Science Says the NHL Needs to Abolish Body Checking
Why equipment alone can’t provide the protection hockey players need
Kariya’s head crashed into Stevens before slamming into the ice in a fateful game six of the 2003 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Kariya had made a move through the neutral zone, leaving the puck for a teammate. Unsuspecting to Kariya, Stevens made a cut into the middle of the ice and lined up the forward for a thundering, blind-side hit that rendered the Ducks star motionless, suffering from a traumatic brain injury (TBI). The nature of the contact was vicious and late. Kariya didn’t see Stevens approaching, and he was a much smaller player. The result was a rapid deceleration of Kariya’s brain that undeniably cut his career short.
A better helmet wouldn’t have changed the hit that forever altered Paul Kariya’s career, whose post-concussion syndrome would eventually force him out of hockey in 2006. The nature of the collision had more of an impact than his equipment.
Most of us still ooh and aah for the big hit, and body checks similar to Kariya’s are still being thrown in today’s game, but at what cost? It’s time for us to consider the dangerous conditions creating concussion-friendly circumstances in the game of hockey and why they are ending careers.
Modern hockey play and the shortcomings of the helmet
For a century, hockey has evolved into a bigger and faster game. Players have increased in size, strength, and ability. Safety protocols are playing catch-up, and the players have suffered for it. The risk of head trauma exists with any contact sport, but shouldn’t players be given the best equipment, education, and environment to protect their brains?
Hitting is trending up in the NHL — way up. Some teams are clocking in at over 2,000 hits a season this decade. Contrast that with the 500 or so hits per season teams were throwing in the previous decade and you’ll quickly the find two unaddressed problems: poor stat-keeping and, more importantly, safety measures that have fallen behind.
Innovators have done their best to create safer equipment, with a focus on the helmet. Unfortunately, the significance of these changes are miniscule against the nature of hockey combined with the body check. The council and top manufacturers share the notion that the hockey helmet cannot compete with the nature of the game as it is.
Bauer has developed what they’re calling an innovative line of helmets.. The RE-AKT helmet line has been “engineered to exceed safety standards, designed for comfort and built for the way the game is played.” Sounds promising, and many believe these new helmets will reduce the risk of concussion, but a disclaimer found at the top of the page simply reads:
Experts state that concussions are mainly due to acceleration or deceleration of the brain, and helmets may not prevent concussions caused by these forces.
Another competitor CCM offers a R.E.D. system with liquid pockets to help distribute force as a shock absorber. Fitted in their Fitlite helmet, CCM is quick to disclaim any notion of protection at the top of their page as well:
Scientists indicate that brain injuries and concussions are mainly due to linear and rotational accelerations of the brain. No hockey helmet can prevent or eliminate the risk of head injury, including concussions.
Seeing near-identical disclaimers on leading technologies developed to protect players prompted a look at the hockey helmet standard made by the Standard Council of Canada. Lo and behold, even the standard itself comes with an important note:
Ice hockey is a sport in which there is a risk of injury. Severe head, brain, or spinal injuries, including paralysis or death, can occur in spite of using a helmet certified to this Standard.
To better understand what a concussion (TBI) is and how it occurs, you can watch this 15-minute educational video. The video uses an animated car accident to demonstrate TBI, with sequences showing impact at a speed of 15 to 35 miles per hour. The average NHLer reaches similar speeds, between 15 and 25 miles per hour. Combine that with the average size of a pro, over 6 feet tall and tipping 200lbs. The X-factor that comes into play is the current nature of contact in hockey. The speed and force produced in a body check combined with the environmental and situational circumstances are ideal conditions for rapid deceleration or acceleration of the brain during contact. The result is a traumatic brain injury.
A call to action from faded stars
There are countless players who toughed out full hockey careers and are now dealing with ailments related to repeated head trauma. Former Stanley Cup champion Dan Carcillo has been part of a movement to hold the NHL accountable for failing to educate and protect their players.
A number of retired players forced out of the game are suffering from depression, substance abuse, and anxiety, symptoms we now relate to repeated head trauma. Suicide has also pushed into a conversation many don’t want to have. With so much unknown about mental health and the long-term side effects of repeated head trauma, we continue to look down the pipeline for a glimmer of initiative from the game’s top authorities.
Sidney Crosby was asked about his helmet after suffering from post-concussion syndrome back in 2011. “The helmet wouldn’t have really changed a whole lot,” he answered.
Pat LaFontaine was a profound skater with play-making and goal-scoring abilities. Unfortunately, he played in the era of high and blindside hits. The blows to the head quickly piled up and sidelined LaFontaine permanently in 1998. He continues to voice his concerns with the game of hockey, specifically head contact, using his personal struggles as an example of what some players are going through.
Another tried and true generational talent, Eric Lindros was targeted early and often in his career. His time in the NHL was chopped up and cut severely short after multiple concussions. Today Lindros is an advocate for eliminating contact from hockey altogether. He’d seen firsthand how repeated head trauma affected his body and mind — permanently.
The NHL is approaching a crossroad
The end game to drastically reducing brain injuries is to eliminate body checking altogether. Concussions will never be eliminated. Slips, fouls, and accidents will happen. These one-offs don’t compare to the concussions suffered from deliberate contact.
But no matter how the bloodlusting fans feel about the game’s bare-knuckle boxing aspect, we’d see exponential resistance if the NHL banned body checking and resorted to a body contact rule similar to — dare I say it — women’s hockey.
More players are speaking out about their struggles and the risks of playing hockey. The NHL and International Ice Hockey Federation will need to compare the costs of lawsuits to lost revenue when they reach the pivotal crossroad.
By then we can only hope the hockey community has a better understanding of the crisis their contact sport is facing. Researching concussions and head trauma to better treat and diagnose athletes will not provide the same result as changing the game to avoid them completely.
Until this simple perspective is shared by the majority, players will continue to suffer the consequences. Careers will continue to end prematurely and symptoms will continue to torment. Hockey needs a change.
