Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The problem with the current non contact leagues is the skill level is quite poor and that has to do with the peer pressure dynamics that only wussy kids play in the pansy league. This idea that not having kids hit eachother is the panzification of hockey is the attitude that needs to be changed. Watch parents at hockey games and there are parents who want there kids to hurt other kids.
If your argument is why make kids wait to play contact why isn't there a campaign to lower the age bodychecking is introduced? Why is pee wee the perfect age not higher not lower. I agree that with you that the results from this change need to be monitored for 5 or 6 years to see the real affects of the change. Following the studies is what should be done and right now biased or not that study is the best we have. If someone wants to take the same dataset and re-analyse it at comes to different conclusions I would be all for it and if that data showed that hitting in pee-wee reduced injuries in bantam then re-open the discussion but based on the available data we have right now it supports moving the hitting age up.
I suspect over the next 10 years football will be changing. As more and more concussion research is showing that small non-concussion causing hits have a negative cumulative affect you will see a move to limit these types of hits in youth football. Football also will never be the leader as it is even more driven by male ego culture and the dream of playing pro than hockey is.
|
I think if you ask most people involved in the actual playing of the sport you would have a large group who wants this. At least thats my experience.
And to your point about the standard of skill in the non-contact leagues and the wussy stigma it has, thats the choice they are left with. No one is making the kids participate (hopefully) and no one is forcing parents to put their kids in contact sports. There are alternatives for people who want to play without contact, if they want to complain about the level of play well, I don't really know what to say. Things can't be catered to fit every single persons needs and wants. You want to play competitve hockey? You're going to be hit. If you don't want to be hit, then don't play competitive hockey. But then you can't complain that the non-contact isn't competitive enough for you. We can't put a pillow on everything to make it safe, the risk is part of the fun.
Lets look at something like snowboarding, where people of all skill levels play on the same surface (the hill). Is it dangerous? Absolutely, but a lot of that depends on how hard you want to go at it. Now imagine if you have ski hills start implementing rules where you can't go off jumps, or you can't go through the trees, or the hills can only be so steep. Does it not seem ridiculous to take those things out because a few people bit off more than they could chew and got hurt, and are now complaining about it?
I've said before, the risks are very clearly laid out for all those who participate in contact hockey. If it doesn't appeal to you there are plenty of other, less physically demanding sports. I have nagging injuries from when I played minor hockey. I have consistent back pain and a permanently messed wrist from different injuries. Do I blame hockey or the people that hit me in those situations? No. Its what happens when you play a contact sport (or really any sport) at a competitive level. I'd never take it back.