Page 1 of 2
Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:10 am
by cprice12
Does hockey need ‘warning track’ to prevent devastating injuries?
https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck ... 06231.html
An outfielder runs full-speed to catch a fly ball hit towards the centerfield wall. Suddenly, the grass gives way to dirt under his feet, triggering a response in his mind: ‘Hey, slow down, because after the warning track comes the collision.’
The warning track in baseball is for the benefit of players speeding into the wall.
Thomas Smith hopes it has the same effect in hockey, preventing catastrophic injuries along the boards on hits.
Smith spent 27 months in a wheelchair and remains partially paralyzed after being tripped into the boards at 20 years old. Five years later, he’s championing “The Look-Up Line”: a 40-inch orange “warning track” along the boards that would help puck carriers and the players that would hit them know they’re in a dangerous area.
(As you can see from the image here, it looks like a thousand kids wiped Cheetoos dust from their fingers along the ice.)
From the official site for the “Look-Up Line,” here are its benefits:
1. Warn players to keep their heads up to prevent head and neck injuries.
2. Warn players to be careful not to body check (contact) opposing players from behind.
3. Allow players time to make proper bodily adjustments before hitting the boards.
4. Alleviate the failure to warn (board related) issue that currently exists in hockey.
5. Remind on ice coaches and officials to continue to warn players about safety in hockey.
Smith says it’ll be in 225 rinks around the U.S. this season.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:19 am
by cardsfan04
My first thought is that it seems kinda gimmicky. But, whatever. I don't hold the color of the ice near the boards to be sacred, anything but white being a disgrace. I'm not entirely sold that this would do anything. But, if somebody thinks it will make the game safer, whatever.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:55 am
by dmiles2186
I'm not opposed to it. It might be an eye sore, sure. And I'm sure there will be plenty who say this is just another way they're 'pansifying' the game, but anything to make it safer, I'm good with. I don't know if we 'need' it. The bonus of a warning track is that not only is it a different color, but a different surface, so the player can feel that. Obviously, it's just ice on ice and a different color. But who knows? Maybe it would work better than I'm giving it credit for.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:59 am
by STLADOGG
I saw this live yesterday, and was wondering what the hell it was. Interesting concept, although I'm pretty sure where the boards are at all times it seems when I'm playing. Yet I am not playing at the NHL speed.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:01 am
by cprice12
The problem is, the worst hits don't happen against the boards. They happen when someone is 4 to 5 feet away from the boards and gets blindsided, launching him sometimes headfirst into the boards.
It's been scientifically proven that if you are against the boards when you get hit, the impact is far less damaging than if you got hit away from the boards and are launched into them. Being against the boards transfers the energy from the hit, through the player being hit and into the boards. When you are away from the boards and propeleed into them from a hit, you sustain the impact from the hit and then the boards right after. Double whammy, and your body is usually in an awkward position going into the boards after a hit like that. You can't protect yourself in time...it can be nasty as you are usually going in head first at that point.
I think the only thing this color stripe would do is be one more reminder to players about dangerous play near the boards, which is the intent I guess. But you'd think the large wall of boards and plexiglass that surrounds the entire rink would do that as well.
If they are going to test out a stripe, I wonder if putting a three foot wide stripe starting a few feet away from the boards might be a better way to do it. That is where the more dangerous collisions happen. I dunno. Maybe that wouldn't do anything either.
Anyone who plays will tell you that in the heat of the moment during play, you don't notice the faceoff circle or dots when battling for a puck or when checking a player anyway. So will players even notice the stripe that much? Probably not.
Here is a suggestion...get rid of the shelf where the boards and glass meet. That thing is dangerous...and not needed.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:06 am
by cprice12
dmiles2186 wrote:I'm not opposed to it. It might be an eye sore, sure. And I'm sure there will be plenty who say this is just another way they're 'pansifying' the game, but anything to make it safer, I'm good with. I don't know if we 'need' it. The bonus of a warning track is that not only is it a different color, but a different surface, so the player can feel that. Obviously, it's just ice on ice and a different color. But who knows? Maybe it would work better than I'm giving it credit for.
Yeah, warning tracks in baseball are a different texture so players can feel it when running and looking up at the ball. They can tell the wall is very close without taking their eyes off of the ball in the sky. It's a genius idea in baseball. Not sure it will do anything in hockey as it's just an orange stripe painted under the ice.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:12 am
by ecbm
Like others here, I'm not opposed though I wonder how effective it will be. I guess you gotta try to know. Anyway, this jumped out at me:
4. Alleviate the failure to warn (board related) issue that currently exists in hockey.
That sounds like something a lawyer came up with, which makes sense-preventing crazy lawsuits is what's really driving the focus on safety and head injuries specifically in sports these days. Again, if the result actually is fewer injuries I can live with that.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:38 pm
by big d note
cprice12 wrote:Here is a suggestion...get rid of the shelf where the boards and glass meet. That thing is dangerous...and not needed.
What is the point of the shelf? Is that just the way they would build the glass? The only thing I see it used for is when the linesmen sometimes jump up on it to let the puck slide by along the boards.
I wonder if Kris Draper supports the warning track idea?
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 4:15 pm
by ViPeRx007
I don't see how this would do much. The speed these guys are going makes that small amount of "warning track" virtually nonexistent.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:23 pm
by glen a richter
Seems pointless for all the reasons already cited, namely the speed of the game and the fact that it's an identical texture to the rest of the ice. What the hell are the players doing, looking down away from the play to see if they're closing in on this strip of orange ice, and if they get within range and are also about to hit someone quick slam on the brakes?
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:37 am
by cprice12
ViPeRx007 wrote:I don't see how this would do much. The speed these guys are going makes that small amount of "warning track" virtually nonexistent.
Well, it's not like they wouldn't see it until they are on it. The idea is that they would see it well before they got to the boards and then remind them about the dangers of hitting around the boards, and be cautious. But I think after a while they would ignore it. And as I said before, you would think the tall boards and glass around the entire rink would be a reminder that, you know, they are there...you know because of the fact that you can see them and actually run into them.
I like the thought of the colored stripe...but I don't think it will work.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:53 am
by gaijin
cprice12 wrote:ViPeRx007 wrote:I don't see how this would do much. The speed these guys are going makes that small amount of "warning track" virtually nonexistent.
Well, it's not like they wouldn't see it until they are on it. The idea is that they would see it well before they got to the boards and then remind them about the dangers of hitting around the boards, and be cautious. But I think after a while they would ignore it. And as I said before, you would think the tall boards and glass around the entire rink would be a reminder that, you know, they are there...you know because of the fact that you can see them and actually run into them.
I like the thought of the colored stripe...but I don't think it will work.
Comparing it to the warning track in baseball is comparing apples to oranges (or orange ice). Baseball players crash into the outfield wall because they are looking up and away from the wall (as in, looking up at a fly ball coming from home plate). They are facing away from the wall as they approach it. Hockey players in danger of crashing into the boards are in that danger because: 1) They are looking down at the puck rather than at the boards, or 2) A player of the opposing team is going to check them into the boards (whether legally or illegally is immaterial- injuries occur in both cases).
In the case of event 1 (player is in danger because they are looking at the puck instead of the boards), the reason the player is in danger (indeed, the reason why the player is booking it toward the boards to begin with) is because the puck is
already along the boards, which makes it seem unlikely the player isn't already aware how far they are from crashing into the boards.
In the case of event 2 (player is about to be plastered against the boards by another player), I don't see how a "warning track" will prevent this, unless it is like someone else mentioned and a warning to the hitting player not to plow someone standing on the warning track into the boards. There's already a rule against that (boarding), and to expand the definition of boarding any further than has already been done would pussify the game even more (even Goon said that, among others).
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:14 am
by STLADOGG
gaijin wrote:cprice12 wrote:ViPeRx007 wrote:I don't see how this would do much. The speed these guys are going makes that small amount of "warning track" virtually nonexistent.
Well, it's not like they wouldn't see it until they are on it. The idea is that they would see it well before they got to the boards and then remind them about the dangers of hitting around the boards, and be cautious. But I think after a while they would ignore it. And as I said before, you would think the tall boards and glass around the entire rink would be a reminder that, you know, they are there...you know because of the fact that you can see them and actually run into them.
I like the thought of the colored stripe...but I don't think it will work.
Comparing it to the warning track in baseball is comparing apples to oranges (or orange ice). Baseball players crash into the outfield wall because they are looking up and away from the wall (as in, looking up at a fly ball coming from home plate). They are facing away from the wall as they approach it. Hockey players in danger of crashing into the boards are in that danger because: 1) They are looking down at the puck rather than at the boards, or 2) A player of the opposing team is going to check them into the boards (whether legally or illegally is immaterial- injuries occur in both cases).
In the case of event 1 (player is in danger because they are looking at the puck instead of the boards), the reason the player is in danger (indeed, the reason why the player is booking it toward the boards to begin with) is because the puck is
already along the boards, which makes it seem unlikely the player isn't already aware how far they are from crashing into the boards.
In the case of event 2 (player is about to be plastered against the boards by another player), I don't see how a "warning track" will prevent this, unless it is like someone else mentioned and a warning to the hitting player not to plow someone standing on the warning track into the boards. There's already a rule against that (boarding), and to expand the definition of boarding any further than has already been done would pussify the game even more (even Goon said that, among others).
The warning track in baseball has a different feel than the grass when you step on it, that is why it works. You can't change the feel of the ice with out messing something up, making it more dangerous.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:43 pm
by gaijin
STLADOGG wrote:gaijin wrote:cprice12 wrote:ViPeRx007 wrote:I don't see how this would do much. The speed these guys are going makes that small amount of "warning track" virtually nonexistent.
Well, it's not like they wouldn't see it until they are on it. The idea is that they would see it well before they got to the boards and then remind them about the dangers of hitting around the boards, and be cautious. But I think after a while they would ignore it. And as I said before, you would think the tall boards and glass around the entire rink would be a reminder that, you know, they are there...you know because of the fact that you can see them and actually run into them.
I like the thought of the colored stripe...but I don't think it will work.
Comparing it to the warning track in baseball is comparing apples to oranges (or orange ice). Baseball players crash into the outfield wall because they are looking up and away from the wall (as in, looking up at a fly ball coming from home plate). They are facing away from the wall as they approach it. Hockey players in danger of crashing into the boards are in that danger because: 1) They are looking down at the puck rather than at the boards, or 2) A player of the opposing team is going to check them into the boards (whether legally or illegally is immaterial- injuries occur in both cases).
In the case of event 1 (player is in danger because they are looking at the puck instead of the boards), the reason the player is in danger (indeed, the reason why the player is booking it toward the boards to begin with) is because the puck is
already along the boards, which makes it seem unlikely the player isn't already aware how far they are from crashing into the boards.
In the case of event 2 (player is about to be plastered against the boards by another player), I don't see how a "warning track" will prevent this, unless it is like someone else mentioned and a warning to the hitting player not to plow someone standing on the warning track into the boards. There's already a rule against that (boarding), and to expand the definition of boarding any further than has already been done would pussify the game even more (even Goon said that, among others).
The warning track in baseball has a different feel than the grass when you step on it, that is why it works. You can't change the feel of the ice with out messing something up, making it more dangerous.
That is a true statement, but not the point I was trying to make. A baseball player needs a warning track because he is looking up in the opposite direction while running backwards towards the wall. A hockey player approaches the boards
facing toward the boards. Has there been a rash of injuries because players keep skating backwards into the boards?
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:10 pm
by STLADOGG
gaijin wrote:STLADOGG wrote:gaijin wrote:cprice12 wrote:ViPeRx007 wrote:I don't see how this would do much. The speed these guys are going makes that small amount of "warning track" virtually nonexistent.
Well, it's not like they wouldn't see it until they are on it. The idea is that they would see it well before they got to the boards and then remind them about the dangers of hitting around the boards, and be cautious. But I think after a while they would ignore it. And as I said before, you would think the tall boards and glass around the entire rink would be a reminder that, you know, they are there...you know because of the fact that you can see them and actually run into them.
I like the thought of the colored stripe...but I don't think it will work.
Comparing it to the warning track in baseball is comparing apples to oranges (or orange ice). Baseball players crash into the outfield wall because they are looking up and away from the wall (as in, looking up at a fly ball coming from home plate). They are facing away from the wall as they approach it. Hockey players in danger of crashing into the boards are in that danger because: 1) They are looking down at the puck rather than at the boards, or 2) A player of the opposing team is going to check them into the boards (whether legally or illegally is immaterial- injuries occur in both cases).
In the case of event 1 (player is in danger because they are looking at the puck instead of the boards), the reason the player is in danger (indeed, the reason why the player is booking it toward the boards to begin with) is because the puck is
already along the boards, which makes it seem unlikely the player isn't already aware how far they are from crashing into the boards.
In the case of event 2 (player is about to be plastered against the boards by another player), I don't see how a "warning track" will prevent this, unless it is like someone else mentioned and a warning to the hitting player not to plow someone standing on the warning track into the boards. There's already a rule against that (boarding), and to expand the definition of boarding any further than has already been done would pussify the game even more (even Goon said that, among others).
The warning track in baseball has a different feel than the grass when you step on it, that is why it works. You can't change the feel of the ice with out messing something up, making it more dangerous.
That is a true statement, but not the point I was trying to make. A baseball player needs a warning track because he is looking up in the opposite direction while running backwards towards the wall. A hockey player approaches the boards
facing toward the boards. Has there been a rash of injuries because players keep skating backwards into the boards?
Lol, no there haven't. I was just expanding on what you said, not disagreeing.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:03 pm
by ViPeRx007
Remember when guys used to play this sport without helmets? What the hell were those guys thinking?
Hockey is a dangerous sport. You can try a warning track, but I think it's just going to look stupid and not improve things that much. What they probably need to do is just start really coming down hard on players that do it. Big suspensions AND big fines. None of this 3-game, $10,000 crap. Most of the guys who hit that way are low-line scrubs that barely play anyway. Those suspensions are nothing when you compare it to the guy that got hit and has to sit out for half the season with a concussion. They should at least have to sit the same amount of games the player they injured is out for. You'd probably have to set a minimum as well, because dangerous hits may not always result in a significant injury, but the guy should still be punished for it if that's the precedent you want to set.
What else could you do, equipment-wise, so the boards are safer? Make them give more? Put some shock absorbers in those things? Really, you can't do much without affecting other areas of the game.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:22 pm
by goon attack
Quit letting players cover themselves in armor and you'll see a reduction in this sort of thing.
Get rid of the instigator and you'll see a reduction in this sort of thing.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:31 am
by cprice12
goon attack wrote:Quit letting players cover themselves in armor and you'll see a reduction in this sort of thing.
Get rid of the instigator and you'll see a reduction in this sort of thing.
Exactly.
The road warrior shoulder and elbow pads have done more harm to the game than anything else.
When you feel like a tank out there that can burst through walls because of your ridiculously armored pads, then you have problems.
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:38 pm
by Misc. Blues
goon attack wrote:Quit letting players cover themselves in armor and you'll see a reduction in this sort of thing.
Get rid of the instigator and you'll see a reduction in this sort of thing.
This...
Re: Does hockey need a warning track?
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:07 pm
by TSUCookieMonster
Having been concussed chasing down an iced puck, I'm not opposed to the warning track.. however a warning track wouldn't have stopped the guy from hitting me from behind and me going into the wall head first. Not an awful idea, but I don't see this fixing anything.