Adam said:
"Therefore:
 
No helmets = less injuries
 
There's a logic leap for you ... though many would actually agree."
 
If this is logical or not, and whether one would agree or not, depends on what
you see as the cause of injuries. Some (not to mention Vicki by name) think
that a lack of technology is the cause of injuries, and so the solution is
more and better technology. Those who favor technology fixes are very common,
and usually believe it is possible to eliminate injuries. The other potential
cause of injuries is human behavior. To reduce injuries, one needs to affect
the incentives people face before they act. SOME of those in this group
(goalie Lisko and myself), believe that players are better policing themselves
rather than having technology or referees or anyone (-thing) else do the
policing. Therefore, no helmets = less injuries is perfectly logical if
people's behavior changes dramatically enough with helmets.
 
Nathan Eric Hampton
 
 
p.s.
Here are some facts, ... If you look beyond your nose these articles can
be found in most magazines and newspapers. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU LET
YOUR NOSE DO YOUR TALKING.
 
Do not, in any way, base research on magazines and newspapers. The latter are
written to sell -- to a buying public that loves sensationalization and
extremism. Research is not.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.