View Single Post
Old
05-08-2013, 02:54 PM
  #69
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
The guy has data to back up his statements. The simple fact is no one knows the proper solution.


Willer's study, which monitored the rates of injuries among roughly 3,000 kids who played in the Burlington Lions Minor Hockey Association over a five-year period, produced some surprising data.

The study, published last month, noted a "spike" in injuries among players in the first year that bodychecking was introduced. The report added that the majority of those injuries (66 per cent) were the result of "unintentional collisions" and not a result of a deliberate attempt to bodycheck.

Willer explained that "unintentional collisions" included players accidentally running into one another or injuring themselves when they fell to the ice, into the boards or goalposts.
I must've misunderstood the last post. I would agree with the "spike" statement. Regardless of whether checking is introduced in PW or Bantam, you're going to have more injuries at the level its introduced than if that level did not have checking. You're going to have that spike if you introduce in Novice, Atom, PeeWee, Bantam or Midget.

The other side of the arguement is that introducing that when they're bigger means they're better able to handle the physical side, even if they're 5'3". Introducing that "spike" when they're younger and more physically immature (as per hockey alberta facts) when there is critical brain development from 11-13 years is something they're trying to avoid.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote