In to the most serious equipment needs, such as

In the beginning of
safety within the sport of hockey, it is adequate to understand the issues with
the backbone of safety, the rules. This general understanding of the rules can
be misleading, with each rule being directed to a certain infraction or move,
but still, some of these actions can go unnoticed. With the rules such as Rule
41, 43, and 46 (Boarding, checking from behind, and Fighting respectively) they
have their own subsections within each set of rules that can be damaging to a
player depending on the severity of the incident. For example, if a player is
caught fighting, which is officially defined as “When at least one player
punches or attempts to punch an opponent repeatedly or when two players wrestle
in such a manner as to make it difficult for the Linesmen to intervene and
separate the combatants” (National Hockey League 70). each player can be
assessed particular penalties for this action. However, the way a fight could
be conducted in never mentioned, which with specific punches or areas hit on
the player, serious problems can occur, such as punches to the head. With the example,
it merely gives the bare minimum of safety, and truly simply notes such things
as “Fighting Other Than During the Periods of the Game”, or “Continuing or
Attempting to Continue a Fight” (National Hockey League 71). Another grave
issue with the current rules is with protective equipment. When it comes to the
most serious equipment needs, such as helmets, the rules only state that it
must be “… approved by the league at all times while participating in a game,
either on the playing surface or the players’ or penalty benches” (National
Hockey League 13). I have the issue of what the league categorizes the sentence
approved by the league. What does this mean, what requirements are “approved,
and what specifically can a player look for when using this equipment? These
are sets of questions that need to be defined by the league. In this sport of
flying pucks, fights and overall rough-and-tough behavior, I tend to ask why
the ruling for this is absurd. However, the rules clearly state that a player
can be in play with no helmet, but if said player is to be substituted for,
then he must return with a helmet (National Hockey League 13). With this, I see
why this rule cannot be changed or altered to be more like the goalkeeper’s
regulated rule. With the rule, it explains that when a goaltender’s mask has
been taken off over the course of play, the play will stop, depending on the
puck possession and overall circumstances. Why can if any player should be
without a helmet during play, the game would pause? What would happen if a
player lost his helmet and a puck would hit him directly in the face? These are
the questions I have against the ruling, and with the advocation of changing
the rules so that players can be more cautious and careful we can combat the ways
of the rulings and have optimism regarding rule keeping and players overall
well-being.