Thomas Hertl was playing with a broken foot
Marleau was playing with a broken thumb.
And, amazingly, Joe Thornton was playing with a torn ACL and MCL. That's incredible. I don't know how he was able to stand straight, nevermind skate.
Only hockey players seems to play like this. Remember Bergeron playing in the Cup finals with a punctured lung? Who does this sort of super-human shit? If I slam my finger in door, I immediately think about calling into work, and I work at a desk, inside, with heating/AC, free coffee, and a jar of peanut butter at my desk while I dread the next meeting I have to attend. But then there are these freaks of nature who play with broken bones, torn ligaments, punctured organs, and whatever plagues are cast upon them at inopportune times. I am such a whiny baby by even the slightest comparison. Even the ones I bitch and moan about, they're all fucking champs.
But in the end, as Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." I love the playoffs.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Thomas Hertl was playing with a broken foot
Marleau was playing with a broken thumb.
And, amazingly, Joe Thornton was playing with a torn ACL and MCL. That's incredible. I don't know how he was able to stand straight, nevermind skate.
Only hockey players seems to play like this. Remember Bergeron playing in the Cup finals with a punctured lung? Who does this sort of super-human shit? If I slam my finger in door, I immediately think about calling into work, and I work at a desk, inside, with heating/AC, free coffee, and a jar of peanut butter at my desk while I dread the next meeting I have to attend. But then there are these freaks of nature who play with broken bones, torn ligaments, punctured organs, and whatever plagues are cast upon them at inopportune times. I am such a whiny baby by even the slightest comparison. Even the ones I bitch and moan about, they're all fucking champs.
But in the end, as Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." I love the playoffs.
I feel like it contributes to a toxic culture of masculinity where health and welfare are ignored for what is literally a game.
I understand that people dont want to sit on the sidelines when they could contribute, but shit like this is the male version of fashion magazine airbrushing that leads to eating disorders.
Thomas Hertl was playing with a broken foot
Marleau was playing with a broken thumb.
And, amazingly, Joe Thornton was playing with a torn ACL and MCL. That's incredible. I don't know how he was able to stand straight, nevermind skate.
Only hockey players seems to play like this. Remember Bergeron playing in the Cup finals with a punctured lung? Who does this sort of super-human shit? If I slam my finger in door, I immediately think about calling into work, and I work at a desk, inside, with heating/AC, free coffee, and a jar of peanut butter at my desk while I dread the next meeting I have to attend. But then there are these freaks of nature who play with broken bones, torn ligaments, punctured organs, and whatever plagues are cast upon them at inopportune times. I am such a whiny baby by even the slightest comparison. Even the ones I bitch and moan about, they're all fucking champs.
But in the end, as Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." I love the playoffs.
I feel like it contributes to a toxic culture of masculinity where health and welfare are ignored for what is literally a game.
I understand that people dont want to sit on the sidelines when they could contribute, but shit like this is the male version of fashion magazine airbrushing that leads to eating disorders.
Yeah, its like those dumb images of Lebron cramping up compared to a dude who had like a heart attack and wanted to keep playing. Getting severely injured and wanting to play is bad, you shouldn't be allowed to do that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Or they're driven to go after something they've wanted all their lives?
Whole lot of judgement being thrown around when none of us has been in their skates or minds. To attribute it to a "toxic culture of masculinity" is ridiculous and offensive.
No one remembers that Strugg girl who competed in gymastics with a broken ankle? Must be the toxic culture of femininity.
Or Ballet dancers with completely destroyed feet? Toxic culture of Ballet I guess.
It is 100% ok to me to sacrifice your body to strive for something you want, it doesn't matter if it's a job, a sport or a hobby even. It's also straight goosery to pretend that hockey is the only sport where athletes play hurt and "Durr durr macho men bad!" come on.
Or they're driven to go after something they've wanted all their lives?
Whole lot of judgement being thrown around when none of us has been in their skates or minds. To attribute it to a "toxic culture of masculinity" is ridiculous and offensive.
No one remembers that Strugg girl who competed in gymastics with a broken ankle? Must be the toxic culture of femininity.
Or Ballet dancers with completely destroyed feet? Toxic culture of Ballet I guess.
It is 100% ok to me to sacrifice your body to strive for something you want, it doesn't matter if it's a job, a sport or a hobby even. It's also straight goosery to pretend that hockey is the only sport where athletes play hurt and "Durr durr macho men bad!" come on.
If we are going to ban performance enhancing drugs because they destroy athletes bodies, I see no reason why we should not also ban them from competing where further play would aggravate an existing injury into a long term disability.
Or are you suggesting we should allow athletes to take all the steroids and other drugs they want because they want to reach the absolute pinnacle of what they could be capable of?
Or they're driven to go after something they've wanted all their lives?
Whole lot of judgement being thrown around when none of us has been in their skates or minds. To attribute it to a "toxic culture of masculinity" is ridiculous and offensive.
No one remembers that Strugg girl who competed in gymastics with a broken ankle? Must be the toxic culture of femininity.
Or Ballet dancers with completely destroyed feet? Toxic culture of Ballet I guess.
It is 100% ok to me to sacrifice your body to strive for something you want, it doesn't matter if it's a job, a sport or a hobby even. It's also straight goosery to pretend that hockey is the only sport where athletes play hurt and "Durr durr macho men bad!" come on.
If we are going to ban performance enhancing drugs because they destroy athletes bodies, I see no reason why we should not also ban them from competing where further play would aggravate an existing injury into a long term disability.
Or are you suggesting we should allow athletes to take all the steroids and other drugs they want because they want to reach the absolute pinnacle of what they could be capable of?
I think there is a difference between taking a performance enhancing drug to leverage over others and choosing to compete when you personally are hurt. I'd also argue that the sports science and support elite athlete's get is already "performance enhancing" so are we going to ban hyperbaric chambers and other sports science that accelerates recovery for elite athletes? After all it's not natural to be subjecting their bodies to that level of stress...
Banning athletes from competing while hurt is a literal impossibility and shows a complete lack of understanding of athletes at this or any level of sport.
Human beings fight through adversity in ALL activities and that's a personal choice.
+1
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Also, as we've seen with things like the concussion protocol, doctors can and will prevent athletes from playing if they believe it can cause serious long-term harm.
When Andersen got bumped and missed a couple games later in the season, Babcock was asked about it, and he said it's ultimately up to the doctors - when they say a player can return to play, they can return to play
Or they're driven to go after something they've wanted all their lives?
Whole lot of judgement being thrown around when none of us has been in their skates or minds. To attribute it to a "toxic culture of masculinity" is ridiculous and offensive.
No one remembers that Strugg girl who competed in gymastics with a broken ankle? Must be the toxic culture of femininity.
Or Ballet dancers with completely destroyed feet? Toxic culture of Ballet I guess.
It is 100% ok to me to sacrifice your body to strive for something you want, it doesn't matter if it's a job, a sport or a hobby even. It's also straight goosery to pretend that hockey is the only sport where athletes play hurt and "Durr durr macho men bad!" come on.
If we are going to ban performance enhancing drugs because they destroy athletes bodies, I see no reason why we should not also ban them from competing where further play would aggravate an existing injury into a long term disability.
Or are you suggesting we should allow athletes to take all the steroids and other drugs they want because they want to reach the absolute pinnacle of what they could be capable of?
I think there is a difference between taking a performance enhancing drug to leverage over others and choosing to compete when you personally are hurt. I'd also argue that the sports science and support elite athlete's get is already "performance enhancing" so are we going to ban hyperbaric chambers and other sports science that accelerates recovery for elite athletes? After all it's not natural to be subjecting their bodies to that level of stress...
Banning athletes from competing while hurt is a literal impossibility and shows a complete lack of understanding of athletes at this or any level of sport.
Human beings fight through adversity in ALL activities and that's a personal choice.
In either case, to the victor goes the willingness to more extremely spoil/ruin their body.
I think if the team doctor is aware of an injury, and allows the player to put their body at further risk, that would definitely be an area where the league could sanction them.
The fact that we cannot even be sure if the doctors are looking out for the best interests of the team or the patient is a huge red flag.
The league should be promoting a healthy competition and lifestyle for its players, not encouraging self destructive behavior by looking the other way and shrugging their shoulders.
Most of these arguments have been made in the past too with regards to helmets, visors, etc.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Nah, playing hurt isn't a clear advantage to the player/team the way P.E.D.s are - you're playing beneath your regular abilities, and you still have to be healthy enough to play better than the next best healthy player, or you're actually hurting your team, assuming you're allowed to play.
From my own personal experience (and yes, I realize that high school sports is tiny potatoes compared to the professional level, so I'm not saying "I know what they're going through!"), I played through all sorts of injuries, and even faked some of my recoveries so I could get back on the field quicker. I'm fortunate that my coach wasn't an idiot and realized that the recovery timetable for a dislocated kneecap or a broken heel is much longer than I was trying to pretend it was. While still in the 90s, he was aware of concussions and knew to keep me off the pitch when I was exhibiting signs. Still, I wanted out there.
It wasn't a macho factor. I didn't get cool points for that. It was what I wanted to do. It was a desire to be out there and be a part of it, especially when you're in the finals after all the work you've put into a season, reaching the highest point of that level. Your teammates count on your and you count on your teammates.
The will to be out there despite injuries that I felt is a mere fraction of what I can only imagine these guys go through. As KPC said, I see that as pretty inspiring. Totally dumb in some instances, but I tip my cap when I see that.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Nah, playing hurt isn't a clear advantage to the player/team the way P.E.D.s are - you're playing beneath your regular abilities, and you still have to be healthy enough to play better than the next best healthy player, or you're actually hurting your team, assuming you're allowed to play.
Playing below peak, but still above a replacement who isnt as practiced with that line would be capable of, this is without even getting into some players and their impact on morale and confidence.
And this assumes whatever painkillers / cortizone shots they are injecting are even causing a significant loss of temporary ability.
I get the point that doctors and coaches / staff should endeavour to keep their people safe and it's a battle that should keep happening. I don't want someone going out there with a severe concussion for example but I also think there needs to be some free agency maintained by the athlete.
My original point that this behaviour doesn't stem from machismo still stands. All athletes and competitors do this and it's not because they want to be or they're expected to be the "tough guy". Competitiveness and self sacrifice sure as shit aren't male only traits.
I get the point that doctors and coaches / staff should endeavour to keep their people safe and it's a battle that should keep happening. I don't want someone going out there with a severe concussion for example but I also think there needs to be some free agency maintained by the athlete.
My original point that this behaviour doesn't stem from machismo still stands. All athletes and competitors do this and it's not because they want to be or they're expected to be the "tough guy". Competitiveness and self sacrifice sure as shit aren't male only traits.
Allowing some players to do so, creates an expectation that other players will follow, which creates a cultural issue of peer pressure and unrealistic expectations.
Which was my point in the beginning, not that this is a male only issue, simply that this is an issue that often is part of toxic masculinity. ie: All pens are writing implements, not all writing implements are pens.
I didn't want to wade into the playing while injured discussion right away, because I didn't know how I should share my opinion on it. But my view is really simple.
If a doctor has determined that there is no risk of further injury to the player, and the coach determines that the player with an injury is still better than next available replacement, why shouldn't that player play?
The first one is the most important. And I think in a modern environment doctors are very aware of this fact. Maybe 20 years ago players could get away with it more, but we are seeing very much now that if a player is putting himself at further risk of injury, that player will not be allowed to play. Simple as that.
The second is more subjective, and if the injured player ends up not being effective at all, that's on the coach.
But again, if there is no risk of further injury, I'm not sure what the big deal is?
Also note I avoided using gender pronouns or referring to a specific sport. This isn't a male/female hockey/baskeball/baseball/whatever specific issue.
I didn't want to wade into the playing while injured discussion right away, because I didn't know how I should share my opinion on it. But my view is really simple.
If a doctor has determined that there is no risk of further injury to the player, and the coach determines that the player with an injury is still better than next available replacement, why shouldn't that player play?
The first one is the most important. And I think in a modern environment doctors are very aware of this fact. Maybe 20 years ago players could get away with it more, but we are seeing very much now that if a player is putting himself at further risk of injury, that player will not be allowed to play. Simple as that.
The second is more subjective, and if the injured player ends up not being effective at all, that's on the coach.
But again, if there is no risk of further injury, I'm not sure what the big deal is?
Also note I avoided using gender pronouns or referring to a specific sport. This isn't a male/female hockey/baskeball/baseball/whatever specific issue.
my main issue with it is the huge short term financial incentive behind determining it is okay for your top line player to keep playing
My main issue with it is that everyone in here thinks doctors won't let players back on the ice if they risk injuring themselves?
Which is, obviously, very very untrue.
I'm spoiling my soap box rant so that anyone on a mobile device doesn't have to scroll to the ends of the Earth to get past it.
I'm not a doctor, so I cannot begin to make assumptions on how the whole thing works out. More often than not, I hear about someone "being cleared for play." I would like to think that a doctor has said the risk to re-injure the same way has been minimized enough to say it is safe enough for the player to return to action. I stress "re" in re-injure because stepping on the ice means you are immediately subjecting yourself to injury, contact sport or not. It's the re-injure segment that is mostly looked at.
I remember seeing some players return to the ice with facial fractures, but they wore the full cage over their helmet. Technically, that player is out there with facial fractures, but the medical staff, team, and player have determined that they can safely as possible return to action so long as they wear a cage. I have zero problem with that, but they are still out there with facial fractures.
Where I'm really fuzzy with the current discussion is where do you (anyone involved in this discussion) draw the line for when someone is injured that they shouldn't play? Is it any injury means absolutely no play? If you did that, practically entire team rosters would be out right now. Is it severity of the injury? If it is severity, then who decides how severe an injury is? Even with more severe injuries, a lesser version of that specific type could be less severe than a less severe type that is on the higher end of that type.
For example, someone breaks a bone: Is it any bone that is broken means the athlete cannot play (finger vs ankle vs rib vs toe vs leg)? What about the type of fracture? How long along in the healing process must it be before you would consider allowing the person back in? Is there a way to fully say that the bone will not be broken again? For the last question, anyone who has broken a bone knows damn well that the bone is now weaker and susceptible to future breaks. What about the healing process per person? Everyone is different and some people just heal quicker. Are we going to start putting numeric values on injuries, their types, their severeness, and the healing process so that we can have a specific number that targets when a person is ready? When is "ready" deemed ready?
Want to get into a real confusing injury? Try evaluating a sprain. Sometimes it's almost better to break than sprain, depending on which joint. I've walked and played on a broken heel, but couldn't even limp on a sprained ankle. Hell, I remember some ankle sprains hurting worse than an ankle break.
By the notion of no risk in re-injury, that player should be done for good. I know that's now exactly what you meant, but that's really part of the point I'm making. Where is the line for deciding that? The entire thing is subjective, and over the years that subjectiveness has become more strict (and rightfully so). Any possible answer to my last question can be easily challenged by anyone in here, which leads back to the entire thing being subjective. I know my questions are nit-picky, but they are meant to be. It's easy to say "don't play when hurt," but where exactly is that line for no longer being hurt and how do you evaluate it? Rarely is anyone ever truly 100% after an injury. Some people spend the rest of their lives with an after effect of an injury. Their current condition then becomes their new 100%.
TL;DR version: injuries and their recoveries are subjective.
Le_Goat on
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I didn't take a side in the argument, I was just pointing out how 'The doctors won't let someone risk further injury' is a false statement. Nick Foligno was scratched in game 5 because he couldn't put his hockey skate on over his foot for the pregame skate. Afterwards, Torterella said 'he was skating in game 4 on one leg'. Obviously skating on one leg in game four didn't make his injury any better.
And so I'm not only picking on the Jackets, Kris Letang got injured, finished the game, then was scratched for a few weeks, and then had neck surgery.
I'm pretty confident that if a player leaves the ice, gets looked at by doctors, returns to the same game, and then after that game ends misses the next game because of the injury he just finished the previous game with, maybe doctors don't do a great job of stopping people from playing when the are still at a risk of significantly aggravating their injuries.
I think what some of these players do, re: injury, is stupid, but also I wish I was half as motivated to do my job, sometimes.
(Yes, I noticed my first post said risk of injury, rather than risk of re-injury or further injury, but I didn't edit it because I thought it was obvious what I intended it to say. Everyone is at risk of injury from doing literally anything. A bus could crash through the office wall and injury me. That isn't what I meant.)
I wonder if the tear is misleading. From my understanding, a torn MCL or ACL can't even be walked on. Partially torn is another thing that could be manageable, although I'm pretty confident I'd be crying a river and asking to be taken out back to be shot. I'm not taking away anything from Thornton, just questioning if it's the media over dramatizing it beyond what is necessary.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I get the point that doctors and coaches / staff should endeavour to keep their people safe and it's a battle that should keep happening. I don't want someone going out there with a severe concussion for example but I also think there needs to be some free agency maintained by the athlete.
My original point that this behaviour doesn't stem from machismo still stands. All athletes and competitors do this and it's not because they want to be or they're expected to be the "tough guy". Competitiveness and self sacrifice sure as shit aren't male only traits.
Allowing some players to do so, creates an expectation that other players will follow, which creates a cultural issue of peer pressure and unrealistic expectations.
Which was my point in the beginning, not that this is a male only issue, simply that this is an issue that often is part of toxic masculinity. ie: All pens are writing implements, not all writing implements are pens.
I disagree that this is a peer pressure issue at all. I believe it is a personal choice/drive by competitive people.
"I can help win and this "x" injury won't stop me".
Bottom line for me is that "self sacrifice" or "pushing through adversity" or "toughing it out" or whatever term we choose to use for this behaviour is a humain trait that goes beyond sport.
I'd put forward individual figure skaters as an example where no teammates are playing injured and yet those people still compete with a range of injuries.
If we're going so far as to say that the competitive pressures of sports, like money, recognition, and prestige are "bad" then I think I would have to just bow out of the argument. I can't even wrap my head around that line of thinking.
edit: in re-reading my comments in this thread I realize I'm coming off as a dick and I'd like to apologize to everyone.
Concussions are a really freaky beast. The lingering effects are so confusing, especially when you lose time. 6 hours can go by in what feels like minutes. Everyone else knows what you've said and done but you just remember sitting there. Even the smaller ones can have some really bad side effects. I'm really glad that the sports world has finally taken action on not only preventing them, but also having a protocol for dealing with them when they do occur.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Nikita Zaitsev, just said "I've never had a concussion before. It made it hard to play in the playoffs"
And the doctors in Toronto said he can't go play in the world championships because of a head injury.
He averaged over 20min a night in game 3, 4, 5 and 6 after missing game 1 and 2 because of the concussion.
Then that's a failure of team doctors and the team should be diciplined by the league.
For concussions specifically the NFL takes a zero tolerance line towards this. They've actually removed the team entirely from the concussion protocol. It is done by an independent doctor assigned to every team by the league, and if that doctor says that a player is suffering concussion symptoms they do not play, full stop. If for some reason it ends up happening where a player displaying concussion symptoms does end up on the field, the team can be fined huge amounts (talking high six figures or low seven), can lose draft picks, etc. the penalties are tangible.
I would say that for concussions specifically, that's where the NHL needs to go.
And for whoever was asking about the ACL and MCL stuff specifically, you can absolutely walk on torn ligaments. I actually work with someone who has a torn ACL and is waiting for surgery. he has a bit of a limp and can't put full weight on it, but he can walk. And generally once it's torn, there's no risk of doing any more damage to it, it's torn and you can't make it any worse. Where you have to be careful is after the surgery to repair, it takes a few months before it's fully healed. That's where the risk of re-injury is. Not in the stage where it's torn and not yet repaired.
And for whoever was asking about the ACL and MCL stuff specifically, you can absolutely walk on torn ligaments. I actually work with someone who has a torn ACL and is waiting for surgery. he has a bit of a limp and can't put full weight on it, but he can walk. And generally once it's torn, there's no risk of doing any more damage to it, it's torn and you can't make it any worse. Where you have to be careful is after the surgery to repair, it takes a few months before it's fully healed. That's where the risk of re-injury is. Not in the stage where it's torn and not yet repaired.
T'was me. My lack of knee ligament knowledge is to blame. I thought those two were rather pertinent to the knee functioning properly, especially with the patella. Thanks for the clarification.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
Nikita Zaitsev, just said "I've never had a concussion before. It made it hard to play in the playoffs"
And the doctors in Toronto said he can't go play in the world championships because of a head injury.
He averaged over 20min a night in game 3, 4, 5 and 6 after missing game 1 and 2 because of the concussion.
Then that's a failure of team doctors and the team should be diciplined by the league.
For concussions specifically the NFL takes a zero tolerance line towards this. They've actually removed the team entirely from the concussion protocol. It is done by an independent doctor assigned to every team by the league, and if that doctor says that a player is suffering concussion symptoms they do not play, full stop. If for some reason it ends up happening where a player displaying concussion symptoms does end up on the field, the team can be fined huge amounts (talking high six figures or low seven), can lose draft picks, etc. the penalties are tangible.
I would say that for concussions specifically, that's where the NHL needs to go.
And for whoever was asking about the ACL and MCL stuff specifically, you can absolutely walk on torn ligaments. I actually work with someone who has a torn ACL and is waiting for surgery. he has a bit of a limp and can't put full weight on it, but he can walk. And generally once it's torn, there's no risk of doing any more damage to it, it's torn and you can't make it any worse. Where you have to be careful is after the surgery to repair, it takes a few months before it's fully healed. That's where the risk of re-injury is. Not in the stage where it's torn and not yet repaired.
The NFL settled their concussion class action suit for $1 billion, and changed rules and procedures to avoid any further financial damages to the league.
The NHL lawsuit is ongoing, and this is just another instance of the NHL being terrible about injured players playing in game. This is not unique. The Leafs are not the only team doing this. This is status quo.
“I am once again disappointed in my colleagues in the (National Hockey League Team Physicians Society),” the unnamed team doctor wrote, according to the TSN report. “We all sit around and talk and talk about concussion management. Then it’s the playoffs, someone suffers an obvious loss of consciousness and is back playing in less than 48 hours.
“This same Chicago player was hit hard again today and was unable to continue in the game. Another example of situational ethics. Our only job is to protect the players from harm including when the player is ‘clearing’ himself to play. We must be their advocate regardless of what the coach or general manager thinks.”
And for whoever was asking about the ACL and MCL stuff specifically, you can absolutely walk on torn ligaments. I actually work with someone who has a torn ACL and is waiting for surgery. he has a bit of a limp and can't put full weight on it, but he can walk. And generally once it's torn, there's no risk of doing any more damage to it, it's torn and you can't make it any worse. Where you have to be careful is after the surgery to repair, it takes a few months before it's fully healed. That's where the risk of re-injury is. Not in the stage where it's torn and not yet repaired.
T'was me. My lack of knee ligament knowledge is to blame. I thought those two were rather pertinent to the knee functioning properly, especially with the patella. Thanks for the clarification.
You would think, but they're mostly for stability. You'd have a wonky knee and are definitively not fully operational without them, but it doesn't like, confine you to a wheelchair.
The lack of hockey last night was mildly depressing.
I know! When I got home from work yesterday I had to watch baseball *shudder*
Why would you do that to yourself when we have the bamboo shivs and the hammer and your fingernails are right there?
+2
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I'm pretty cool with any team outside of Pittsburg winning the cup now
I wouldn't mind seeing Ovie win a cup, if only for his drunken exploits the ensuing summer
But I had fun watching the Oilers the game I went to in Brooklyn and they got my boy Looch so I guess I'm pulling for them slightly more than other teams
If the Rangers win there's a small chance one of the players might let me hang out with the cup though...
EDIT: for the record. he was safe. And that was only the weirdest thing to happen in the game by a small margin. a Jays pitcher hit a double. as a pinch hitter. in the 11th inning.
EDIT: for the record. he was safe. And that was only the weirdest thing to happen in the game by a small margin. a Jays pitcher hit a double. as a pinch hitter. in the 11th inning.
So ESPN fired Scott Burnside and Pierre LeBrun, so they're basically just not reporting on hockey at all anymore. Especially if the rumors about Buccigross' contract not being renewed are true, though that hasn't panned out so far.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
don't be silly, the Caps never play in the Conference Finals
Marleau was playing with a broken thumb.
And, amazingly, Joe Thornton was playing with a torn ACL and MCL. That's incredible. I don't know how he was able to stand straight, nevermind skate.
But in the end, as Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." I love the playoffs.
I feel like it contributes to a toxic culture of masculinity where health and welfare are ignored for what is literally a game.
I understand that people dont want to sit on the sidelines when they could contribute, but shit like this is the male version of fashion magazine airbrushing that leads to eating disorders.
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, its like those dumb images of Lebron cramping up compared to a dude who had like a heart attack and wanted to keep playing. Getting severely injured and wanting to play is bad, you shouldn't be allowed to do that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Whole lot of judgement being thrown around when none of us has been in their skates or minds. To attribute it to a "toxic culture of masculinity" is ridiculous and offensive.
No one remembers that Strugg girl who competed in gymastics with a broken ankle? Must be the toxic culture of femininity.
Or Ballet dancers with completely destroyed feet? Toxic culture of Ballet I guess.
It is 100% ok to me to sacrifice your body to strive for something you want, it doesn't matter if it's a job, a sport or a hobby even. It's also straight goosery to pretend that hockey is the only sport where athletes play hurt and "Durr durr macho men bad!" come on.
If we are going to ban performance enhancing drugs because they destroy athletes bodies, I see no reason why we should not also ban them from competing where further play would aggravate an existing injury into a long term disability.
Or are you suggesting we should allow athletes to take all the steroids and other drugs they want because they want to reach the absolute pinnacle of what they could be capable of?
MWO: Adamski
Also I'm pretty sure Thornton couldn't have made it worse by playing on it, otherwise I think the doctor would have stopped him. Maybe.
I think there is a difference between taking a performance enhancing drug to leverage over others and choosing to compete when you personally are hurt. I'd also argue that the sports science and support elite athlete's get is already "performance enhancing" so are we going to ban hyperbaric chambers and other sports science that accelerates recovery for elite athletes? After all it's not natural to be subjecting their bodies to that level of stress...
Banning athletes from competing while hurt is a literal impossibility and shows a complete lack of understanding of athletes at this or any level of sport.
Human beings fight through adversity in ALL activities and that's a personal choice.
When Andersen got bumped and missed a couple games later in the season, Babcock was asked about it, and he said it's ultimately up to the doctors - when they say a player can return to play, they can return to play
In either case, to the victor goes the willingness to more extremely spoil/ruin their body.
I think if the team doctor is aware of an injury, and allows the player to put their body at further risk, that would definitely be an area where the league could sanction them.
The fact that we cannot even be sure if the doctors are looking out for the best interests of the team or the patient is a huge red flag.
The league should be promoting a healthy competition and lifestyle for its players, not encouraging self destructive behavior by looking the other way and shrugging their shoulders.
Most of these arguments have been made in the past too with regards to helmets, visors, etc.
MWO: Adamski
It wasn't a macho factor. I didn't get cool points for that. It was what I wanted to do. It was a desire to be out there and be a part of it, especially when you're in the finals after all the work you've put into a season, reaching the highest point of that level. Your teammates count on your and you count on your teammates.
The will to be out there despite injuries that I felt is a mere fraction of what I can only imagine these guys go through. As KPC said, I see that as pretty inspiring. Totally dumb in some instances, but I tip my cap when I see that.
Playing below peak, but still above a replacement who isnt as practiced with that line would be capable of, this is without even getting into some players and their impact on morale and confidence.
And this assumes whatever painkillers / cortizone shots they are injecting are even causing a significant loss of temporary ability.
MWO: Adamski
My original point that this behaviour doesn't stem from machismo still stands. All athletes and competitors do this and it's not because they want to be or they're expected to be the "tough guy". Competitiveness and self sacrifice sure as shit aren't male only traits.
Allowing some players to do so, creates an expectation that other players will follow, which creates a cultural issue of peer pressure and unrealistic expectations.
Which was my point in the beginning, not that this is a male only issue, simply that this is an issue that often is part of toxic masculinity. ie: All pens are writing implements, not all writing implements are pens.
MWO: Adamski
If a doctor has determined that there is no risk of further injury to the player, and the coach determines that the player with an injury is still better than next available replacement, why shouldn't that player play?
The first one is the most important. And I think in a modern environment doctors are very aware of this fact. Maybe 20 years ago players could get away with it more, but we are seeing very much now that if a player is putting himself at further risk of injury, that player will not be allowed to play. Simple as that.
The second is more subjective, and if the injured player ends up not being effective at all, that's on the coach.
But again, if there is no risk of further injury, I'm not sure what the big deal is?
Also note I avoided using gender pronouns or referring to a specific sport. This isn't a male/female hockey/baskeball/baseball/whatever specific issue.
my main issue with it is the huge short term financial incentive behind determining it is okay for your top line player to keep playing
no one thinks long term
Which is, obviously, very very untrue.
I remember seeing some players return to the ice with facial fractures, but they wore the full cage over their helmet. Technically, that player is out there with facial fractures, but the medical staff, team, and player have determined that they can safely as possible return to action so long as they wear a cage. I have zero problem with that, but they are still out there with facial fractures.
Where I'm really fuzzy with the current discussion is where do you (anyone involved in this discussion) draw the line for when someone is injured that they shouldn't play? Is it any injury means absolutely no play? If you did that, practically entire team rosters would be out right now. Is it severity of the injury? If it is severity, then who decides how severe an injury is? Even with more severe injuries, a lesser version of that specific type could be less severe than a less severe type that is on the higher end of that type.
For example, someone breaks a bone: Is it any bone that is broken means the athlete cannot play (finger vs ankle vs rib vs toe vs leg)? What about the type of fracture? How long along in the healing process must it be before you would consider allowing the person back in? Is there a way to fully say that the bone will not be broken again? For the last question, anyone who has broken a bone knows damn well that the bone is now weaker and susceptible to future breaks. What about the healing process per person? Everyone is different and some people just heal quicker. Are we going to start putting numeric values on injuries, their types, their severeness, and the healing process so that we can have a specific number that targets when a person is ready? When is "ready" deemed ready?
Want to get into a real confusing injury? Try evaluating a sprain. Sometimes it's almost better to break than sprain, depending on which joint. I've walked and played on a broken heel, but couldn't even limp on a sprained ankle. Hell, I remember some ankle sprains hurting worse than an ankle break.
By the notion of no risk in re-injury, that player should be done for good. I know that's now exactly what you meant, but that's really part of the point I'm making. Where is the line for deciding that? The entire thing is subjective, and over the years that subjectiveness has become more strict (and rightfully so). Any possible answer to my last question can be easily challenged by anyone in here, which leads back to the entire thing being subjective. I know my questions are nit-picky, but they are meant to be. It's easy to say "don't play when hurt," but where exactly is that line for no longer being hurt and how do you evaluate it? Rarely is anyone ever truly 100% after an injury. Some people spend the rest of their lives with an after effect of an injury. Their current condition then becomes their new 100%.
TL;DR version: injuries and their recoveries are subjective.
And so I'm not only picking on the Jackets, Kris Letang got injured, finished the game, then was scratched for a few weeks, and then had neck surgery.
I'm pretty confident that if a player leaves the ice, gets looked at by doctors, returns to the same game, and then after that game ends misses the next game because of the injury he just finished the previous game with, maybe doctors don't do a great job of stopping people from playing when the are still at a risk of significantly aggravating their injuries.
I think what some of these players do, re: injury, is stupid, but also I wish I was half as motivated to do my job, sometimes.
(Yes, I noticed my first post said risk of injury, rather than risk of re-injury or further injury, but I didn't edit it because I thought it was obvious what I intended it to say. Everyone is at risk of injury from doing literally anything. A bus could crash through the office wall and injury me. That isn't what I meant.)
And apparently Marleau had a broken thumb, Couture had a broken face, Hertl a broken foot, and Donskoi a separated shoulder.
That seems....excessive.
I disagree that this is a peer pressure issue at all. I believe it is a personal choice/drive by competitive people.
"I can help win and this "x" injury won't stop me".
Bottom line for me is that "self sacrifice" or "pushing through adversity" or "toughing it out" or whatever term we choose to use for this behaviour is a humain trait that goes beyond sport.
I'd put forward individual figure skaters as an example where no teammates are playing injured and yet those people still compete with a range of injuries.
If we're going so far as to say that the competitive pressures of sports, like money, recognition, and prestige are "bad" then I think I would have to just bow out of the argument. I can't even wrap my head around that line of thinking.
edit: in re-reading my comments in this thread I realize I'm coming off as a dick and I'd like to apologize to everyone.
I think I've said all I can say on the issue
And the doctors in Toronto said he can't go play in the world championships because of a head injury.
He averaged over 20min a night in game 3, 4, 5 and 6 after missing game 1 and 2 because of the concussion.
Then that's a failure of team doctors and the team should be diciplined by the league.
For concussions specifically the NFL takes a zero tolerance line towards this. They've actually removed the team entirely from the concussion protocol. It is done by an independent doctor assigned to every team by the league, and if that doctor says that a player is suffering concussion symptoms they do not play, full stop. If for some reason it ends up happening where a player displaying concussion symptoms does end up on the field, the team can be fined huge amounts (talking high six figures or low seven), can lose draft picks, etc. the penalties are tangible.
I would say that for concussions specifically, that's where the NHL needs to go.
And for whoever was asking about the ACL and MCL stuff specifically, you can absolutely walk on torn ligaments. I actually work with someone who has a torn ACL and is waiting for surgery. he has a bit of a limp and can't put full weight on it, but he can walk. And generally once it's torn, there's no risk of doing any more damage to it, it's torn and you can't make it any worse. Where you have to be careful is after the surgery to repair, it takes a few months before it's fully healed. That's where the risk of re-injury is. Not in the stage where it's torn and not yet repaired.
The NFL settled their concussion class action suit for $1 billion, and changed rules and procedures to avoid any further financial damages to the league.
The NHL lawsuit is ongoing, and this is just another instance of the NHL being terrible about injured players playing in game. This is not unique. The Leafs are not the only team doing this. This is status quo.
You would think, but they're mostly for stability. You'd have a wonky knee and are definitively not fully operational without them, but it doesn't like, confine you to a wheelchair.
I know! When I got home from work yesterday I had to watch baseball *shudder*
Why would you do that to yourself when we have the bamboo shivs and the hammer and your fingernails are right there?
I wouldn't mind seeing Ovie win a cup, if only for his drunken exploits the ensuing summer
But I had fun watching the Oilers the game I went to in Brooklyn and they got my boy Looch so I guess I'm pulling for them slightly more than other teams
If the Rangers win there's a small chance one of the players might let me hang out with the cup though...
I don't know, I saw this happen, and it was pretty great.
EDIT: for the record. he was safe. And that was only the weirdest thing to happen in the game by a small margin. a Jays pitcher hit a double. as a pinch hitter. in the 11th inning.