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.Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:48 pmRoads 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.Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 1:48 pmIt's pretty easy to tell that you're clearly of low intellect by your ad hominem, misogyny, spelling/grammar and poor logic.Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 9:16 pmYou say no...but you are. One little "misogynistic" chirp and suddenly you're panties are in a knot.Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:14 amOffended by an anonymous intellectual beta? No.Guest wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 pmgasp! offended??Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:15 amWhat a bunch of word soup from you. Drinking in the morning it looks like. Misogynist too.Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:55 amGuest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:15 amYou 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.Guest wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:19 amI think the argument against body checking is based on long term effects of concussions, not injuries that heal.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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?