Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

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.

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:47 am

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.

Well then, why not you enrol your kid in competitive boxing and have him participate while you advocate to make the sport safer and reduce the risk of head injuries for minors by banning punches to the head?

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

That analogy was meant to match your stupidity for comparing road safety to minor hockey...dumbass.

If you're worried about body checking related injuries, sign your "youngest kid" up for non-contact single A.

If you're worried about body checking related concussions, then best you take him out of the sport.

While you're protecting your youngest sons precious brain, you can advocate to remove body checking from minor hockey...and when that happens, you can sign him up for AA or AAA or AAA Elite or AAAA or whatever division that makes you happy.

IF, when the time comes, you sign your "youngest kid" up for full-contact hockey, then you're not buying what your selling and everyone will know that your full of sht.

Come back to this thread in two years and let us know what you've decided...that's plenty of time for your view to evolve based on new science, right!

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:37 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

That analogy was meant to match your stupidity for comparing road safety to minor hockey...dumbass.

If you're worried about body checking related injuries, sign your "youngest kid" up for non-contact single A.

If you're worried about body checking related concussions, then best you take him out of the sport.

While you're protecting your youngest sons precious brain, you can advocate to remove body checking from minor hockey...and when that happens, you can sign him up for AA or AAA or AAA Elite or AAAA or whatever division that makes you happy.

IF, when the time comes, you sign your "youngest kid" up for full-contact hockey, then you're not buying what your selling and everyone will know that your full of sht.

Come back to this thread in two years and let us know what you've decided...that's plenty of time for your view to evolve based on new science, right!

More emojis. You're an emotional wreck.

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:08 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:37 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

That analogy was meant to match your stupidity for comparing road safety to minor hockey...dumbass.

If you're worried about body checking related injuries, sign your "youngest kid" up for non-contact single A.

If you're worried about body checking related concussions, then best you take him out of the sport.

While you're protecting your youngest sons precious brain, you can advocate to remove body checking from minor hockey...and when that happens, you can sign him up for AA or AAA or AAA Elite or AAAA or whatever division that makes you happy.

IF, when the time comes, you sign your "youngest kid" up for full-contact hockey, then you're not buying what your selling and everyone will know that your full of sht.

Come back to this thread in two years and let us know what you've decided...that's plenty of time for your view to evolve based on new science, right!

More emojis. You're an emotional wreck.

He's also right.

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:08 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:37 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

That analogy was meant to match your stupidity for comparing road safety to minor hockey...dumbass.

If you're worried about body checking related injuries, sign your "youngest kid" up for non-contact single A.

If you're worried about body checking related concussions, then best you take him out of the sport.

While you're protecting your youngest sons precious brain, you can advocate to remove body checking from minor hockey...and when that happens, you can sign him up for AA or AAA or AAA Elite or AAAA or whatever division that makes you happy.

IF, when the time comes, you sign your "youngest kid" up for full-contact hockey, then you're not buying what your selling and everyone will know that your full of sht.

Come back to this thread in two years and let us know what you've decided...that's plenty of time for your view to evolve based on new science, right!

More emojis. You're an emotional wreck.

He's also right.

Affirming your very own opinion isn't much better than your abusive usage of emojis.

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:05 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:08 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:37 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

That analogy was meant to match your stupidity for comparing road safety to minor hockey...dumbass.

If you're worried about body checking related injuries, sign your "youngest kid" up for non-contact single A.

If you're worried about body checking related concussions, then best you take him out of the sport.

While you're protecting your youngest sons precious brain, you can advocate to remove body checking from minor hockey...and when that happens, you can sign him up for AA or AAA or AAA Elite or AAAA or whatever division that makes you happy.

IF, when the time comes, you sign your "youngest kid" up for full-contact hockey, then you're not buying what your selling and everyone will know that your full of sht.

Come back to this thread in two years and let us know what you've decided...that's plenty of time for your view to evolve based on new science, right!

More emojis. You're an emotional wreck.

He's also right.

Affirming your very own opinion isn't much better than your abusive usage of emojis.

You’d like to think so..but you’re wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is and keep your kid out of contact hockey while you advocate to completely remove bodychecking from minor hockey in Canada.

Better yet, if you really believe in what you’re saying and are advocating for safer hockey for all kids, then why don’t you reignite the non-contact hockey movement.

“Non-contact hockey league closing after 7 years”

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

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:05 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:05 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:41 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:08 am

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:37 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:23 am

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 7:34 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pm

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
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??

I

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.

Roads are crucial to society's infrastructure and economy, while minor hockey is an extra curricular privilege. But somehow to you they are the same...okay.

Advocating to remove body checking from minor hockey (citing player safety), while your kid plays full-contact hockey is the same as an animal rights activist protesting a slaughterhouse while eating a banquet burger and wearing a fur coat.

You know what's hilarious? The amount of LOL emojis you use. None are mine yet, the forum says there are too many when I reply to you.

Your analogy is ridiculous. My youngest kid doesn't play full contact hockey. He's a few years too young. My older one did, years ago. People can evolve their views based on new science right?

That analogy was meant to match your stupidity for comparing road safety to minor hockey...dumbass.

If you're worried about body checking related injuries, sign your "youngest kid" up for non-contact single A.

If you're worried about body checking related concussions, then best you take him out of the sport.

While you're protecting your youngest sons precious brain, you can advocate to remove body checking from minor hockey...and when that happens, you can sign him up for AA or AAA or AAA Elite or AAAA or whatever division that makes you happy.

IF, when the time comes, you sign your "youngest kid" up for full-contact hockey, then you're not buying what your selling and everyone will know that your full of sht.

Come back to this thread in two years and let us know what you've decided...that's plenty of time for your view to evolve based on new science, right!

More emojis. You're an emotional wreck.

He's also right.

Affirming your very own opinion isn't much better than your abusive usage of emojis.

You’d like to think so..but you’re wrong.

Put your money where your mouth is and keep your kid out of contact hockey while you advocate to completely remove bodychecking from minor hockey in Canada.

Better yet, if you really believe in what you’re saying and are advocating for safer hockey for all kids, then why don’t you reignite the non-contact hockey movement.

“Non-contact hockey league closing after 7 years”

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

More emojis from the emotionally fragile. Words bad, emojis good for the brain damaged!