Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on March 19, 2002, 04:26:05 PM
-
Girl Dies After Being Hit by Puck at NHL Game (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020319/ts_nm/nhl_death_dc_3&cid=578)
13 years old... :(
-
How sad.
I had always heard that a fan was killed by a foul ball hit by Manny Mota back in the 60's, but I can't find any references. Might this be an urban legend?
-
first time it's happened. very very sad.
-
I was amazed that this was the first fan fatality involving being struck by a hockey puck.
Its very sad indead... the whole ordeal.
On the more anistheptic side... I wonder how the NHL is going to respond to this.
AKDejaVu
-
First time at an NHL game. ESPN's article on it cited more than once instance of it happening at lower level league games. 3 since 1979.
http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/2002/0319/1354060.html
BTW, the article also reports MLB records show at least 5 spectators have died from batted or thrown balls.
Whatever the past numbers, it's still a horrible thing to have had happen. :(
-
Very sad. One of my best friends was at the game and he said that everyone was really happy when the girl got up and walked out of her section under her own power. I can't imagine what the family is going through. She never lost conciousness until Monday right before she died.
======
"The puck struck her in the forehead, causing a skull fracture and some bruising of the brain in the area," Lewis said. "But that wasn't what led to her death. It was the snapping back of the head and the damage to that artery."
"Lewis said he consulted with other pathologists on the rarity of the injury. He said that a fellow pathologist had not encountered a similar injury and death in more than 25 years as a doctor."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020320/ap_on_sp_ho_ne/hkn_puck_death_cause_2
-
the NHL won't do anything. It's a freak accident.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I was amazed that this was the first fan fatality involving being struck by a hockey puck.
Its very sad indead... the whole ordeal.
On the more anistheptic side... I wonder how the NHL is going to respond to this.
AKDejaVu
Surprised me too...
I know a guy who was hit in the head at a community centre and has brain damage as a result.
A puck is just like a rubber bullet fired at rioters...feels like the same material anyway...but the hockey players probably fire those things faster than the launchers do, in terms of velocity. Add to that the better anerodynamics of a puck flying through the air it makes a puck a deadly object!
It never ceases to amaze me when I see defensemen dive in front of a slap-shot during games....or that in the early days they didn't wear helmets on the ice!
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
the NHL won't do anything. It's a freak accident.
We can hope that they keep that in mind. I haven't done the math but assuming that 10,000 people see every NHL game and then multiply that by the number of games there have been in the last 20 years and the odds of being killed by a puck seem astronomical.
Here's an article on the coroner's report: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news/ap/20020320/ap-puckdeath-cause.html
Apparently, she could have been killed by any blow to the head. It just happened to be a hockey puck.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
the NHL won't do anything. It's a freak accident.
There is no such thing as a freak accident. No matter what the statistics say. Work for any high $$$ company and that will be drilled into your head like you wouldn't believe.
As a fan, is the concept of getting hit by a puck and it killing you fresh in your mind? Would this affect one's decision to go to a game? Could that affect the NHL's bottom dollar.
In situations like this... its better to do something than nothing... no matter how much of a "freak" accident it was.
AKDejaVu
-
I've been to four games this year. I see no reason to stop going. Certainly, hockey games can be dangerous. That's why they warn you to pay attention.
But hey (and this is going to sound crass)... I hope parents take a good hard look at the dangers of simply being a spectator at a professional hockey game and I hope they leave those children at home. Not because I'm worried about their safety, but because they always seem to get in the way, they don't stay seated and they generally aren't paying attention anyway. AFAIK, it's all Disney's fault for attracting 8 year olds to the NHL.
-
The glass at NHL arenas is already pretty high. The only thing they could do to make it more safe for the spectators is to completely enclose the rink with a netting over the glass. I doubt that'll happen.
this is the first time a fan has died from being hit by a puck in the what, 70+ years of the NHL? (yeah, it's happened at minor league games before.) People die in car crashes every day, but people still drive to work every day. Sure a few people might not attend an NHL game now because of this tragedy, but I seriously doubt it'll affect attendance to the point of the NHL needing to do more than it already does about the issue.
At least 3 times a game you'll hear "Hockey pucks can travel speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. For your own safety, please pay attention to the puck at all times" or something very similar.
-
That is sad, cute kid too. Too young to die that way
I played hockey for years in my youth and when I wasn't in the penalty box for tripping , I saw my share of referees take a puck to the head since they insisted on either wearing no helmet or the shieldless ones
Im still in awe more people aren't injured by a puck either in or out of the rink. At our local arena, where the glass stops, there is thick netting to snare an errant puck.
Hopefully, in light of what's happened, respetive arenas will give their arenas a look over and improve upon what's there and maybe add netting where they do not have some.
-
Dejavu.. while I'm deeply saddened by the death of the yong girl it won't stop me from going to the games.
We have season tickets to the Av's and I believe it's still safer than going to a baseball game !
depending on where you sit of course.
If you're going to try and control the odd chance (1 in millions) of getting hit by a puck..
how about car racing: fence over the top of the cars?
baseball: helmets and face shields for spectators?
skiing: padding on every tree?
and the biggie: driving on the freeway... ?
-
You guys still aren't getting the corperate response issue. Even the "people get killed in car crashes..." completely misses the point.
Car companies are still producing enhanced safety features... despite the fact that they are currently selling cars. The fundamental understanding is that safer is better.
As for the NHL... they have spent alot of $$$ trying to appeal to a much wider audience. The hard core hockey fan has ceased to be a priority some time ago. Its the casual fan that they are most concerned about because that dollar is the most fickle.
Once again... I'm simply curious on this one. I'm sure the insurance companies will be placing pressure on them to respond apropriately... as will the casual fan.
AKDejaVu
-
I agree with DJ. Doesn't matter how much warning you give. They need to eliminate or reduce risks that are forseeable and avoidable. I think the lawyers will be lining up for this one.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I agree with DJ. Doesn't matter how much warning you give. They need to eliminate or reduce risks that are forseeable and avoidable. I think the lawyers will be lining up for this one.
Doesn't mean they'll get anywhere with it. I recall a case a few years ago where a man got hit by a golf ball on the course and sued the person that hit the ball. Court said that a golf course is inherently dangerous and ruled for the defendant.
Same situation in a hockey arena. Plenty of warnings all over the place including the back of your ticket. The place is dangerous and probably always will be.
Oh... and netting may be an option except that people WANT to catch the pucks.
-
due to the very remote possibility of this happening they prolly won't do much except increase awareness of the dangers.
To extend the glass would mean loss of money.
costs of upgrading facilities and reduced sight-lines for spectators.
For every person that believes the NHL should do something (like above) there are 10 people that disagree.
One can not remove or mitigate all risks in life no matter how much one tries.
IMO the league has done a LOT to keep people safe.
I mean.. where do you think the glass came from in the first place?
It sure isn't great for the players (the seamless stuff that improves vision for spectators). Much more dangerous for the players in fact, and none safer for the spectators.
and.. as far as car manufacturers go, they only do 'something' for safety when they are absolutely forced to.
Read the back of your hockey ticket.. explains it all.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng due to the very remote possibility of this happening they prolly won't do much except increase awareness of the dangers.
We'll have to wait and see on that. Its the first time they've been forced to reconsider the situation. Most radical safety modifications are spawned by a fatality. This aplies across the board in sports.To extend the glass would mean loss of money.
costs of upgrading facilities and reduced sight-lines for spectators.
For every person that believes the NHL should do something (like above) there are 10 people that disagree.
1. Its a deductable expense.. not a loss of money. There is a big difference. Losing fans is a loss of money.... an enduring loss.
2. You're pulling numbers out of your ass.
One can not remove or mitigate all risks in life no matter how much one tries.
But everyone must make an effort. Then, in situations like this.. it comes down to wether a "reasonable" effort was made. Insurance companies aren't too keen on letting the courts decide their fates in situations like this... so they aply the pressure to prevent them themselves.IMO the league has done a LOT to keep people safe.
I mean.. where do you think the glass came from in the first place?
It sure isn't great for the players (the seamless stuff that improves vision for spectators). Much more dangerous for the players in fact, and none safer for the spectators.
Umm.. you're saying the glass doesn't make it any safer for the spectators? I'd like to understand your reasoning on this.and.. as far as car manufacturers go, they only do 'something' for safety when they are absolutely forced to.
That's not true. Safety sells. One car company will always drive another to advance in safety as long as they can use it as a selling point. Airbags were developed by a car company long before they were forced on the rest of them.Read the back of your hockey ticket.. explains it all.
You can print whatever you want on a ticket. Its irrelevant in the courts. Did they take the apropriate precausions? Was there neglegence on behalf of the league? These issues aren't solved on a ticket.
I believe the warnings were apropriate. I believe te precautions were apropriate. The question is... now that someone has finally died due to a puck strike... with the league STILL feel they are apropriate.
AKDejaVu
-
One can not remove or mitigate all risks in life no matter how much one tries.
Trite but true.....however all FORSEEABLE and AVOIDABLE risks must be dealt with. This "puck strike" can be argued to be a known risk that was ignored. Why print a warning on the ticket if you didn't know there was a danger. Why erect glass or make it higher if there was not a known danger.
Even if this was an unforseeable accident, it just became a known hazard and the danger must be reduced to as low a level as realistically possible.
-
Add to it the coroner's report. She died from a rare injury. I guess this means that the puck strike would not have been fatal for almost everyone else.