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
05-10-2013, 11:13 AM
  #251
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,438
vCash: 500
What Replacement is saying is very true.

By delaying hitting, it increases the skill and coordination of the kids before they get there and have a better chance of not getting the catastrophic hit.

Many of the worst hits would be with players that are vulnerable because of their skill level.

Which is why I would have been just as happy to take it out of the lower divisions than move the age.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:15 AM
  #252
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
What? Of course they've been educated - even I was educated as a child in regards to all of those (exception being fluoride/broadcast standards (???)).
My point was we don't educate and then say "choose". You are obliged by law to wear a seatbelt. Communities add flouride to the drinking water or not. You don't get to choose what comes into your house (unless you have a water well I guess). You don't get to choose to employ child laborers. Of course we're educated on it. But we don't get to choose. Government and governing bodies do that for you and for the "greater good". That was my point.

We've agreed that we have different thresholds of acceptance for government/regulatory body intervention. So I agree with you let's move on.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:16 AM
  #253
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
One has to consider general coordination at different relative ages.

Ever ride a unicycle? Or a long tandem bike with people that don't know how to ride a tandem bike and that the actions and movements of one effects all?

Now try to consider partaking of these activities in a contact sport.

What I'm getting at here is that hockey in general requires a degree of coordination simply not found in most other sports. A degree of coordination not always found at a young age.

As mentioned this is not hitting in football, or Lacrosse, which anybody could do with a modicum of coordination and timing. Its hitting, receiving hits in an already dangerous environment that occurs on ice, propelled by lethal skates moving players at high speeds in any direction an environment where only solid, unforgivable boards contain the mayhem.

Simply put few kids playing hockey have the adequate coordination to take and receive hits safely at this level and its unwise to assume they do.

Nor do kids have the informed consent to make decisions that could very well impact the rest of their lives in one nanosecond of avoidable tragedy.

For young kids, hockey is dangerous enough. Doing anything to make it a safer activity for all concerned is something I applaud.
I agree to an extent with some of your points.

As for kids not having the coordination to take and receive hits safely at that level I'm a bit on the fence myself. I don't know that I agree with it starting at whatever level it was before but starting at a younger age when the collisions aren't so big/violent is something I have no issues with.

I guess to use your bike analogy, you slowly get used to the motion of your bike with the training wheels, then parental guidance, then you're on your own. Exposing kids to potentially bigger hits (based on increased size of kids at higher level) to me seems too much like skipping the parental guidance phase between training wheels and being let off on your own - you're going to have some big tumbles without gradually working up to it.

I agree that kids don't have the informed consent but that's generally a pretty vague argument that can be made for any decision a parent ever makes. To limit it strictly to this doesn't really fit, in my opinion, unless you want to bring in drinking, smoking, school choices, vehicle choices, etc. etc.

Like I was saying to Bobblehead, I respect your opinion on the matter, I'm just of the mind that the parents should be given the choice.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:18 AM
  #254
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...peewee-hockey/

great piece.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:26 AM
  #255
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
For sure its sarcasm. First you argue that any decision by a governing body (people are taking offense to calling it a government.....they're a governing body) is an infringement on your (and others') personal freedom to decide for themselves. Then you say these same individuals can only make the decision IF they're educated on the matter. Which is it? total freedom to choose (first post) or only freedom to choose under certain conditions that you deem necessary (second post).

You're imposing your standards and political agenda on others. Exactly the thing you criticized in the first post.
Just to clarify a few things...

I never said that any decision by a governing body is an infringement, I think that this case is. A small but important distinction

Hmm, that's a good point. Basically I've always been of the mindset that people should make informed decisions as opposed to just decisions - maybe that's coloring my argument too much.

Basically what I'd like to see are informed parents with the ability to make a choice between contact or non-contact. So I guess... a choice without a choice? I don't know how you want to define that, haha.

I don't have a political agenda though, I'm not sure where you got that from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
My point was we don't educate and then say "choose". You are obliged by law to wear a seatbelt. Communities add flouride to the drinking water or not. You don't get to choose what comes into your house (unless you have a water well I guess). You don't get to choose to employ child laborers. Of course we're educated on it. But we don't get to choose. Government and governing bodies do that for you and for the "greater good". That was my point.

We've agreed that we have different thresholds of acceptance for government/regulatory body intervention. So I agree with you let's move on.
I agree that we don't give people the choice - I'm just saying that you don't necessarily have to agree with what we're obliged to do.

I think your examples above are quite a bit off the scale compared to contact vs. no-contact hockey though - just an opinion.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:27 AM
  #256
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I agree to an extent with some of your points.

I guess to use your bike analogy, you slowly get used to the motion of your bike with the training wheels, then parental guidance, then you're on your own. Exposing kids to potentially bigger hits (based on increased size of kids at higher level) to me seems too much like skipping the parental guidance phase between training wheels and being let off on your own - you're going to have some big tumbles without gradually working up to it.

.

That's why we need a development program like Hockey USA (BTW I believe they've banned checking in PeeWee nation wide, I thought I read they were considering elite levels, but cannot find it). Teach checking through clinics in PeeWee. Teach the coaches how to teach - shoulder checks, body poistioning, don't turn your back, head up, etc.... run PeeWee practices that involve checking drills and skills to initiate them. Team scrimmages with checking so kids can get used to it in a controled environment before Bantam. Don;t jsut ban it outright, ban it and come up with a plan/program for when and how to introduce it in PeeWee. But don't allow it in the games until they become proficient.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:35 AM
  #257
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I don't have a political agenda though, I'm not sure where you got that from.
Maybe agenda wasn't the right word. Maybe belief or position would have been better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I never said that any decision by a governing body is an infringement, I think that this case is. A small but important distinction

I think your examples above are quite a bit off the scale compared to contact vs. no-contact hockey though - just an opinion.

Its been Hockey AB mandate since it formed to regulate all hockey. They brought in mandatory helmets, no checking from behind (among others changes). I don't think the examples are way of the scale. The spirit of the decisions is the same. Protect people from themselves. But we can agree to disagree.

One question:
No one seems to complain about the no-touch icing in minor hockey, but NHL has it. That's in there for the greater good and safety of our kids.... but its not "real hockey". When Little Johnny makes the NHL, how he going to knwo the safe way to race for a puck without getting injured like Taylor Fedun. How is he going to know not to but his stick in Fedun's skates like Nystrom. Maybe we should get rid of no-touch icing in minor hockey too?

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:39 AM
  #258
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I agree to an extent with some of your points.

As for kids not having the coordination to take and receive hits safely at that level I'm a bit on the fence myself. I don't know that I agree with it starting at whatever level it was before but starting at a younger age when the collisions aren't so big/violent is something I have no issues with.

I guess to use your bike analogy, you slowly get used to the motion of your bike with the training wheels, then parental guidance, then you're on your own. Exposing kids to potentially bigger hits (based on increased size of kids at higher level) to me seems too much like skipping the parental guidance phase between training wheels and being let off on your own - you're going to have some big tumbles without gradually working up to it.

I agree that kids don't have the informed consent but that's generally a pretty vague argument that can be made for any decision a parent ever makes. To limit it strictly to this doesn't really fit, in my opinion, unless you want to bring in drinking, smoking, school choices, vehicle choices, etc. etc.

Like I was saying to Bobblehead, I respect your opinion on the matter, I'm just of the mind that the parents should be given the choice.
In an increasingly diverse nation with so many newcomers or immigrants that have come from non hockey worlds this point is blurred.

The fact of the matter is that an increasing amount of parents wouldn't have enough knowledge, and limited if any direct experience, to make this judgement call for their kids.

They may actually watch hockey, underestimate how difficult it is based on pro level play, and may allow their kids to play with really no basis either to make such informed consent. In other words that they may trust that Canada's sport, which so many canadians have played, and embraced, is much safer than it is. They, and their children, may feel peer pressured into taking part in a national sport they are not prepared for. A "when in rome" cultural integration may take place without knowing the finer details.
Consider for instance a child learning hockey that doesn't have the parent, older brothers, uncles, etc, to teach them some of the important aspects of the game and head on a swivel and up at all times wisdom. Don't assume that everybody would have this background and instruction that many of us may feel is almost inherent or instinctive.

More safety, education, and prevention is required to mitigate an increasingly dangerous sport.

Replacement is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:43 AM
  #259
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Its been Hockey AB mandate since it formed to regulate all hockey. They brought in mandatory helmets, no checking from behind (among others changes). I don't think the examples are way of the scale. The spirit of the decisions is the same. Protect people from themselves. But we can agree to disagree.

One question:
No one seems to complain about the no-touch icing in minor hockey, but NHL has it. That's in there for the greater good and safety of our kids.... but its not "real hockey". When Little Johnny makes the NHL, how he going to knwo the safe way to race for a puck without getting injured like Taylor Fedun. How is he going to know not to but his stick in Fedun's skates like Nystrom. Maybe we should get rid of no-touch icing in minor hockey too?
Honestly I'm all for no-touch icing and find it a fairly weak comparable to no contact.

In my opinion the race for the puck for icing is unneeded because of how rarely somebody beats out the icing. Guys are skating full-speed towards the end boards for what's generally a very predictable outcome.

I think it's a fairly weak comparable because hitting is not just a part of hockey but an essential part of hockey. If you take the hitting out, it changes the game DRASTICALLY.

If you take out touch icing, it might effect 0.1% of games - a negligible amount.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:50 AM
  #260
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
In an increasingly diverse nation with so many newcomers or immigrants that have come from non hockey worlds this point is blurred.

The fact of the matter is that an increasing amount of parents wouldn't have enough knowledge, and limited if any direct experience, to make this judgement call for their kids.

They may actually watch hockey, underestimate how difficult it is based on pro level play, and may allow their kids to play with really no basis either to make such informed consent.
I would argue that in this case it's making a decision based on an assumption and, as a result, is not informed consent at all. Give the parents the facts, give them the data or whatever is needed, and let them weigh the options then choose.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:58 AM
  #261
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
What Replacement is saying is very true.

By delaying hitting, it increases the skill and coordination of the kids before they get there and have a better chance of not getting the catastrophic hit.

Many of the worst hits would be with players that are vulnerable because of their skill level.

Which is why I would have been just as happy to take it out of the lower divisions than move the age.
Do concussion's happen less frequently among the skill groups?

Do AAA players receive less brain injury than tier 5's?

I've no idea but it would be nice to have answers to those questions though.

Feel sorry for the kid in Tier 1 that misses the cut for the A team in Peewee then makes it in Bantam. Now he's plopped in with kids are more experienced than him.

I'd support the idea if there was proof that these kids are skilled enough to avoid head injuries and there was some solution to kids moving around tiers.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 11:58 AM
  #262
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
Honestly I'm all for no-touch icing and find it a fairly weak comparable to no contact.

In my opinion the race for the puck for icing is unneeded because of how rarely somebody beats out the icing. Guys are skating full-speed towards the end boards for what's generally a very predictable outcome.

I think it's a fairly weak comparable because hitting is not just a part of hockey but an essential part of hockey. If you take the hitting out, it changes the game DRASTICALLY.

If you take out touch icing, it might effect 0.1% of games - a negligible amount.
It shows that minor hockey doesn't have to mirror the pro game to be entertaining and fun. Its still hockey. Its no less entertaining.

It supports? shows? proves? suggests? that decisions made by the Hockey AB for the greater good and health and welfare of the child athletes has merit.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 12:00 PM
  #263
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Do concussion's happen less frequently among the skill groups?

Do AAA players receive less brain injury than tier 5's?

I've no idea but it would be nice to have answers to those questions though.

Feel sorry for the kid in Tier 1 that misses the cut for the A team in Peewee then makes it in Bantam. Now he's plopped in with kids are more experienced than him.

I'd support the idea if there was proof that these kids are skilled enough to avoid head injuries and there was some solution to kids moving around tiers.
I believe the studies said the opposite. More injuries in the more skilled groups. But I could be wrong.

here's from hockey AB fact sheet.....

The rate of concussion increases with increasing skill level of play with the highest risk at the most elite levels of play.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 12:11 PM
  #264
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
It shows that minor hockey doesn't have to mirror the pro game to be entertaining and fun. Its still hockey. Its no less entertaining.
I agree that minor hockey doesn't have to mirror the pro game to be fun but if you want to make it into the pro game, you need all the experience in crucial areas that you can get.

As for it being less entertaining we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote:
It supports? shows? proves? suggests? that decisions made by the Hockey AB for the greater good and health and welfare of the child athletes has merit.
One decision that barely affects the game can't be compared with a decision that majorly affects the game, so in that regard I have to disagree with you.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:09 PM
  #265
Bryanbryoil
Moderator
I Know A Thing Or 6
 
Bryanbryoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: About Winning
Posts: 50,661
vCash: 500
Keep it civil guys and don't bring other people's families into the discussion. If you can't keep it civil you will be removed from this thread at the very least.

__________________
Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
Bryanbryoil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:33 PM
  #266
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryanbryoil View Post
Keep it civil guys and don't bring other people's families into the discussion. If you can't keep it civil you will be removed from this thread at the very least.
I bet your family are very nice people!

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:47 PM
  #267
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,645
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I was rather interested in this debate until I saw the above quote.

Making changes that affect everybody for "the greater good" is a really slippery slope that can impinge on human freedoms. I'm not saying this is the first step in becoming some crazy world where all our actions are dictated or anything like that, but by simply accepting things like this, you're limiting your decisions on how to raise your kid.

I'd say that the most important thing that can be done is to educate parents as much as possible on the pros/cons of hitting hockey and allow them to make an INFORMED decision.

If, at that point, they don't want their kids playing in a contact league, they can sign them up for a non-contact league.

TL;DR - Educate the parents then allow them to make the decision
A lot of small towns don't have this option. They can only ice a single team, and they have to play against neighbouring towns that can also only ice one or two teams. By making it the parent's choice, you could see a lot of those small town teams fold, because the parents get torn fifty-fifty between contact and non-contact. That means a lot more kids are going to have to travel even farther for games and practices. Odds are, that decreases participation and enrollment.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 01:54 PM
  #268
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
You're making a lot of points logically, but you cannot say this. One narrow and small study with a number of acknowledged limitations and a specific methodology does not result in an irrefutable conclusion.

Added material to be discussed and analyzed in context, yes of course.
Unless you're providing actual evidence that counteracts the injury rates study, all of the "commonsense" and logical conclusions that one can fabricate are not very meaningful. At best they provide hypotheses that may overrule the previous conclusions, but the existence of those thoughts doesn't do much to undermine data.

The scientific method is not concerned with either commonsense, nor logic. Empirical observation has been smashing both down both commonsense and logic for a long, long time.

Logic is an appropriate way to come up with a hypothesis, but that I can logically draw a conclusion that seems plausible doesn't mean that it's actually a reflection of reality.

For example, many people in this thread seem to feel that learning to hit when you're smaller is safer in the long run, because you learn how to take a hit at a time when there's less chance to receive a serious injury. That's a logical deduction, and one that "makes sense," but unless there's some actual empirical data that states that this is in fact the case, all the logical reasoning in the world is meaningless.

As another example, it was commonsense and logical to do static stretching before competition and training because it was believed to help improve performance and reduce injury. Someone decided to look back and realized there was never any actual scientific approach to this conclusion. A whole lot of people just went "that makes logical sense." Now, empirically, static stretching is shown to have no observable benefit in reducing injury rates (and may even increase injury rates), while also demonstrating an observable decrease in athletic performance. I still remember being taught how to do it in Sports Medicine, however, because it was just believed to be true.

You are correct in that I should have been less absolute in my word usage, though that was more an illustration of hyperbole because if you give people an out, they often take it. People have a lot of defense mechanisms to prevent cognitive dissonance.

It may be possible that Quebec's Bantam leagues have similar injury rates to Alberta's because of other differences such as style of play. Though that's a logical conclusion which may not be supported by reality, and unfortunately is also one that grants escape routes based on preventing cognitive dissonance, and perhaps even on prejudice (i.e. the Quebec leagues are sissy's and whatnot).


Last edited by alanschu: 05-10-2013 at 02:05 PM.
alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:03 PM
  #269
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
A lot of small towns don't have this option. They can only ice a single team, and they have to play against neighbouring towns that can also only ice one or two teams. By making it the parent's choice, you could see a lot of those small town teams fold, because the parents get torn fifty-fifty between contact and non-contact. That means a lot more kids are going to have to travel even farther for games and practices. Odds are, that decreases participation and enrollment.
Regardless of what happens you're going to have parents torn 50/50 between the two, whether it's blanket no-contact or not. If participation wasn't decreased before I don't see why it would decrease in this instance.

I'll grant you that I had a really ****** sleep so I may not be seeing the full picture here

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:05 PM
  #270
Bobblehead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Unless you're providing actual evidence that counteracts the injury rates study, all of the "commonsense" and logical conclusions that one can fabricate are not very meaningful.

The scientific method is not concerned with either commonsense, nor logic. Empirical observation has been smashing both down both commonsense and logic for a long, long time.

Logic is an appropriate way to come up with a hypothesis, but that I can logically draw a conclusion that seems plausible doesn't mean that it's actually a reflection of reality.

For example, many people in this thread seem to feel that learning to hit when you're smaller is safer in the long run, because you learn how to take a hit at a time when there's less chance to receive a serious injury. That's a logical deduction, and one that "makes sense," but unless there's some actual empirical data that states that this is in fact the case, all the logical reasoning in the world is meaningless.

As another example, it was commonsense and logical to do static stretching before competition and training because it was believed to help improve performance and reduce injury. Someone decided to look back and realized there was never any actual scientific approach to this conclusion. A whole lot of people just went "that makes logical sense." Now, empirically, static stretching is shown to have no observable benefit in reducing injury rates (and may even increase injury rates), while also demonstrating an observable decrease in athletic performance. I still remember being taught how to do it in Sports Medicine, however, because it was just believed to be true.

You are correct in that I should have been less absolute in my word usage, though that was more an illustration of hyperbole because if you give people an out, they often take it. People have a lot of defense mechanisms to prevent cognitive dissonance.

It may be possible that Quebec's Bantam leagues have similar injury rates to Alberta's because of other differences such as style of play. Though that's a logical conclusion which may not be supported by reality, and unfortunately is also one that grants escape routes based on preventing cognitive dissonance, and perhaps even on prejudice (i.e. the Quebec leagues are sissy's and whatnot).
Amen. Anyone interested in an amazing read that illustrates this point and is unbelievably interesting should read Steven Levitt's Freakonomics. Good stuff.

Bobblehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:48 PM
  #271
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
For example, many people in this thread seem to feel that learning to hit when you're smaller is safer in the long run, because you learn how to take a hit at a time when there's less chance to receive a serious injury. That's a logical deduction, and one that "makes sense," but unless there's some actual empirical data that states that this is in fact the case, all the logical reasoning in the world is meaningless.
Nice post Alan.

I did think this when I first started this thread and first encountered this logic. Initially it made sense to me, just thinking about the laws of momentum relating to the players speed and size.

What changed my mind was when I found out two things.

1. Female hockey players suffer from an unusually high rate of concussions because their necks aren't as strong as a mans in comparison to the mass of their heads. Same head mass, weaker neck strength. This same issue is present in boys naturally and is one of the reasons doctors claim they are 3 fold more likely to receive a concussion.

2. They had the guy from the Crush performance show talk about some testing they did on a grade 3/4 football team in the states. They put sensors in their helmets to measure the g-force these little tykes exerted on themselves. Turns out the helmets experienced the exact same amount of g-force as a college football player. It was shocking to hear.


Knowing this I came to the conclusion that even if they did learn to protect themselves better as teenagers it doesn't seem worth the risk for them to learn that skill when they're adolescent's and even more vulnerable.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 03:09 PM
  #272
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Unless you're providing actual evidence that counteracts the injury rates study, all of the "commonsense" and logical conclusions that one can fabricate are not very meaningful. At best they provide hypotheses that may overrule the previous conclusions, but the existence of those thoughts doesn't do much to undermine data.

The scientific method is not concerned with either commonsense, nor logic. Empirical observation has been smashing both down both commonsense and logic for a long, long time.

Logic is an appropriate way to come up with a hypothesis, but that I can logically draw a conclusion that seems plausible doesn't mean that it's actually a reflection of reality.

For example, many people in this thread seem to feel that learning to hit when you're smaller is safer in the long run, because you learn how to take a hit at a time when there's less chance to receive a serious injury. That's a logical deduction, and one that "makes sense," but unless there's some actual empirical data that states that this is in fact the case, all the logical reasoning in the world is meaningless.

As another example, it was commonsense and logical to do static stretching before competition and training because it was believed to help improve performance and reduce injury. Someone decided to look back and realized there was never any actual scientific approach to this conclusion. A whole lot of people just went "that makes logical sense." Now, empirically, static stretching is shown to have no observable benefit in reducing injury rates (and may even increase injury rates), while also demonstrating an observable decrease in athletic performance. I still remember being taught how to do it in Sports Medicine, however, because it was just believed to be true.

You are correct in that I should have been less absolute in my word usage, though that was more an illustration of hyperbole because if you give people an out, they often take it. People have a lot of defense mechanisms to prevent cognitive dissonance.

It may be possible that Quebec's Bantam leagues have similar injury rates to Alberta's because of other differences such as style of play. Though that's a logical conclusion which may not be supported by reality, and unfortunately is also one that grants escape routes based on preventing cognitive dissonance, and perhaps even on prejudice (i.e. the Quebec leagues are sissy's and whatnot).
You're getting into a lot of things that don't relate to my original and very specific point. I know you're writing for the broader audience here, but as I stated earlier, I'm interested in a quality discussion and don't particularly have use for the words of those who will find the out and take it which is why I addressed you directly on this one. I know we can have a good chat.

You seem to have gotten hung up on the word logically. That was referring to how you were laying things out and not as some sort of contradiction to this study.

The scientific method requires continued and thorough study, as well as strong understanding of methodologies. That should be done. A great example of this is the yo-yo science when it comes to food products. My favorite example is the constantly changing opinion of coconut oil and how it somehow went from KILLER popcorn topping to MIRACLE wonderfood...and that isn't me being hyperbolic about what people had concluded.

What you get into very briefly at the end appears to be correlation vs. causation which is always an important factor. Studies on heart disease and its causes are always fascinating in this regard.


Last edited by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1: 05-10-2013 at 03:16 PM.
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:28 PM
  #273
molsonmuscle360
Registered User
 
molsonmuscle360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ft. McMurray Ab
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gqmixmaster View Post
I didnt start skating until I was 12 and at the same time I joined peewee hockey of course in the lowest division. I was 6'2 at the time. I got run over by this kid who was maybe 5'9 into the boards (because I could barely skate) and I was pissing blood after the game. I remember kids getting hit from behind having concussions, I saw a broken leg due to a collision, lots of kids getting winded etc.

The kids are like flying missiles when they go to hit, it can hurt pretty bad actually.
I actually moved from a non-hitting province (BC) to a hitting province (Saskatchewan) in my first year of peewee, half way through the season. That season I got a pretty bad concussion and separated my collarbone. From watching, the most injuries I saw playing hockey happened in that year and a half I played peewee. It's really got so much to do with the difference in body types between all the kids. Some of the kids haven't hit puberty and are like 5'1 and 95 pounds, while there are also farm boys who are 6'2 and 190 pounds. When you first are allowed to hit you basically go crazy with it, guys don't start smartening up about it usually until Bantam, where there might be one or two loose cannon hitters on teams, but for the most part guys start to learn when to pick and choose their shots.

With that said, that's why I'm in favor of lowering the age of hitting to a age where they are moving at very low speeds, and are all basically the same size. Novice. I know people will give me flak for it, but I'd much rather have kids learn the time to hit and when not to hit when they aren't going at a speed that can permanently mess someone up. Get the sloppy, mistimed hits out of the way, when there is a far less likely chance of severe injury, and then by the time they get to an age where little Billy who's still 5'1 won't be barreled over by Cleatus who has 100 pounds and over a foot on him in a vulnerable position.

molsonmuscle360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:54 PM
  #274
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by molsonmuscle360 View Post
I actually moved from a non-hitting province (BC) to a hitting province (Saskatchewan) in my first year of peewee, half way through the season. That season I got a pretty bad concussion and separated my collarbone. From watching, the most injuries I saw playing hockey happened in that year and a half I played peewee. It's really got so much to do with the difference in body types between all the kids. Some of the kids haven't hit puberty and are like 5'1 and 95 pounds, while there are also farm boys who are 6'2 and 190 pounds. When you first are allowed to hit you basically go crazy with it, guys don't start smartening up about it usually until Bantam, where there might be one or two loose cannon hitters on teams, but for the most part guys start to learn when to pick and choose their shots.

With that said, that's why I'm in favor of lowering the age of hitting to a age where they are moving at very low speeds, and are all basically the same size. Novice. I know people will give me flak for it, but I'd much rather have kids learn the time to hit and when not to hit when they aren't going at a speed that can permanently mess someone up. Get the sloppy, mistimed hits out of the way, when there is a far less likely chance of severe injury, and then by the time they get to an age where little Billy who's still 5'1 won't be barreled over by Cleatus who has 100 pounds and over a foot on him in a vulnerable position.
Agreed, everyone knows that there is never a bigger difference in size/weight & aggression than in Bantam.Other than HA and apparently pediatricians


Last edited by Bryanbryoil: 05-11-2013 at 03:38 AM. Reason: clean up
Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:28 AM
  #275
goaliedad29
Registered User
 
goaliedad29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 55
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Dead Wrong again!!

The data says Bantam kids in Quebec suffer no greater frequency of injuries or concussions than their Alberta comparables.

I suggest you read the information provided on the Hockey Alberta website. Its pretty clear.
And you should read the actual study and not just what HA posted on their website. The study found that there was a 33% reduction in serious injuries (injuries that required a player to miss 10 or more days) for Alberta bantam players who had learned to body check as peewees as compared to Quebec bantam players who were being introduced to bodychecking for the first time. Although concussion rates were similiar, the overall number of serious injuries was significantly greater for the bantam players in Quebec. I think this does provide some food for thought for those who say that introducing bodychecking at a younger age has no "protective" value as the kids get older, stronger and faster.

goaliedad29 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 01:21 PM.

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.