Proceedings from the Ice Hockey Summit on Concussion: a call to action

Fighting in professional ice hockey: it's time for a change

Ice hockey has long been defined by a level of violence not seen in other sports. The rough-and-tough vigilante nature of the game was often employed as a method of enticing fans. Play in the National Hockey League (NHL) evolved throughout the 20th century as the rules governing it did. The nuances of what was allowed on the ice was slowly defined, but the league always fell short of an outright ban on fighting. Notably, the NHL allows fighting while international and Olympic leagues do not. Proponents of fighting's continued presence in the NHL argue that it can attract fans, facilitate momentum changes, help win games, and allows for social regulation on the ice. However, analyses of these theories have found little definitive evidence, calling the utility of fighting into question. The economics of fighting in hockey reveal high salary payouts, increased cost of injury, and a lack of correlation with ticket sales. Additionally, there is a concern for concussions sustained during fighting which has the potential for long term, detrimental mental health effects for athletes. In this analysis, we explore the history and evolution of fighting in the NHL, as well as the reasons behind its continued presence in the game, the risks associated with fighting, and the economics behind it all. Based upon these bodies of evidence, we make a proposal regarding the future of fighting in the NHL.

The Impact of the Instigator Rule on Fighting in the National Hockey League

Background

Fighting is often considered an essential part of professional hockey. Increased ticket sales, a means to self-regulate other dangerous gameplay, and helping teams win are a few of the reasons that fighting advocates provide for retaining fighting in the NHL. However, fighting trends have changed over the past 50 years. Given the recent data on concussions and player safety, an in-depth analysis of fighting is required to understand if fighting has a place in the future of the NHL.

Methods

Seasonal statistical team data on NHL teams from the 1967 to 2019 seasons were collected and analyzed using publicly available databases. Specific outcome variables of interest related to fighting, penalties, the final team record for a given season, and final standing were recorded. The data were divided into subgroups according to "era of play" and before/after the implementation of the instigator rule. The trends in fighting, seasonal outcomes, and other minor penalties were assessed to determine the trends in fighting over the past 50 years, the relationship between fighting and winning, and the impact of the instigator rule.

Results

Fights per game decreased significantly after the implementation of the instigator rule (0.71 to 0.51 fights per game, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in fights per game when comparing Stanley Cup champions to nonplayoff teams in either the modern era (0.36 vs. 0.42, p = 0.43) or the expansion era (0.45 vs. 0.51, p = 0.49). Only two Stanley Cup champions (the Flyers 1974-1975 and the Ducks 2006-2007) led the league in fighting. A multivariate regression analysis comparing fights per game and points earned per season divided by the number of games played revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship (coefficient = -0.16, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our analysis demonstrates that the Instigator rule achieved its intended effect to decrease the number of fights per game. In the current era of professional hockey, there is no compelling evidence that a team with more fights per game will achieve greater seasonal success. These results continue to cast doubt on the belief that fighting is a necessary strategy for winning games at the NHL level.

Epidemiology and trends of adult ice hockey injuries presenting to United States emergency departments: A ten-year analysis from 2007-2016

PURPOSE

The adult population is under-represented in existing ice hockey injury studies, despite the number of United States (US) adult ice hockey players increasing from 103,533 in 2007 to 180,400 in 2016 (74%). This study establishes trends in demographics, injury location, and injury type for adult ice hockey players (≥19 years old) in the United States.

METHODS

The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried for all ice hockey injuries from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016. Cases under age 19 were excluded. Each injury's narrative text field was reviewed to determine mechanism of injury.

RESULTS

A total of 1,653 patients, representing an estimated 68,786 ice-hockey related injuries, presented to NEISS-participating US EDs. The most commonly injured body parts were the face (n = 12,432, 18.1%), head (n = 10,201, 14.8%), shoulder (n = 9,654, 14.0%) and ankle (n = 5,389, 7.8%). The most common diagnoses made were laceration (n = 18,153, 26.4%), strain/sprain (n = 12,202, 17.7%), fracture (n = 10,079, 14.7%), contusion (n = 9,283, 13.5%) and concussion (n = 4,794, 7.0%). The most common mechanisms of injury were falling (n = 11,786, 18.7%), puck contact (n = 10,544, 15.3%) and player contact (n = 9,449, 13.7%). Concussions increased from 46 in 2007 to 928 in 2016 (R2 = 0.8, β = 0.9, p < 0.001). Females (n = 1,852, 32%) had a higher proportion of head injuries than males (n = 8,349, 13.3%) (IPR = 2.4, p < 0.0001). The 50+ year old cohort showed a significant increase in injuries during the study period (n = 146 vs. 982, R2 = 0.75, β = 0.87, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite changing trends in age and sex-related demographics, the majority of injuries in this population may be preventable with adequate enforcement of protective gear use. Increased education amongst players, coaches, trainers, orthopaedic surgeons and primary care physicians should be encouraged to minimize injuries.