Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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.

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 am

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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.

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Offended by an anonymous intellectual beta? No.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 am

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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.

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Offended by an anonymous intellectual beta? No.

That explains why you couldn't understand the "word soup" Omega.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:56 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 am

That explains why you couldn't understand the "word soup" Omega.

All your discussions devolve into this nonsense right?

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:56 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 am

That explains why you couldn't understand the "word soup" Omega.

All your discussions devolve into this nonsense right?

Who couldn't understand what?

And your lack of comprehension is someone else's fault?

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:56 am

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 am

That explains why you couldn't understand the "word soup" Omega.

All your discussions devolve into this nonsense right?

Who couldn't understand what?

And your lack of comprehension is someone else's fault?

What point are you trying to make other than the fact that you're an idiot? You argue for the sake of arguing, then when it doesn't go your way ... well, you go to the misogynist toolbox for one.

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 am

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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
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.

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 am

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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

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

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Offended by an anonymous intellectual beta? No.

You say no...but you are. One little "misogynistic" chirp and suddenly you're panties are in a knot.

If you're worried about body checking related injures, sign your little snowflake up for non-contact hockey.

If you're worried about concussions, then stay away from hockey...because concussions occur in both non-contact and full-contact hockey.

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 1:48 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 am

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Offended by an anonymous intellectual beta? No.

You say no...but you are. One little "misogynistic" chirp and suddenly you're panties are in a knot.

If you're worried about body checking related injures, sign your little snowflake up for non-contact hockey.

If you're worried about concussions, then stay away from hockey...because concussions occur in both non-contact and full-contact hockey.

It's pretty easy to tell that you're clearly of low intellect by your ad hominem, misogyny, spelling/grammar and poor logic.

If one wants roads safer and advocates for stricter rules of the road, should they stay away from driving because accidents occur?

One can support making the game of hockey safer and reduce the risk of head injuries for minors yet still have their kids participate. Maybe you don't care for your kids to use their heads to make a living when they grow up but others do.

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 1:48 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:16 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 am

Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 am

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 am

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

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

I think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.

You are 100% correct. People who've never played a contact sport at a competitive level don't understand what it takes for players to protect themselves. For some kids it comes naturally, some need to be taught and some never figure it out and should not play contact sports. And that is why HC created a non-contact division.

An example of a kid who shouldn't play contact sports is one whose suffered multiple concussions as a result of a routine play like a body check. Either he doesn't know he's about to be hit or he hasn't learned how to take hit safely. If its happening over and over, then he's putting himself in a vulnerable position and doesn't know it.

Apparently there's somebody on this thread whose kids entire team had concussions? In the study that was posted, out of 608 players there were 54 concussions, in other words 1.33 concussions per 15 players. If its true, that these 15 kids were all concussed over 3 years of body checking, at least one with multiple concussions, then I'd say they are living in fantasy land or there's a problem with that team (coaches, trainers, players, parents).

You talk to any hockey parent who had kids playing contact and most will say their kid had a concussion at some point ... this is a matter of reporting.

If you can't be honest about what you represent, you can always post like this ^^^ advocate - who also lest her kid play in spite of the fact she disagrees with the rules of the sport.

What a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.

gasp! offended??

Offended by an anonymous intellectual beta? No.

You say no...but you are. One little "misogynistic" chirp and suddenly you're panties are in a knot.

If you're worried about body checking related injures, sign your little snowflake up for non-contact hockey.

If you're worried about concussions, then stay away from hockey...because concussions occur in both non-contact and full-contact hockey.

It's pretty easy to tell that you're clearly of low intellect by your ad hominem, misogyny, spelling/grammar and poor logic.

If one wants roads safer and advocates for stricter rules of the road, should they stay away from driving because accidents occur?

One can support making the game of hockey safer and reduce the risk of head injuries for minors yet still have their kids participate. Maybe you don't care for your kids to use their heads to make a living when they grow up but others do.