HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Ot:hockey alberta eliminates body checking in peewee division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2013, 12:41 PM
  #176
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
If you want hitting why not put your kids in lacrosse or football?
But we are talking about hitting in hockey. So answer the question.
Why not put your kid in NHL? You think your kids going to the show so he needs that extra competition?

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:43 PM
  #177
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
How many kids do you have? Have they ever been injured in a sport? How seriously?
2. Yes. fairly. Its an acceptable risk to me/my kid. And I far from in the minority.
I cant bubblewrap my kids.
But of course, you think contact should be taken out of football? Lacrosse? Rugby?

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:43 PM
  #178
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
Believe it or not, I am more speaking as a coach. My son is 11. Had his first year of Peewee. Loves to hit and is very disappointed that he won't be able to next year. He will be in hockey academy and would like to see how far he can take his hockey. I don't have a problem with my son hitting, or being hit. He wants to be an elite player.

I have seen a ton of bad hits on players that have zero chance of being anything but a recreational player. I saw a bunch of concussions this year. For a good majority of players, the body checking has zero benefit to the game or their amount of fun.
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?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:44 PM
  #179
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Whose best interest? What best interest? What majority?
the majority of kids and their brains.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:45 PM
  #180
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
If you want hitting why not put your kids in lacrosse or football?
Why take out hitting in hockey and not lacrosse and football?

Do you need a study done before you can determine whether or not hitting in lacrosse and football cause head injuries?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:47 PM
  #181
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
the majority of kids and their brains.
Be honest here. Just so I can get off this thread. You would have no problem with banning contact in sports like lacrosse, football rugby, at a young age, correct?

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:50 PM
  #182
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
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
Old
05-09-2013, 12:52 PM
  #183
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
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?
Well, every parent has this choice. I wouldn't choose to put my son in a non contact league. If I was considering it, I would look at the quality of development (I would like to think that the development of players skills,(Cardio, hand eye, muscle) and personal skills(Competition, teamwork) and feel that it would have to be positive for my child/athlete. Then determine what is acceptable risk.

As far as hitting at any age, I can only speak to my present knowledge and will omit bantam and midget.(I don't have any data, or experiential knowledge.)

As an adult, there isn't a league that has contact other than those who get paid to play. If you are getting paid, you know your risks.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:53 PM
  #184
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
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?

#2 is a good question. Maybe they should? But you probably won't get ALL hockey jurisdications to agree so really its liekely unworkable.

just like in where I work, there is no way to completely eliminate all risk, but you can reduce it significantly. There's a certain point where you have to draw the line and say this risk is acceptable and this risk isn't. Hockey Alberta with consultation with medical experts has drawn that line @ PeeWee.

#1 because they're looking out for the greater good of all kids. Sometimes adults can't be trusted....that's why car seats for infants are not optional.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:55 PM
  #185
gordonhught
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 26
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Why take out hitting in hockey and not lacrosse and football?

Do you need a study done before you can determine whether or not hitting in lacrosse and football cause head injuries?

Players collide at higher speeds in hockey than in the other sports you mentioned (players skate at higher speeds in hockey than they run in lacrosse or football).

Further, in football collisions take place between players. In hockey, a player will typically will try to check the opposing player into the boards that surround the rink.

Big difference.

gordonhught is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:56 PM
  #186
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Be honest here. Just so I can get off this thread. You would have no problem with banning contact in sports like lacrosse, football rugby, at a young age, correct?
Don't know. My kids don't play those sports because of the contact and they've shown no desire to play. They play soccer (some incidental contact), mountain bike and swim.

My son and daughter play hockey. They will play until there's contact and at that point, we'll have a discussion about it. It will be there choice to continue or not, but I'll be happy that until bantam they do not have a choice.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:59 PM
  #187
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Don't know. My kids don't play those sports because of the contact. They play soccer (some incidental contact), mountain bike and swim.

My son and daughter play hockey. They will play until there's contact and at that point, we'll have a discussion about it. It will be there choice to continue or not, but I'll be happy that until bantam they do not have a choice.
Well, no. From a philosphical point of view? You must not agree with hitting in those sports. Cause injuries happen.And why not put your kids in a no hit league? I just dont understand why you wouldnt do that, if you are so concerned about the risk..

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:01 PM
  #188
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Why take out hitting in hockey and not lacrosse and football?

Do you need a study done before you can determine whether or not hitting in lacrosse and football cause head injuries?
That's up to lacrosse and football regulatory bodies. I'm sure studies have been done on football and lacrosse. I'm not up to speed on them since it doesn't affect me personally. I only have so much time in my day that I try to stick to things that directly affect me and my family. If my kids played those sports, I'd look into it.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:03 PM
  #189
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Be honest here. Just so I can get off this thread. You would have no problem with banning contact in sports like lacrosse, football rugby, at a young age, correct?
Do they suffer concussions in volumes that impact the childs long term health?

I've no idea. I'm no Lacrosse expert.

If I had to guess there's probably more in hockey. It's faster, the boards and ice I would think cause the majority of the concussions? perhaps the shoulder pad contact to the head. I don't believe there's such contact in those sports.

That's actually one thing I'd like to know about minor hockey. Equipment specifications. Armored shoulder pads may save some bruises but are they a principle cause of concussions in minor hockey? I've no doubt they share a good part of the responsibility in the NHL. My kids are just starting their hockey careers so I can't say for the peewees and bantams.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:05 PM
  #190
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
That's up to lacrosse and football regulatory bodies. I'm sure studies have been done on football and lacrosse. I'm not up to speed on them since it doesn't affect me personally. I only have so much time in my day that I try to stick to things that directly affect me and my family. If my kids played those sports, I'd look into it.
It came a a surprise to you that hitting/contact causes injuries?
You needed a study to tell you that?

Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:06 PM
  #191
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
Well, no. From a philosphical point of view? You must not agree with hitting in those sports. Cause injuries happen.And why not put your kids in a no hit league? I just dont understand why you wouldnt have done that, if you are so concerned about the risk
"Well, no?" .... not sure what you're saying or what part of the post you're responding to?

Why I wouldn't do what? Put them in non-contact hockey? They're in Timbits and Novice. It is non-contact. When they're older? Because he's not going to want play non-contact. But just cause he doesn't want to doesn't mean he gets his way. Just like he doesn't want to do homework, doesn't want to go to bed, doesn't want to do chores, doesn't want to stop playing video games. Sometimes its not up to the individual, especially when its about health, safety and well being.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:11 PM
  #192
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billybaroo View Post
It came a a surprise to you that hitting/contact causes injuries?
You needed a study to tell you that?
No don't need a study to tell me the obvious, you asked if I needed a study on injuries in lacrosse and football. It would certainly help me make an informed decision if I knew the frequency and severity and what medical experts were saying! Knowing the facts always helps. But my kids don't play the sport so I don't advocate for or against it.

But there's a difference between qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis. When you see the numbers from quantitative analysis in the hockey studies its mind boggling that people still want hitting in PeeWee. Any idiot knows hitting causes injuries - its the frequency and severity of post concussion symptoms that made me say its not a bad thing to ban it in hockey.

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:37 PM
  #193
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
1. a. Tier crossing is potentially more dangerous.
For those who choose to do so maybe, but for those who dont it isnt. Again, those who choose to do so need to weigh the pros and cons of their choice.

Quote:
b. Where do you draw the line for freedom of a parent to decide child safety?
Where do you draw the line on governmental interference? I would like to think parents have more invested (and for the right reasons) in the choices than govt does.

Quote:
Are child safety seats in car up to parental descretion?
Why not? Myself along with millions of others grew up without them. Shocking I know.

Quote:
c. When it comes to health of the citizens it's always a public matter.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. In a free society one's health should be the domain of each individual.

Quote:
After all healthcare is a public service. Perhaps the fee for contact peewee should be quadrupled. After all injuries are a public burden.
The extra costs in treating injuries would be offset by the increased cardio workout due to fear of said injuries and moving quickly and often to avoid the dreaded inevitable vegetative state. This would save millions in cardiovascular disease care further on down the road.

Quote:
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.
Again, if this is a proven fact why expose ANY age group to potential brain injury? Why draw a line at any age? Just get rid of it altogether.

Quote:
I guess the point is trying to get the kids through their child hockey careers with as little cumulitive concussions as possible.
Why not get rid of all hitting at all age levels? Why expose anyone to potential brain injury?

Quote:
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.
Statistical data can be shaped in any number of ways to prove or disprove whatever point you would like to get across.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 01:42 PM
  #194
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
Well, every parent has this choice. I wouldn't choose to put my son in a non contact league. If I was considering it, I would look at the quality of development (I would like to think that the development of players skills,(Cardio, hand eye, muscle) and personal skills(Competition, teamwork) and feel that it would have to be positive for my child/athlete. Then determine what is acceptable risk.
So why not afford people the choice?

Quote:
As far as hitting at any age, I can only speak to my present knowledge and will omit bantam and midget.(I don't have any data, or experiential knowledge.)
I dont think we need a "study" to tell us that concussions and/or "brain injuries" are happening at later stages of hockey development. Not a difficult question really, but one people dont seem to want to address. Why expose anyone to brain injury?

Quote:
As an adult, there isn't a league that has contact other than those who get paid to play. If you are getting paid, you know your risks.
There are lots of adult leagues (unpaid) that have full contact. Senior AAA and AA for example. Im pretty sure some beer leagues have contact as well. And really, what does getting paid have to do with it? We are talking about a persons health, regardless of age. Isnt that something that should be a priority?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 02:10 PM
  #195
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
For those who choose to do so maybe, but for those who dont it isnt. Again, those who choose to do so need to weigh the pros and cons of their choice.



Where do you draw the line on governmental interference? I would like to think parents have more invested (and for the right reasons) in the choices than govt does.



Why not? Myself along with millions of others grew up without them. Shocking I know.



Absolutely ridiculous statement. In a free society one's health should be the domain of each individual.



The extra costs in treating injuries would be offset by the increased cardio workout due to fear of said injuries and moving quickly and often to avoid the dreaded inevitable vegetative state. This would save millions in cardiovascular disease care further on down the road.



Again, if this is a proven fact why expose ANY age group to potential brain injury? Why draw a line at any age? Just get rid of it altogether.



Why not get rid of all hitting at all age levels? Why expose anyone to potential brain injury?



Statistical data can be shaped in any number of ways to prove or disprove whatever point you would like to get across.

Your entire argument is based on Societal interference on public health.
You may not agree with it.. but accept it because it's happening and it's going to keep happening.

Your options are
1) run for office, win, dismiss all public safety laws. You can't be picky with the philosophy you've chosen. They all have to go. Bike helmets, Seat Belts.
2) try and vote some guy in who'll do the same.
3) leave.. go to a country that doesn't have them. I couldn't even tell you which ones don't.

I can handle the argument that in the end the concussion thing may be overblown. They're pretty rare and there's barely a child out there that suffers any long term effects. That may be true and if it is then perhaps this decision is erring too much on the side of caution. Some scientists/doctors are always preaching holy mother of god the end is coming. It definitely has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 02:22 PM
  #196
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,178
vCash: 5496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Your entire argument is based on Societal interference on public health.
You may not agree with it.. but accept it because it's happening and it's going to keep happening.

Your options are
1) run for office, win, dismiss all public safety laws. You can't be picky with the philosophy you've chosen. They all have to go. Bike helmets, Seat Belts.
2) try and vote some guy in who'll do the same.
3) leave.. go to a country that doesn't have them. I couldn't even tell you which ones don't.

I can handle the argument that in the end the concussion thing may be overblown. They're pretty rare and there's barely a child out there that suffers any long term effects. That may be true and if it is then perhaps this decision is erring too much on the side of caution. Some scientists/doctors are always preaching holy mother of god the end is coming. It definitely has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Not just public health, but all areas of life. I like my freedom. I dont care for bureaucrats dictating what I can or cant do.

If the argument is contact (hitting) in hockey causes brain injuries, and that is not an acceptable risk, then hitting should be mandated out of the game at all levels.

I dont understand how some can say not in Pee Wee, but its ok for Bantam or whatever. That seems like an asinine argument to me.

Again, I see nothing wrong with giving people the choice to do what they see fit. And if they decide to hop back and forth between the two streams, then again, that is their choice. People should have the freedom to choose. Not have the choice decided for and dictated to them by others. The role of govt in society should be to provide services and infrastructure. Not to impinge on individuals personal liberty.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 02:57 PM
  #197
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Not just public health, but all areas of life. I like my freedom. I dont care for bureaucrats dictating what I can or cant do.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post

If the argument is contact (hitting) in hockey causes brain injuries, and that is not an acceptable risk, then hitting should be mandated out of the game at all levels.

I dont understand how some can say not in Pee Wee, but its ok for Bantam or whatever. That seems like an asinine argument to me.
The argument is not hitting is an unaccpetable risk. 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. This speaks to "does hitting in PeeWee protect kids". The answer is a resounding No from a statistical perspective. Emotional rants and arguments have no compelling proof.

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.

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. Injury rates in Bantam are similar for kids that had contact and did not have contact in PeeWee. So why risk all those potential brain injuries for no benefit? So parents are amused?

Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 02:58 PM
  #198
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
If it is indeed the case, it's sad/unfortunate that kids and parents are being turned off of hockey because of body contact or the odd injury. Those types should play in the no hit league.

I am not going to cite and research or studies, so this is my own personal bias/opinion, but the physical aspect of minor hockey was the most appealing thing about it for me.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 03:01 PM
  #199
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
So why not afford people the choice?
They do have the choice right now. Due to exposure, and when the decision gets made (When your kid is 4-5 years old and you put them in hockey, you pick an association, and move forward with it. I didn't have to consider hitting until after 4 years of hockey. I think it is based on how well organized hockey is in Canada from the standard association stand point. Recreational no hit hockey is also non competitive.

You may want your child to be competitive, but not in contact until later.


Quote:
I dont think we need a "study" to tell us that concussions and/or "brain injuries" are happening at later stages of hockey development. Not a difficult question really, but one people dont seem to want to address. Why expose anyone to brain injury?
The data collected suggests that the age group of 11-12 is more susceptible to brain injury. I think that might be partly due to skill development as well. Players that are better skaters, puck handlers would be less likely to be in prone positions.


Quote:
There are lots of adult leagues (unpaid) that have full contact. Senior AAA and AA for example. Im pretty sure some beer leagues have contact as well. And really, what does getting paid have to do with it? We are talking about a persons health, regardless of age. Isnt that something that should be a priority?
I have never seen a contact beer league. Senior hockey is made out of elite level players, if you want to suggest that senior hockey doesn't need hitting, I could not care less, I have never seen a Senior AAA game and never expect to. Mostly, the rule change is to protect children who are put in situations that may or may not have any affinity for body checking. I coached Peewee this year, and know for sure over half of our team didn't body check, and only 3-4 players body checked regularly.

That said, I wouldn't have made the rule as it is today. I would have made the distinction by skill level and not age.

One other point, I played Junior B hockey and loved to body check. I wouldn't have changed my own personal hockey experience either. My thought is the lower level kids that are the most likely to get injured should be the ones that get protected by the new rule, which is why I endorse the change....even though I would have done it differently.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 03:13 PM
  #200
Moose Coleman
Registered User
 
Moose Coleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
If the argument is contact (hitting) in hockey causes brain injuries, and that is not an acceptable risk, then hitting should be mandated out of the game at all levels.

I dont understand how some can say not in Pee Wee, but its ok for Bantam or whatever. That seems like an asinine argument to me.
The flip side here is that if you allow body checking in PeeWee, why not have it all the way down to Initiation?

Moose Coleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.