Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:19 am

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!

BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!


Emotionally fragile would be the person trying to disparage the intelligence of others.................

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 6:04 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:19 am

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!

BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!


Emotionally fragile would be the person trying to disparage the intelligence of others.................

Says the guy with the excessive use of emojis, ad hominem and resorting to misogyny.

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!

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:07 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:10 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 4:23 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:22 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:02 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:53 pm

Nothing like that at all. Just pointing out that the comment "there is no data to support this" is not as valid as some believe or pronounce.

But lets be honest, practice is provided to help improve. Practice at anything makes you better. And it is also understood that begining things at earlier ages helps improve quicker.

Practice taking head shots while your brain is developing in order to get better at taking head shots.

Not surprising that all you see is head shots as opposed to great techniques and skills involving body contact.

Didn’t read the article or study did you?

That has no relation to your pathetic ideals that all body contact is nothing but head shots.

The article is about concussions and the study is about concussions. What are concussions? A traumatic brain injury caused by a blow to the head.

Guest wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 2:26 pm Make two leagues, 1) Bodychecking 2) No Bodychecking

So many sports already allow biological males who identify female, to compete in female leagues.

So take gender completely out of hockey and focus on the two different spots; full contact hockey and non-contact hockey. Allowing boys, girls and non-binary equal opportunity to play in the league of their choice.