I can't lose when you're this stupid. It's impossible. All you're doing is lying and spinning bullshit.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:41 amI did. It is clear you won't, particularly since you resort to this kind of response when you've lost.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:34 amGo read the study. You're stupid at best.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:24 amDouble down on the same ignorance ...Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:15 amDid the 7 year study directly compare concussion rates in a body contact environment versus concussions in a non-body contact environment and determine that there were more concussions in the non-body contact environment?Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:04 pmCan't expect any other result when one guy looks to some article from a physio clinic that talks about a study that they never read directly and then draws definitive conclusions on something the study didn't study.
Do those conclusions DIRECTLY OPPOSE the assertions you bow to from a very limited study done over one season?
Thanks for coming out.
Was the study comparing adult women data with adult male data? Isn't that like apples and oranges? Did the study authors say no conclusions can be made regarding the women's concussion rates? Did the study authors say that these non-conclusions can be used to make conclusions about minor hockey? Did the study authors say their study with non-conclusions override more recent studies that actually studied minor hockey concussions?
Thanks for coming out.
New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
Rate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
She doesn't understand the difference,Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pmRate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
Spinning? Hilarious and hypocritical.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:46 amI can't lose when you're this stupid. It's impossible. All you're doing is lying and spinning bullshit.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:41 amI did. It is clear you won't, particularly since you resort to this kind of response when you've lost.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:34 amGo read the study. You're stupid at best.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:24 amDouble down on the same ignorance ...Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:15 amDid the 7 year study directly compare concussion rates in a body contact environment versus concussions in a non-body contact environment and determine that there were more concussions in the non-body contact environment?Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:04 pmCan't expect any other result when one guy looks to some article from a physio clinic that talks about a study that they never read directly and then draws definitive conclusions on something the study didn't study.
Do those conclusions DIRECTLY OPPOSE the assertions you bow to from a very limited study done over one season?
Thanks for coming out.
Was the study comparing adult women data with adult male data? Isn't that like apples and oranges? Did the study authors say no conclusions can be made regarding the women's concussion rates? Did the study authors say that these non-conclusions can be used to make conclusions about minor hockey? Did the study authors say their study with non-conclusions override more recent studies that actually studied minor hockey concussions?
Thanks for coming out.
- You post an article from a physio clinic office website and cite the views (spin) in that as conclusions
- You spin observations from the reference study that you didn't read despite the study authors saying that you can't infer conclusions from Women's concussion incidents within said study
- You keep doing the same thing over and over again
- Then you post another article (with a study you didn't read) and it doesn't support your views either.
You know what, delude yourself into thinking you're winning. It is hilarious.
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
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?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pmRate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
More spin from the Emotionally unstable.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:11 pmSpinning? Hilarious and hypocritical.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:46 amI can't lose when you're this stupid. It's impossible. All you're doing is lying and spinning bullshit.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:41 amI did. It is clear you won't, particularly since you resort to this kind of response when you've lost.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:34 amGo read the study. You're stupid at best.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:24 amDouble down on the same ignorance ...Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:15 amDid the 7 year study directly compare concussion rates in a body contact environment versus concussions in a non-body contact environment and determine that there were more concussions in the non-body contact environment?Guest wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:04 pmCan't expect any other result when one guy looks to some article from a physio clinic that talks about a study that they never read directly and then draws definitive conclusions on something the study didn't study.
Do those conclusions DIRECTLY OPPOSE the assertions you bow to from a very limited study done over one season?
Thanks for coming out.
Was the study comparing adult women data with adult male data? Isn't that like apples and oranges? Did the study authors say no conclusions can be made regarding the women's concussion rates? Did the study authors say that these non-conclusions can be used to make conclusions about minor hockey? Did the study authors say their study with non-conclusions override more recent studies that actually studied minor hockey concussions?
Thanks for coming out.
- You post an article from a physio clinic office website and cite the views (spin) in that as conclusions
- You spin observations from the reference study that you didn't read despite the study authors saying that you can't infer conclusions from Women's concussion incidents within said study
- You keep doing the same thing over and over again
- Then you post another article (with a study you didn't read) and it doesn't support your views either.
You know what, delude yourself into thinking you're winning. It is hilarious.
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
Are we talking injuries or concussions. Either way - this is all study about non-elite athletes. Perhaps they shouldn't play at all.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pmTHANKS 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?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pmRate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Statistically insignificant is a pretty standard thing whereby changes aren't introduces based on statistical insignificance.
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
He’s trying to shift the goal posts from concussions to injuries.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:26 pmAre we talking injuries or concussions. Either way - this is all study about non-elite athletes. Perhaps they shouldn't play at all.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pmTHANKS 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?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pmRate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Statistically insignificant is a pretty standard thing whereby changes aren't introduces based on statistical insignificance.
“not statistically significant” refers to the minimal effect on rate of concussions. If it referred to the number of players studied, then the results of the entire study would be statistically insignificant.
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
How many concussion did your older kid have during his 3 years of contact hockey?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pmTHANKS 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?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pmRate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
When the time comes will your youngest follow in his siblings footsteps and play contact hockey?
Re: New study recommends youth hockey leagues ban bodychecking until age 18
You brought in the study to support your views. Kinda backfiring eh?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:26 pmAre we talking injuries or concussions. Either way - this is all study about non-elite athletes. Perhaps they shouldn't play at all.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:15 pmTHANKS 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?Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 12:00 pmRate of concussion went from 3.34/1000hrs to 2.01 /1000hrs - not statistically significant.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:25 amHey dumb dumb, you literally copy and pasted the second paragraph of the article...not the study.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amYou're silly. The statement I took was from the ACTUAL STUDY linked, not the article.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:23 amIt’s no surprise that’s your take away.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Statistically insignificant is a pretty standard thing whereby changes aren't introduces based on statistical insignificance.
Tell us you have no idea what statistical significance means without telling us you have no idea what statistical significance means.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post