View Single Post
05-09-2013, 05:20 PM
Registered User
Skm's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
No, I am saying that data supports that there is no increase in injury risk in Bantam by not having hitting in Peewee.

The aligning with Quebec comment is way out in left field.
Not really:

1) People are arguing that injury rates DO NOT increase if hitting is introduced in bantam.
2) Therefore, I am assuming the point of removing hitting from peewee is to reduce the TOTAL number of injuries (ie. if Quebec and Alberta have the same injury rates from bantam onwards then the only excess ones in AB will be from peewee)
3) Continuing this logic, if we want to reduce the total injury rate even further, then we should just remove hitting from all levels and do one better than Quebec.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote