Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Good points.
I also think that many kids leave hockey early, because they are getting creamed by bigger kids that are the same age. That's why I left hockey around age 12.
If very few of the these players are going to play junior hockey, why do they need to hit at all, knowing what we do about concussions?
Maybe there can be two paths - one with hitting, and a more casual path without.
|
This. 1000%
High level Rep hockey should have contact as all players have the same level of stability on the ice. How stable a kid is on the ice is far more a determinant for injuries than some vague "learning" of how to hit. I don't have the links anymore, but in a previous thread on the issue I provided lots of very clear evidence that peewee kids don't "learn" anything. They just get really hurt. The only case could be made for high level players.
My son recieved three concussions in one season. That was the only season they had hitting here. What did he or the kids who hit him from behind learn? Nothing. My son had bad headaches for 3 months after the last one. I asked myself why he needed to "learn" how to hit as I had been completely for it before. You know what? I couldn't think of a single reason. For kids not playing at a high level, the risk of head injuries is actually VERY high, and I cannot see what benefit is gained. They took hitting out the next year and the votes weren't even close. There were also a few fairly serious neck injuries and around 30% of kids were going to leave the sport of it wasn't taken out