As I said in another thread, it’s a real conundrum.
The players would no doubt vote to play with an air quality of 9 even though the union supposedly acting on their instructions says no.
The other question is whether it is safer for the players to play with an air quality of 9 or play say 3 games in 9 days at the end of the year right before the playoffs to ensure the game is made up. I suspect the latter is the worse of two evils but don’t know that for sure as I don’t know the effects of poor air quality on healthy world class athletes. I suspect it is worse for the fans than the players but I would be interested to know what the expected effects might be. I know that the expected effects of 3 games in 9 days would be a compromise of competitive integrity and more injuries.
We had the same in Edmonton. The air quality changed rapidly at times - sometimes really bad some times not bad at all.
That made it difficult to say the air quality is X because it was fluctuating constantly.
This will virtually guarantee we see cancelled games every year. The last 4/5years are the worst I can remember for smoke & I can’t see it improving much. Provisions should be made, such as leaving a week at the end of the season before the playoffs to accommodate cancellations. These wildfires aren’t going away, & teams just lost the ability to say ‘let’s play’.