Joseph, I don't know entirely why it does (in part, it's because hockey came from rugby, not soccer, beginnings where body contact, and some incidental contact to the head, was natural) but the real point here is that it does, and what we do about it. We've wondered and anguished over this forever. Both sides insist they are right, and nothing changes. But now this is about head injuries and their consequences. Put the focus here. Force the debate here. If fighting or head shots or whatever create greater possibility of head injuries that we know now often have lifetime effects, you impose severe penalties because the science says you must impose severe penalties.

Always good to hear from you, Jack. Of course you're right. Brendan Shanahan, in fact, was one of the more visible players who seemed to believe a loose hanging strap was somehow "fashionable." It's just stupid. But, again, let's not drift away from the essential point that science has indisputable proof that hits to the head are a threat to all players' health, at whatever age or level, and that hits to the head have to be prevented as much as we are able to. We all know that accidents happen -- whether bicyling down a suburban neighborhood or playing bantam house league -- but we must do all we can to ensure that future head hits in hockey are only the accidental ones, and even those can largely be prevented by common sense.

Thaddius, you may be right, but this is probably one of the last actions the NHL would take because of the costs etc. Put the focus on head injuries. Let the science speak for itself. Allow the science to determine the answers. And if the answers can be found in other ways - ending head shots, etc. etc. - fine. If not, what else? Then what else? And you keep at it. That's how you get to your answer, if it is the answer.

Thank you for this, Dan. It is an unfortunate fact of life that most hockey commentary lags far, far behind both the public and the science. My gut feeling is that this lag-time is shrinking, and that is cause for some small hope. The idea that fighting is acceptable is, to me, repugnant. But this is not a debate on fighting so much as it is a debate on the possibility of brain damage from hits, however delivered, however protected by helmet, to the fragile human brain.

I agree, Bruce. No matter what people thought of the previous regime, good or bad, the idea of Shanahan starting with a clean slate allows for this sea change we have witnessed. It is not so much a matter of him having the courage to continue at these standards -- even get tougher -- but a matter of the NHL having the courage.

I read your essay yesterday, Ken - very well done and I agree. The time is now to change the game. For some years it has focused on the fighting, I think to the exclusion of great smaller players like Cournoyer, Henri R., etc. Something has to be done to level the playing field and allow players of all sizes - it would make the game more exciting as well.

What are your thoughts about reducing the size of shoulder pads, hard elbow pads etc. on the players to reduce the force when impacting the head. Seems to me that players are hitting harder and some are targeting more sensitive areas (like the head) because their oversized equipment makes them impervious to injury. Thoughts?

Frank, in part that's right. You introduce equipment to lessen injury and the result can be that equipment is used as a weapon to generate injury - you can see that in football with the helmet. Once football players ran and tackled with their heads high, not down. I think looking at equipment is important in any kind of focus on a "head smart" game - both for protection, and for the safety of your opponent.

Do you think evolving the helmet would help? It's arguably the one piece of equipment that hasn't changed relative to the speed and power of the modern game. Look at football - it's a similar game (very fast, jaw-jarring hits, massive athletes) but their helmets put ours to shame, and head injuries aren't as prevalent.

We believed that for a long, long time, Tyler. Eric Lindros even worked hard on a far-more-protective helmet, and that showed promise. But over the past year we have learned -- largely through the work of Dr. Charles Tator -- that even if you put the player's head in a tractor trailer surrounded by bubble wrap, it wouldn't stop the effect of impact. The brain, he points out, is not unlike jello. It's fragile. It can be hurt even when seemingly totally protected. We simply have to stop hits to the head as much as possible.

I would prefer to see hockey be pro-active and act appropriately. The reason I say this is because we have been down the Royal Commission trail, down the courts trail, down the seminar and summit trail -- and got nowhere. If need be, bring in law, both criminal and civil, but I prefer to think the cause is now so urgent that the league and all of hockey will act with haste.

I like that phrase "head smart". 18,000 fans at the Air Canada Centre wearing "Head Smart" tee-shirts might get the attention of the NHL. The fastest way to get the NHL to change has to be driven by the fans who actually go to see the games.

One thing all of us in this forum lose sight of, Rob, is the fan who loves the fights -- some to the extent that the fights are what they worship, the game secondary. It is foolish for us to dismiss this group as powerless and meaningless. Mostly, I think, it is made up of people who do not know that most hockey fights are meaningless and there is no injury (sometimes a small cut, which doesn't hurt the player at the time). These are the fights we used to see more often -- where friction and ice mean that most blows don't have much effect. If you have ever seen a bar fight (one punch) vs a hockey fight (40 punches), you would see the difference. However, in the past generation, the hockey fight has largely evolved into a staged episode involving two people who actually do know how to fight on skates, even if they can't skate all that well. There can be real damage and, most significantly, continuing damage. That requires action. And finally, there is the problem of sending out messages at a time when society disapproves of fighting in pro sports -- despite those fans who obviously love it -- and hockey needs to decide if it should listen to society. My thinking is yes, absolutely, particularly for a sport that wants to be seen as family-oriented and have an appeal beyond the "fringe" sport, which hockey-with-fighting has an excellent chance of one day becoming.

I still believe removing a skater from the ice is the way to go. Making a larger ice surface would limit the most expensive seats so that won't happen. Four skaters on four would also lessen the requirement for bodies to fill the gaps and therefore some of the less talented types would not be required

The IIHF doesn't have the jurisdiction and authority to do that. But bringing this even closer to home - think about the playoffs. It's the best hockey any of us sees all year round. And it's hockey at its most intense. How many fights do you see? Almost none. How often do the goons get on the ice? Almost never.