NHL Concussion Debate: Dr. Charles Tator Speaks Out Against Violence in Hockey
Friday Rant: NHL Concussion Debate – Dr. Charles Tator, Toronto Neuroscientist, Makes Extreme Exaggerations in Sportsnet Interview, Shows Overall Misunderstanding of the Sport
Advocates for no fighting or contact in hockey are taking advantage of the recent leaked emails of League Executives. Toronto Neuroscientist Dr.Charles Tator weighed in on the NHL concussion debate during an interview with Sportsnet’s Michael Grange on Thursday.
Unfortunately, the Doctor’s egregious comments took things to the absolute extreme, and in certain cases a blatant exaggeration. For those who support the elimination of fighting/contact in hockey, today’s rant may not be for you – fair warning.
Coming from a very opposite side of the spectrum in regards to the NHL concussion debate, I’m fired up with everything that has transpired recently.
More puck prose: NHL Offseason Goals For Every Team
“There are a small fraction of fans that want blood and violence, who enjoy seeing a player laid out or carried out on a stretcher”
– Dr. Charles Tator
More from Business Of Hockey
- The problem with another expansion franchise in the NHL
- This city needs a PWHL franchise as soon as possible
- Should NHL Teams Hold Joint Practices With Other Teams Like The NFL
- How Expanding the NHL Regular Season Can Help Grow The Game
- Minor League Baseball Team Honors The Hartford Whalers
Much of his comments were personally discredited once his mouth spewed out the above statement. Firstly, no one in their right mind ever wants to see a player injured, let alone carried out on a stretcher – the good Doctor is flat-out lying.
Second, the Doctor mixes words putting blood, violence, and a player being laid out all together. Fans don’t want blood, but many of us do love a big clean hit with a player being laid out.
For those of us who have actually played the game at high levels, they’ll be the first to tell you that a clean hit happens far more commonly than the rare hits we put the microscope on. If you’re a hockey player, you’ve likely been on the receiving end of big hits – yet, we always seem to get up.
More puck prose: Embellishment Fines to Kadri, Yakupov, and Hanzal
“They believe violence and aggression sells, that that’s what the public wants”
-Dr. Charles Tator re: NHL’s attitude
These types of comments always make me chuckle. People who say the NHL’s fans don’t like violence (hitting or fighting) are typically the same people who never/rarely attend hockey games, or even watch the sport. These are usually the same people who aren’t actual fans of the game, but feel they have a moral obligation to play big brother for the whole.
More from Puck Prose
- Detroit Red Wings 2023 Rookie Camp Has Plenty of Ups and Downs
- This Columbus Blue Jackets rookie doesn’t want to be forgotten
- 2 trades the Boston Bruins must make to secure the Stanley Cup
- 3 reasons the Avalanche won’t win the Stanley Cup in 2024
- This is a big year for Alex Turcotte and the Los Angeles Kings
If the NHL were to keep record of decibel levels during a hockey game of various plays that create a loud, noisy environment, it would likely go as follows: 1) Home Team Goal 2) Fight 3) Big Hit 4) Penalty Kill Clearing for Home Team, etc.
Not to say it hasn’t happened, but never in my life personally have I seen someone walk out of an arena because of fighting or violence. In fact, it’s the very opposite. When individuals make comments similar to the Doctor’s opinion above, they mid as well be waving a white flag that says “I’ve never seen a hockey game before”.
So, when the NHL says violence and aggression sells – they’re absolutely right. Perhaps the wording is a bit crude, but when you’ve got a contact sport, it’s just part of the culture. American Football fans would strongly agree I’m sure. The direction Dr.Charles Tator is aiming for would look something similar to an NFL Pro Bowl game in the end. How do you sell that product?
Medical professionals will simply never understand the competitive psychological side of the sport. They wouldn’t understand the player who plays through a fractured wrist because it’s game seven in overtime.
Live Feed class=inline-text id=inline-text-20
Union and Blue
There’s a serious disconnect in the NHL concussion debate. If those advocates against fighting/hitting took a moment to understand the other side of things opposed to taking the moral highroad, both sides might one day be able to find a common ground that helps make the game safer, without sacrificing the elements that make our game great.
Realistically speaking, these medical professionals giving fodder to those in the movement to eliminate violence from hockey are nothing more than consultants. They are experts in their respective field’s, but show little understanding of the sport itself.
There’s an inherent risk for those who choose to play the game of hockey. Yet, there are risks with anything you do in life.
Think of the brave men and women who fight for our country putting their lives on the line. Even with hazard pay, they make fractions of a professional athlete – and think of the way they’re treated post-career. Those millions of dollars a player makes is the hazard pay professional athletes sign up for.
It’s much easier for us to accept and respect professional athletes making millions of dollars for putting their bodies on the line opposed to big business executives. That money for athletes is justified given the knowledge we have now for potential ill-after effects post-career.
Over my hockey career, I suffered three concussions. Did it have any long-lasting effects? Perhaps I won’t know until later in life. At the same time, I have no way of distinguishing whether any ill-after effects are directly caused from my hockey days, or any number of off-ice incidents.
We’ve all accidentally banged our heads, maybe on several occasions. You can’t eliminate the risk of brain injuries. Everyday life can have the same devastating effect by simply walking down the street or crossing a road. Yes, we can reduce the risk of these incidents occurring in hockey, but we will never eliminate the problem. Case in point, P.K. Subban.
Live Feed class=inline-text id=inline-text-36
Pucks and Pitchforks
Montreal Canadiens D P.K. Subban suffered a strange neck injury in what can only be described as a freak accident. Given how the speed of the game is constantly getting faster, the risk for those type of injuries only increases.
I can speak from personal experience taking a butt-end underneath the rib-cage which ultimately put me in the hospital for five days with a lacerated liver. My timetable for return was 6-12 weeks, and like many athletes only missed the minimum. It’s interesting how medical professionals neglect to mention how resilient elite athlete’s bodies are.
Instead of focusing on the elimination of fighting/violence in hockey, maybe these same people should focus their effort towards figuring out ways to make the game safer without taking away essential elements.
Here’s a thought: We live in an evolutionary technological world that is constantly making things better. So, why aren’t more people speaking out towards hockey equipment manufacturers. Sticks, helmets, and skates have evolved (still a lot room for growth), while the basic technology for every other piece of equipment remains very similar for decades.
We continue to use cheap foam and plastic and continue to leave several vulnerable areas exposed (i.e. Achilles tendon, forearms, etc.). Meanwhile, we’ve got police officers wearing lightweight Kevlar protection for bullets, and yet we can’t figure out how to use a product that allows Ryan Nugent-Hopkins to block a shot without breaking his hand.
While I can respect those individuals’ opinions who want to see violence eliminated, I’ll never understand their stance in the NHL concussion debate. There’s certainly a discussion to be had regarding improved safety, but to propose the elimination of fighting/hitting shows nothing more than little understanding for the sport of hockey.
Constant rule changes are already having drastic results. Goal-scoring started to go down when the league began making what seemed like new rule changes every offseason. How many of those rule changes had unwanted consequences? (i.e. increase of head-shots, or more recently coaches burning challenge’s to get an extra breather).
More puck prose: OHL Gives Fine, 5-Year Ban to Flint Firebirds Owner
Instead of trying to continually change the game through rule changes, why not make a serious run at making the game safer? You don’t have to add new rules to make the equipment better. Maybe the NHL considers eliminating doors at the team bench (or only allowing the doors to be open between plays), or a thicker safer foam in the vulnerable areas where glass meets boards.
People such as Dr.Charles Tator are missing the big picture in this heated NHL concussion debate. They continue to point their fingers in the wrong direction, making us out to be barbaric human beings. Then they wonder why NHL executives lash back? They’re threatening the entire profession. Experts in the medical field are putting themselves above the most knowledgeable folks in the game.
Next: Leaked Emails Have NHL Executives on the Hot-Seat
It may not say it in a player’s contract, but for those who play, you sign the injury-risk fine print well before you ever start making money. For those who make it to the NHL, that lucrative paycheck is not only compensation for the unbelievably hard work a player puts in to get there, but the risk they accept in having the honor of making a living playing the children’s game many of us are so passionate about.