The back/forward on an axis, which causes the bruised brain, otherwise called a concussion, is actually made up of two parts -- (1) the force forward and (2) the force with which it stops. Hits (to the head are worse, but to any part of the upper body such as shoulder or chest) create the force of (2) but that is only half of the equation but unfortunately the only half people see and tend to pay attention to ("However, a lot of the blows now are hard enough that the deceleration by itself is problematic."). The real reason players have more concussion is because they are skating so much faster than they use to which is force (1). TRUE, eliminating hitting will reduce concussion. But it is also TRUE that reducing the speed with which skaters are skating will accomplish close to the same thing. However, the same kind of hit that would at a slower skating speed would not have caused a concussion before will NOW cause a concussion given the faster speed of the game. I fail to see that rules outlawing hitting is equal in glory to rules eliminating the speed of skating -- or the degree to which skates are sharpened. Reducing skate sharpening and even the metal components of the skate blade itself, might be more successful at reducing concussions that outlawing what are now legal hits. (You heard it here first).

Nathan Hampton
________________________________________
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. Michael Neal [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: observations of a weekend couch potato

Hitting someone whose head is down is fine, as long as you don't hit
them in the head.  Hit them in the head, and it doesn't matter whether
it was down or not.

There is also a limit to how much helmet technology can do.  Concussions
are caused by the acceleration and deceleration of the brain within the
cranium.  To reduce that, a helmet needs to dissipate the energy of a
hit into something other than motion of the head.  From what I've read,
the medical researchers a fairly pessimistic about how much advancement
there is to make on that.  Momentum, after all, has to be conserved, so
something would have to move along an axis orthogonal (or at least
significantly orthogonal) to the direction of the blow.  The sport where
there has been the most advancement in this is auto racing.  The reason
that it's been successful is that they are okay with pieces of the car
flying in every direction.  Every one of those pieces is carrying
momentum that is not transmitted to the main body of the car, and thus
the driver.  That's why crashes can be so spectacular and yet the driver
walks away mostly unhurt: the car is specifically designed to
disintegrate in those conditions.

For some pretty good reasons, we are not okay with a hockey helmet
breaking into dozens of pieces whenever someone takes a blow to the
head.  That has the advantage of increasing its ability to prevent cuts
and to protect someone's head when they fall to the ice.  Unfortunately,
it drastically reduces the number of ways you can improve its protection
against concussions.  Mouthguards help by reducing the acceleration of
the initial blow, but don't really do anything to reduce the
deceleration on the other end.  The same is true of wearing the helmet
properly.  So, that can reduce concussions.  However, a lot of the blows
now are hard enough that the deceleration by itself is problematic.
It's the same as a whiplash injury in a car crash, and is the reason for
other safety devices in auto racing which also aren't transferable to
hockey because of the greater need for neck mobility in play.

That is what leaves us with the need to dissipate the momentum of the
blow, rather than just reducing the initial acceleration.  The basic
idea of a helmet is successful at the latter, but not very good at the
former.  Increasing the padding is sufficiently inefficient at that that
we've pretty much maxed out that approach.  There has been progress with
goalies' helmets, and the way that they are now shaped to deflect
incoming pucks rather than to take them flush.  I'm not sure what a good
way to deflect shoulders, elbows and chests is, particularly since they
are likely to come from a much greater variety of angles; a helmet
designed to deflect blows from one direction is likely to reduce the
deflection from others.

What it will take is some method through which there is some mass in the
helmet that gets accelerated in a direction other than the axis of
impact and does not leave the helmet.  It also can't simply transmit the
momentum back to the head when it comes to a stop against whatever
barrier prevents its ejection unless it spreads that secondary impact
significantly over time.  The closer it comes to accelerating on an axis
perpendicular to that of the impact, the better.  It has to be able to
do this regardless of the axis of impact.

I'm dubious that this will end up being the answer.

On 3/28/2011 3:19 PM, Matt Sullivan wrote:
> I certainly don't dispute that a hit to the head is illegal, but unfortunately
> it becomes such a subjective call for the refs to make.  Your original email
> made it sound like a person shouldn't hit another player if their head is down,
> and I still disagree with that.
>
> I'd like to know what Bauer, Easton, CCM, Itech and Reebok are doing to advanced
> helmet technology.  It seems like the design of the helmet hasn't changed in 20+
> years.  Also a factor on head injuries isn't just contact but the improper fit
> of helmets, facemasks and mouthgaurds.  Watching yesterday's MW regional I was
> surprised to see a bunch of masks hanging down an inch or more lower than they
> should.  There's lots we can do to lower head injuries without taking the
> physicality out of hockey.
>   Matt Sullivan
> Group Insurance Specialist
> The Sullivan Agency, LTD.
> www.sullivanagency.com
>
>
> University of Minnesota Duluth, 1998
> BU-LL-DO-G-S GOOOOO Bulldogs!!!!
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: J. Michael Neal<[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 10:25:06 AM
> Subject: Re: observations of a weekend couch potato
>
> On 3/28/2011 9:32 AM, Matt Sullivan wrote:
>> Since when can't you hit a player when their head is down???
> Since we started learning just how damaging concussions are.  If you derive
> enjoyment from watching people suffer brain damage, I can't stop you.  I,
> however, have been opting out pretty rapidly.  I can't watch NFL football
> anymore, and I'm losing patience with the NHL.  Fortunately, I discovered that
> women's hockey is a great game, with a much lower injury rate.
>
> Given how large and how fast the players are today, the only way you're going to
> stop the escalating rate of concussions is to prevent hits to the head.  It
> doesn't matter whether the checked player's head is up or down.  Either
> eliminate those hits, or you'll see a continuing parade of players to the
> hospital.  The research being done on concussions in sports is frightening if
> you care about the players' well being, particularly the evidence that an
> accumulation of blows that do not produce concussion symptoms can do serious
> long term damage.
>
>