Derek Michael Hodgins wrote:
 
> Ken,
> I am in no way assuming that ONLY puckheads can comment on the game but
> in some cases, in this the physical play of the game, who better to
> comment than someone who's played the game? If you were a player, with
> how much weight would you give criticism of your game by someone who is
> merely a spectator? Yes, anyone can comment, but it's those who know
> first hand how the game is played that carry the most weight.
 
I've long been dubious of this kind of declaration.  A large part of it comes
from being a long time reader of Bill James, who spent many years trying to
convince the baseball establishment of things that the simplest of statistical
analysis showed, like the fact that you coud be a .300 hitter and still be a
lousy offensive player.  Those inside a game often tend to by blinded by
assumptions that were made fifty years ago and have never been challenged.
 
On this subject in particular, I don't think that those who have played
necessarily have the best perspective.  Athletes have a particularly strong sense
of invulnerability that makes me (among others) question the decision making
process of what safety equipment they should use.  Boxers, in particular, stand
out because of the very high incidence of brain damage that they suffer.  Then
there are those who decide after the fact that they were wrong; Lyle Alzedo and
steroids is one example.  There is also the former Steelers running back, whose
name I can't remember, whose career was ended by multiple concussions.  I have a
friend who's a small time cyclist, a sport that has been almost overwhelmed by
drug use, that passes on horror stories about the mind-set of these athletes and
the risks they're willing to run in order to be a little bit better.
 
There is the libertarian argument that since it is their life, they should be
able to do what they want.  I am unconvinced by this.  There is an extremely
short slippery slope from this statement to actual gladitorial games; football
may be very close to this line as it is.  Hockey, with its sanctioned fighting,
is also in dangerous territory.  (Before you ask, yes, I am in favor of banning
boxing.)  While the athetes should be listened to, governing bodies also have a
responsibility to take a longer term view of safety issues and mandate safety
equipment and prohibit certain behavior in this interest.  And most players don't
have the information necessary o know whether one is safer with or without the
shield.  This is why studies such as the ones Vicki has cited are important and
valid sources of information.
 
She just hasn't been citing them properly...
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.