.

On the upside, at least not you won't have nightmares.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 21 October 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yukoner:

Helmets are no longer madatory in the NHL but everyone wears them. Most of the old school hold outs who weren't wearing helmets (like Brad Marsh) said players were much more aware of where their stick were and kept 'em below the shoulders for obvious reasons.


Wrong. Helmets are mandatory in the NHL. When that rule came in (mid '80's?) players were grandfathered and allowed to finish their career playing without helmets if they desired. I believe Craig MacTavish was the last player to play without a helmet.


From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 21 October 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nam:

Wrong. Helmets are mandatory in the NHL. When that rule came in (mid '80's?) players were grandfathered and allowed to finish their career playing without helmets if they desired.


1979, as I recall.

Edited to add: Link

[ 21 October 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 October 2005 04:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe the 'union' should petition to ban body checking and make the puck out of a nerflike material.

Both of those changes would change the very nature of the game.

Making someone wear a visor won't. It may, however, challenge some macho attitudes, to which I think the progressive response is "too bad, so sad". Seems to me that visors or cages are a very minimal intrusion on visibility, and a very reasonable remedy for a not-uncommon injury.

Nobody looks "cool" with a seatbelt on either, or wearing a bike helmet. Isn't safety more important than looking cool?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 21 October 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This guy still looks cool:


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 21 October 2005 05:14 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some of the reluctance to wear visors may actually be vanity.

During a Capitals game the other night, the commentators noted that Alexander Ovechkin had switched from a clear visor to a tinted one. They said that he'd admitted that he preferred the tinted one all along, but wore the clear version for a few games so that pictures of him would look better.

It's not much of a jump to wonder whether some of the guys who don't wear visors at all are thinking similiar thoughts, no?

[ 21 October 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 21 October 2005 11:25 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Ovechkin is a little too concerned about what people think of him. At the world junior's in January, he scored a goal and made a big deal of holding up the name on the back of his jersey

Eric Weinrich (now retired, I think) used to wear a yellow visor.

Frankly, I think that players who play without visors are being stupid, and I've never found that a quality to admire.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 21 October 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can see the reluctance to wear a visor or a cage. They do restrict one's vision and if it is not mandatory, one might think others are getting the better of them. There is always the sense that you can better see objects coming at you and that safety equipment reduces the blow, but you still feel it. I highly doubt that making visors or cages mandatory will reduce the quality of the game. I am also not convinced that safety equipment is problematic creates a "gladiator mentality".
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca