Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:34 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:24 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:04 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:12 pm

LMAO - yup - you win.

Can't expect any other result when one guy looks to some article from a physio clinic that talks about a study that they never read directly and then draws definitive conclusions on something the study didn't study.

Did the 7 year study directly compare concussion rates in a body contact environment versus concussions in a non-body contact environment and determine that there were more concussions in the non-body contact environment?

Do those conclusions DIRECTLY OPPOSE the assertions you bow to from a very limited study done over one season?

Thanks for coming out.

Double down on the same ignorance ...

Was the study comparing adult women data with adult male data? Isn't that like apples and oranges? Did the study authors say no conclusions can be made regarding the women's concussion rates? Did the study authors say that these non-conclusions can be used to make conclusions about minor hockey? Did the study authors say their study with non-conclusions override more recent studies that actually studied minor hockey concussions?

Thanks for coming out.

Go read the study. You're stupid at best.

I did. It is clear you won't, particularly since you resort to this kind of response when you've lost.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.

Results 49 body checking (608 players) and 33 non-body checking teams (396 players) participated. There were 129 injuries (incidence rate (IR)=7.98/1000 hours) and 54 concussions (IR=3.34/1000 hours) in the body checking teams in games. After policy change, there were 31 injuries (IR=3.66/1000 hours) and 17 concussions (IR=2.01/1000 hours) in games. Policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74). The point estimate showed a lower rate of concussion (adjusted IRR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.18), but this was not statistically significant.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/7/414


You seem pretty adamant about removing body checking from hockey. Will you allow your kid(s) to play contact hockey?

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:46 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:34 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:24 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:04 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:12 pm

LMAO - yup - you win.

Can't expect any other result when one guy looks to some article from a physio clinic that talks about a study that they never read directly and then draws definitive conclusions on something the study didn't study.

Did the 7 year study directly compare concussion rates in a body contact environment versus concussions in a non-body contact environment and determine that there were more concussions in the non-body contact environment?

Do those conclusions DIRECTLY OPPOSE the assertions you bow to from a very limited study done over one season?

Thanks for coming out.

Double down on the same ignorance ...

Was the study comparing adult women data with adult male data? Isn't that like apples and oranges? Did the study authors say no conclusions can be made regarding the women's concussion rates? Did the study authors say that these non-conclusions can be used to make conclusions about minor hockey? Did the study authors say their study with non-conclusions override more recent studies that actually studied minor hockey concussions?

Thanks for coming out.

Go read the study. You're stupid at best.

I did. It is clear you won't, particularly since you resort to this kind of response when you've lost.

I can't lose when you're this stupid. It's impossible. All you're doing is lying and spinning bullshit.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.

Results 49 body checking (608 players) and 33 non-body checking teams (396 players) participated. There were 129 injuries (incidence rate (IR)=7.98/1000 hours) and 54 concussions (IR=3.34/1000 hours) in the body checking teams in games. After policy change, there were 31 injuries (IR=3.66/1000 hours) and 17 concussions (IR=2.01/1000 hours) in games. Policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74). The point estimate showed a lower rate of concussion (adjusted IRR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.18), but this was not statistically significant.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/7/414


You seem pretty adamant about removing body checking from hockey. Will you allow your kid(s) to play contact hockey?

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:11 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:46 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:34 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:24 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:04 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:12 pm

LMAO - yup - you win.

Can't expect any other result when one guy looks to some article from a physio clinic that talks about a study that they never read directly and then draws definitive conclusions on something the study didn't study.

Did the 7 year study directly compare concussion rates in a body contact environment versus concussions in a non-body contact environment and determine that there were more concussions in the non-body contact environment?

Do those conclusions DIRECTLY OPPOSE the assertions you bow to from a very limited study done over one season?

Thanks for coming out.

Double down on the same ignorance ...

Was the study comparing adult women data with adult male data? Isn't that like apples and oranges? Did the study authors say no conclusions can be made regarding the women's concussion rates? Did the study authors say that these non-conclusions can be used to make conclusions about minor hockey? Did the study authors say their study with non-conclusions override more recent studies that actually studied minor hockey concussions?

Thanks for coming out.

Go read the study. You're stupid at best.

I did. It is clear you won't, particularly since you resort to this kind of response when you've lost.

I can't lose when you're this stupid. It's impossible. All you're doing is lying and spinning bullshit.

Spinning? Hilarious and hypocritical.

- You post an article from a physio clinic office website and cite the views (spin) in that as conclusions
- You spin observations from the reference study that you didn't read despite the study authors saying that you can't infer conclusions from Women's concussion incidents within said study
- You keep doing the same thing over and over again
- Then you post another article (with a study you didn't read) and it doesn't support your views either.

You know what, delude yourself into thinking you're winning. It is hilarious.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.

Results 49 body checking (608 players) and 33 non-body checking teams (396 players) participated. There were 129 injuries (incidence rate (IR)=7.98/1000 hours) and 54 concussions (IR=3.34/1000 hours) in the body checking teams in games. After policy change, there were 31 injuries (IR=3.66/1000 hours) and 17 concussions (IR=2.01/1000 hours) in games. Policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74). The point estimate showed a lower rate of concussion (adjusted IRR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.18), but this was not statistically significant.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/7/414


You seem pretty adamant about removing body checking from hockey. Will you allow your kid(s) to play contact hockey?

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT BIT. LOL. That's exactly the bolded point I made earlier. One, the # of players studied in the study didn't make for statistically significant results BUT they did see lower rates of concussion. Also, the sentence before clearly says disallowing body checking was associated with lower rates of all injuries. Not really helping your cause are you?

I wouldn't be sad if body checking were removed from hockey. My oldest played contact up to minor midget and then moved on. My youngest isn't old enough for contact hockey. I advocate for making the game safer and growing the sport.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.

Results 49 body checking (608 players) and 33 non-body checking teams (396 players) participated. There were 129 injuries (incidence rate (IR)=7.98/1000 hours) and 54 concussions (IR=3.34/1000 hours) in the body checking teams in games. After policy change, there were 31 injuries (IR=3.66/1000 hours) and 17 concussions (IR=2.01/1000 hours) in games. Policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74). The point estimate showed a lower rate of concussion (adjusted IRR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.18), but this was not statistically significant.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/7/414


You seem pretty adamant about removing body checking from hockey. Will you allow your kid(s) to play contact hockey?

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT BIT. LOL. That's exactly the bolded point I made earlier. One, the # of players studied in the study didn't make for statistically significant results BUT they did see lower rates of concussion. Also, the sentence before clearly says disallowing body checking was associated with lower rates of all injuries. Not really helping your cause are you?

I wouldn't be sad if body checking were removed from hockey. My oldest played contact up to minor midget and then moved on. My youngest isn't old enough for contact hockey. I advocate for making the game safer and growing the sport.

Are we talking injuries or concussions. Either way - this is all study about non-elite athletes. Perhaps they shouldn't play at all.

Statistically insignificant is a pretty standard thing whereby changes aren't introduces based on statistical insignificance.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.

Results 49 body checking (608 players) and 33 non-body checking teams (396 players) participated. There were 129 injuries (incidence rate (IR)=7.98/1000 hours) and 54 concussions (IR=3.34/1000 hours) in the body checking teams in games. After policy change, there were 31 injuries (IR=3.66/1000 hours) and 17 concussions (IR=2.01/1000 hours) in games. Policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74). The point estimate showed a lower rate of concussion (adjusted IRR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.18), but this was not statistically significant.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/7/414


You seem pretty adamant about removing body checking from hockey. Will you allow your kid(s) to play contact hockey?

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT BIT. LOL. That's exactly the bolded point I made earlier. One, the # of players studied in the study didn't make for statistically significant results BUT they did see lower rates of concussion. Also, the sentence before clearly says disallowing body checking was associated with lower rates of all injuries. Not really helping your cause are you?

I wouldn't be sad if body checking were removed from hockey. My oldest played contact up to minor midget and then moved on. My youngest isn't old enough for contact hockey. I advocate for making the game safer and growing the sport.

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:26 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 am
Thanks for that. conclusion from this study, word for word: "Policy change disallowing body checking in non-elite Bantam ice hockey resulted in a 56% lower rate of injury. There is growing evidence that disallowing body checking in youth ice hockey is associated with fewer injuries."

It’s no surprise that’s your take away.

Here is the actually concluding statement:

Though the concussion rates didn't drop as much as researchers had hoped, Mrazik noted that injury numbers did drop for the study years, as did dropout rates among kids playing bantam hockey, all of which he said can be at least partially attributed to the conversations taking place about concussions.

"There's only so much injury you can remove from the game," he said. "It wasn't that long ago that concussions weren't talked about. That's changed and that's a positive thing," he said.

"The main message about concussions-that when a player has a concussion, they need to be evaluated by a medical professional and shouldn't be returned to play unless they've been medically cleared-is working, so keep it up."

The original article that sparked this thread cited brain development and concussions as the reason to completely remove body checking from minor hockey. The theme of the NCAA study was the high rate of concussion in non-contact women’s hockey. And the last study found that in spite of a lower rate of injury in non-contact hockey…the rate of concussion was the SAME.

Bottom line - the GTHL and OMHA both offer non-contact options for young players. The GTHL took it even further by completely removing body checking from single A, which caused a Toronto based non-contact league to shutdown due to a sudden decline in membership. There is no reason to change the current model, which is why they haven’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.3419258

You're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.

In fact, the study didn't have enough participants to identify the conclusions on concussions as "significantly significant" even though concussion rates were shown to drop among the leagues that disallow body checking.

Hey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.

No, I copied and pasted the summary conclusion from the actual study which you didn't go off and read.

Here's the fully expanded conclusion:

Disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of Bantam was associated with a 54% lower rate of game-injuries and 61% lower rate of severe injury. Point estimates showed a clinically relevant (though not statistically significant) 40% lower rate of concussion. Important considerations for future research include body checking skill development, body checking experience, coaching skills, skill progression and the impact of body checking policy on game contact behaviours and player performance. The public health impact of policy disallowing body checking in non-elite levels of play in Bantam is significant and further research to evaluate whether such policy change reduces injuries in non-elite levels of Midget (ages 15–17 years) is recommended.

Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.

Results 49 body checking (608 players) and 33 non-body checking teams (396 players) participated. There were 129 injuries (incidence rate (IR)=7.98/1000 hours) and 54 concussions (IR=3.34/1000 hours) in the body checking teams in games. After policy change, there were 31 injuries (IR=3.66/1000 hours) and 17 concussions (IR=2.01/1000 hours) in games. Policy disallowing body checking was associated with a lower rate of all injury (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.44; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.74). The point estimate showed a lower rate of concussion (adjusted IRR=0.6; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.18), but this was not statistically significant.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/7/414


You seem pretty adamant about removing body checking from hockey. Will you allow your kid(s) to play contact hockey?

THANKS FOR POSTING THAT BIT. LOL. That's exactly the bolded point I made earlier. One, the # of players studied in the study didn't make for statistically significant results BUT they did see lower rates of concussion. Also, the sentence before clearly says disallowing body checking was associated with lower rates of all injuries. Not really helping your cause are you?

I wouldn't be sad if body checking were removed from hockey. My oldest played contact up to minor midget and then moved on. My youngest isn't old enough for contact hockey. I advocate for making the game safer and growing the sport.

Are we talking injuries or concussions. Either way - this is all study about non-elite athletes. Perhaps they shouldn't play at all.

Statistically insignificant is a pretty standard thing whereby changes aren't introduces based on statistical insignificance.