hf101 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Maybe this thread should be more about when the NHL will adopt the "Look-Up Line" because I think it is inevitable as of means of at least displaying that hockey is improving player's safety with surface modifications. Football, Basketball, and Baseball have all done it. I wouldn't mind the NHL adding an extra the extra 40" around the rink to enlarge it -but that won't happen. WHAT IS THE LOOK-UP LINE™? The Look-Up Line™, ice hockey’s first warning track; is an adjunct to decreasing the risk of head and catastrophic spinal cord injuries. The Look-Up Line™ does NOT affect the speed, intensity or heritage of the game of hockey, and does not require new playing rules directed at the player. Most major sports are conducting their own injury research and looking for ways to reduce the occurrence of head and spinal injuries. New studies are focusing on better diagnostics and treatment procedures however we believe a preventative approach is far more effective. The safety challenge in ice hockey lies with how to continue developing bigger, faster and stronger athletes while trying to operate within a progressively safer framework. The best solution to a complex problem is often the most simple, and we believe the Look-Up Line™ is the answer to a safer game of ice hockey. The Look-Up Line™ is a thought provoking tool that serves multi-purposes: 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. The Look-Up Line™ is a warning track extending 40 inches in width around the circumference of the rink. The Look-Up Line™ is colored pantone 151C safety orange and does not interfere with any other lines on the hockey surface. The 40 inch width warning track allows for no overlapping of any face-off dots, lower circles, or hash marks. http://justcureparalysis.org/look-up-line/ USA Hockey will be evaluating the effectiveness of the warning track in 225 rinks around the US this season. For youth leagues I think it is a great idea. I'm curious to see how long it takes before we see it in the NHL. I think it would look great at the Wells Fargo Center Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Do they actually increase the ice surface? Thats EXTREMELY expensive with the loss of seats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Now if they do it, then each team should be allowed to pick their own color except black and very dark blue for obvious reasons. It would give each team's arena a unique look and the players would be smart enough to know when they see that different colored area. Flyers - orangeCarolina - RedOilers - Medium BlueRangers - Medium Blue and ect...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Maybe this thread should be more about when the NHL will adopt the "Look-Up Line" because I think it is inevitable as of means of at least displaying that hockey is improving player's safety with surface modifications. Football, Basketball, and Baseball have all done it. I wouldn't mind the NHL adding the extra the extra 40" around the rink to enlarge it -but that won't happen. look up line.png USA Hockey will be evaluating the effectiveness of the warning track in 225 rinks around the US this season. For youth leagues I think it is a great idea. I'm curious to see how long it takes before we see it in the NHL. I think it would look great at the Wells Fargo Center If they did increase the ice surface, 40 inches on each side amounts to 7 foot increased width and length , that's gotta change the game big time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted August 30, 2014 Author Share Posted August 30, 2014 Do they actually increase the ice surface? Thats EXTREMELY expensive with the loss of seats...Nope. That was just a comment by me as I generally like the bigger surface as used by the NCAA and International play. (I changed my wording in the first post to make that hopefully more clear) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 In that case I'm all for it so long as the rules for a good clean check on the boards doesnt change.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 In that case I'm all for it so long as the rules for a good clean check on the boards doesnt change.... Yea, I don't think they are talking about increasing the ice surface either. All the 'warning track' will do, is remind players how close they are to the boards. The NHL already has checking from behind rules in place, and they are defined in their rulebooks (how far from the boards, etc)....the new 'warning track' line is just a visual cue for it. I agree the team's should be able to choose their own colors for it, and furthermore, that the color should not be very dark so as to be a distraction or eyesore to the fans in attendance or on TV.Seeing as how the ice surface is white, shouldn't be hard to simply have a color that is darker than that, so players know where they are even if their head is down, but still light enough (maybe something translucent?), where it doesn't dominate the visuals of a rink. I would be for it....but I also don't want the intensity of the game to go away.Players STILL need to have the responsibility of knowing where they are and playing with their flippin heads UP. Bad enough, some players in the league, knowing they aren't supposed to be hit, purposely PUT themselves in certain positions, thinking, "Well, if that guy hits me, he will get a penalty, my team will get a PP".Well, all well n good (wuss!), but then you end up with your head in the boards, stoppage of play, an uber suspension for the guy who hit you (whether malicious or incidental), and just an all around mess.....all because that player thought he would try giving his team an edge by 'baiting' a check from behind. Oh, but your team got a PP chance, which they will probably not score on.....so there IS that, eh, fella? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 A very interesting and conceptual idea I must say. Playing devil's advocate, it seems a bit distracting. Of course it just may be the way the photo was taken. I wonder how that would look on TV. I wonder if to the viewer it would be disctracting? I don't know. It certainly is very intriguing. Would love to see a controlled study on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 A very interesting and conceptual idea I must say. Playing devil's advocate, it seems a bit distracting. Of course it jsut may be the way the photo was taken. I wonder how that would look on TV. I wonder if to the viewer it would be disctracting? I don't know. It certainly is very intriguing. Would love to see a controlled study on it. Yea, when i saw that big orange thing around the rink, FIRST thing that came to mind was the disturbingly distracting "glowing puck" Fox Sports used some years back to help casual fans keep up with the game. In theory, the glowing puck was a good idea, but in practice, it was hokey, distracting, and made a TV broadcast look like one of those flippin video games with some glowing thing being pinged around the TV screen. As long as a warning track in hockey is implemented intelligently and non-obtrusive, I will be for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Y FIRST thing that came to mind was the disturbingly distracting "glowing puck" Fox Sports used some years back to help casual fans keep up with the game. In theory, the glowing puck was a good idea, but in practice, it was hokey, distracting, and made a TV broadcast look like one of those flippin video games with some glowing thing being pinged around the TV screen. LOL ... I thought the same thing. Truthfully IMO I thought it was even harder to follow the puck, especially when it when out of sight of the camera. I'm glad they ditched that idea. Lazer tag at its finest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Now if they do it, then each team should be allowed to pick their own color except black and very dark blue for obvious reasons. It would give each team's arena a unique look and the players would be smart enough to know when they see that different colored area.Flyers - orangeCarolina - RedOilers - Medium BlueRangers - Medium Blueand ect......This is all fine until you get to San Jose. Teal has no business being on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 i don't think I care for this, and i know that it flies in the face of all my other "brain health" postings. players know where they are on the ice , one doesn't make it to the NHL without that basic awareness. I think the warning track will lead to more Carcilloization of the game with guys putting themselves in position to "draw a penalty" instead of really using it for "safety" as TFG alluded to. I'd rather see the ice surface expanded so the players have more room to showcase their skills, i don't want the sport to become non-contact and putting a "zone" on the playing surface is a big step toward that unsavory end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 This is all fine until you get to San Jose. Teal has no business being on the ice. I kinda like teal, though I don't why they went with that color. I Guess there are only so many to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 i don't think I care for this, and i know that it flies in the face of all my other "brain health" postings. players know where they are on the ice , one doesn't make it to the NHL without that basic awareness. I think the warning track will lead to more Carcilloization of the game with guys putting themselves in position to "draw a penalty" instead of really using it for "safety" as TFG alluded to. I'd rather see the ice surface expanded so the players have more room to showcase their skills, i don't want the sport to become non-contact and putting a "zone" on the playing surface is a big step toward that unsavory end.Well, a one year trial could be done. I agree players know where they are on the ice but that doesn't seem to have stemmed the number of concussed players. What I DON'T want is a bigger ice surface. I like the N.American style better than European hockey. If implemented, I change no rules. It's just a visual tool. It may work or may not. That's why you would have to try it for year and look at the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 players know where they are on the ice , one doesn't make it to the NHL without that basic awareness You would think NFL players would know where they are on the field and where the end zone is and yet Jim Marshall, 2x Pro Bowler once recovered a fumble and ran 66 yards the wrong way to score a safety for the other team. In every NHL game players go offsides. Too many men on the ice penalties happen, you would think basic situational awareness would prevent that kind of thing but apparently not. We have blue paint in the crease, shouldn't players know how close they are to the goal? And sometimes this happens: I would say that the benefit of this idea would not be in helping players know how close they are to the boards, it would be to provide a clear visual cue to help players know how close another player is to the boards. You see a guy standing on yellow paint, you don't line him up for the kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 @JackStraw@idahophilly i think you make fine points, try it in the A ... I still would favor a larger ice surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 @JackStraw@idahophilly i think you make fine points, try it in the A ... I still would favor a larger ice surface. I would definitely prefer the larger ice surface but that's not going to happen, for economic (i.e., owners are cheap b*st*rds) reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDevil Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Wouldn't it make more sense to teach players how to not put themselves in vulnerable positions along the boards when taking a hit? How many times a game do you see a guy turn his back along the boards because he doesn't think he's going to get hit? I still get pissed off thinking about Game 6 of the 2012 Cup Final when Scuderi turned his back at the last second when Bernier hit him and ended up taking a major because of it. And I'm not saying it's all on the player being hit. The player making the hit also has to be aware of where he is on the ice and if the other player is in a vulnerable position. Of course that would take actual teaching at all levels of hockey which wouldn't be as easy as just painting something on the ice and saying "See, we're serious about player safety". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.