View Single Post
05-09-2013, 03:23 PM
I am the Liquor
Wrong Way Eberle
I am the Liquor's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,296
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
At some point they have to. Everyone has a different threshold. Where is it? For you it might be hockey or seatbelt or gun rights. Others might be alcohol, gambling or traffic laws or situations like Ohio. Of course that's a huge exaggeration! We're not talking about that, but the point is somewhere government HAS to step in a say "here's the line." They do it with alcohol, tobacco, telecom companies, broadcasting standards, driver's licence, seat belts, speeding, taxes...need I go on? Its everywhere. You're not comfortable with that, lots of us are. No individuals rights or standards are more important than any others, but at a certain point someone has to decide. Elected officials have been chosen to do that, to step in and make a decision for (what they believe) is the greater good of society. Its called democracy.
No. Its called Fascism (or Totalitarian Democracy if you prefer). People dont need to be told what to do in every area of their lives. Ive lived just fine without seatbelt legislation, bicycle helmut laws, smoking bans, child car seats, body contact in hockey, etc, etc.

The argument is not hitting is an unaccpetable risk.
Of course it is. If it were an acceptable risk, there would be no impetus to legislate it out of the game.

The argument is two parts:
1) There is no statistical evidence to support the belief that introducing hitting earlier reduces the rate of injuries and concussions. The belief that introducing it early teaches kids to have their head up is unsubstantiated. I would add that keeping your head up is a necessary skill in hockey whether there is hitting or not. Can't find the open man or open ice or five hole if you're head is in your skates. Therefore it is necessary for all kids to learn the skill of having their head up regardless of body contact.
That isnt an argument, that is a conclusion based on a false negative.

2) Entry into adolescence is a critical period in brain development (11-13 years). When you introduce contact there is a spike in injuries and concussions. Why not give the kids as much time to develop as possible before introducing the higher risk behaviour. They're not trying to eliminate ALL risk. There just trying to protect the ones most vulnerable and most susceptible.
Is brain development in 14-18yr olds non-critical?

This is a ****ing ridiculous argument. If concussion risk is deemed too high and injurious at one level, why not all levels?

Is that not the end game here?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote