News Article: Does hockey need ‘warning track’ to prevent devastating injuries?

[deeshamrock]

This article (and photo) is about a yellow line, a 'look up line' ice hockey version of a warning track, that US hockey will have on 225 rinks this year

It's an effort to install in players a 'look up' alert that will prevent the hit along the wall that cause catastrophic injuries.

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck...o-prevent-devastating-injuries-130606231.html

in that article, they referenced that the Nashville Predators have installed on one their practice rink.

http://justcureparalysis.org/nashville-predators-install-look-up-line-in-ford-ice-center/

I'm not sure this would work at the NHL level level in games though.

Click to read more...

 

[Butsy Erickson]

The quick answer is no. This may create a "safe zone" of perimeter play. Which will not be good for the game. Have you ever viewed a KHL game?

 

[KingLB]

As well as the "stop" patches they tried when I was a youth player.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I can't believe this actually became an article and not just a terrible HF off season thread.

 

[Chris43]

Hockey players aren't tracking a ball 100 feet in the air 50 feet behind them. If you don't know where the damn boards are in an ice rink, I fear for more from your life than just an injury.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

Someone looking down will see the line and look up at the boards, then get smashed into them. I honestly have no idea how this could actually be effective but if it is, it is worth considering I suppose.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That's kinda weird. As a player, I feel like that warning track area is like prime hitting area period. I feel like the terrible injuries--paralysis and broken necks--come most frequently from boarding hits slightly further out (allowing the body to crumple before board contact). Not that broken noses and facial injuries are ok, but I'd rather get hit from behind in that warning track area than from another foot or two out. I appreciate the effort, but I don't think it's an elegant solution. That line isn't going to create player respect.

 

[lumbergh]

Ziggy Stardust's helmet should help a lot more than the look up line.

 

[MynameisKing]

I read about this awhile back. I think it should not be a safe zone per say but a "safe impact zone". For example, you can hit someone as long as you both occupy the same zones. You can hit while both players are out of the zone or inside the zone, but it would be illegal for a player to hit someone outside their zone. Two minute penalty on contact with someone inside the "zone" while you were outside of it and vice versa. On contact where the contact was coincidental then it's coincidental minors. It has to be "momental force" or "checking" motion to count. It doesn't apply if players are tied up or bump accidentally.

Edit: Maybe not a "safe impact zone" but more of a "green light zone" as you can scream down the boards and level someone as long as it's not directly from behind.

 

[dman3474]

just would give players another excuse to keep their head down and not be weary of other players on the ice, could see this causing more injuries

 

[Bondoao1]

My vote would be NO.

I think this is as dumb as the old 2 line pass rule.

 

[King RAZZ]

Hockey players aren't tracking a ball 100 feet in the air 50 feet behind them. If you don't know where the damn boards are in an ice rink, I fear for more from your life than just an injury.

...it is a major criteria to become an NHL ref...