View Single Post
05-09-2013, 12:50 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,627
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
I still havent had any reasonable or (any) answers to my question.

1. Why not have the choice to put your kid into either a contact or a non contact league?

2. If hitting causes brain injuries, why have hitting at ANY age level, including adults?
Just tossing ideas out for debate. Don't take it as gospel but rather an approach to try and better understand the decision.

1. a. Tier crossing is potentially more dangerous.
b. Where do you draw the line for freedom of a parent to decide child safety?
Are child safety seats in car up to parental descretion?
c. When it comes to health of the citizens it's always a public matter. After all healthcare is a public service. Perhaps the fee for contact peewee should be quadrupled. After all injuries are a public burden.

2. We do know that there is a danger to concussions the more you get. A cumulitive effect. For example. A child gets 1 concussion a year of contact hockey (unlucky ******* or just can't keep his head up). If Peewee contact is in he'll have suffered 4 concussions by the time he gets to midget. 5 after his first year of midget. I'm not sure how many before someone gets told to shut it down, but if it's 5.. he's not playing hockey anymore. Take the hitting out of peewee and he plays 2 more years of midget.

I guess the point is trying to get the kids through their child hockey careers with as little cumulitive concussions as possible.

And before anyone spews more of.. he'll just get 2 concussions a year in Bantam because he doesn't know to take a hit like he learned in peewee. For the 10th or so time... that's an opinion with no factual support. The only evidence I've seen says it remains the same.

Last edited by Lacaar: 05-09-2013 at 12:58 PM. Reason: blah submitted before finishing.
Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote