> < What exactly are you talking about when you say "FACTS"?
>
> Here are some facts, not fictionalized notions, not retaliatory slams, not
> ignorance or irreverence to life or career threatening injuries,
> and not mean spirited unconstructiveness.
 
People can do funny things with facts. ... Most of what you mention is
 
a) anecdotal evidence
b) could solely be due to better reporting and recognizing of injuries - as
is even implied in one of the paragraphs - not a higher increase of violence
c) irrelevant to our original discussion.
 
 
> *The Arizona Republic reported: In the 1998 season, two-thirds
> of the Coyotes' No. 1 lines were sidelined. The season before
> Washington lost 368 man-games to injury.
 
What's the point?  How does this compare to 20 years ago? And not just
anecdotally, and also taking into account how much the players sit out with
minor injuries that they wouldn't used to have sat out for.
 
And the original point was based on whether or not half-shields reduce
injuries in the long term ... which none of your citations address
whatsoever.
 
You want to twist facts ... here you go:  20 years ago, A LOT less players
wore helmets in the NHL ... now they do.  20 years ago, there was A LOT less
injuries, according to your assertions.
 
Therefore:
 
No helmets = less injuries
 
There's a logic leap for you ... though many would actually agree.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.