[log in to unmask] wrote:
 
<snip>
 
<I have to tell you Adam is right that you keep moving the
<subject around and seem to have a different agenda.
 
I have no other agenda except making information available that is normally
not accessed regarding injury statistics and evaluation.  Mostly, list-hockey
aficionados aren't interested in this topic. My insistence on discussing it
has given me pariah status. This is really the first BIG DISCUSSION in regard
to injuries.
 
How can we discuss the face shield dilemma without including all the
variables? The shield as protection is not independent of other on-ice
variables, all interact on each other. Coaches contend the full is the cause
of poor vision and invincibility, which causes sticks up and more aggressive
play. Yet, in the professional leagues you have a similar increase in above
the shoulder injuries despite the use of half shields or no shields. The
Safety and Standards board who take part in the certification process for
helmets and shields update and scrutinize every time a new product comes out.
Helmets and visors aren't marketable without these certifications. Yet each
carries a warning label that almost nullifies its use. Yet, players wear them
thinking their 100 % protected. However, molded plastic is not the end-all
cause of head and facial injuries. That would be saying injury is solely a
byproduct of protection? No. So, there are other variables that contribute.
 
Also, I'm relaying information that I've researched which includes different
aspects of the injury equation. When looking at the total picture.. half
versus full, you can't leave out anything that affects the outcome (injury).
So, I'm talking about interrelated causation. When speaking about shields,
which are certainly new to the sport, there are lots of unknowns. They have
less history, hence less evaluation. When you talk about facial protection,
should we eliminate the discussion of concussions, when we know they can
occur from a knock to the chin?
 
<It's the old story. There's lies, damn lies and statistics.
 
I don't buy this line 100%.
 
If we refute studies as lies, and statistics as untrustworthy, how can we
ever ascertain what aspects of the game or the equipment need to be changed?
 
In a phone conversation with DR. William Roberts, of MinnHealth SportsCare,
here in Minneapolis, he wished me luck on my www site and relayed the tough
battle the medical profession fights trying to eliminate serious injuries
when working with hockey proponents. One is pitted against the other. I can
see your point of view. From you're sight-line, you certainly have the type
of expertise that affords you a different perspective, one which is possibly
not shared by the medical expert. Interestingly, Dr. Roberts played hockey
and loves the sport; he's not anti-hockey by any means.
 
In the study it says: "It is vitally important to the sport that the penalty
for a check from behind is assessed when appropriate. For this to happen, the
officials will need support of the governing bodies, players, coaches and
fans. It may also be necessary to make checking from behind a game
misconduct."
 
Do you think this is out-of-line? Without cooperation, improvements in rule
enforcement or equipment safety won't happen.
 
 
>And personally, I don't like the full sheet in college.  Frankly, the skill
level just isn't there. And it's dropping. I can go to sleep anytime I want
watching the Gophers against CC on one of those lakes.
 
The smaller ice surface makes for a more physical game. Closer quarters mean
more collisions. The game (pro) didn't start out with 250 pound, 6 ft 4 inch
players. I believe the average height and weight now is somewhere above 6 ft
and 200 pounds. Players in the beginnings, the twenties, the depression, the
war years certainly smaller, didn't have the skates or the speed of today's
players, nor the body weight. More speed, more weight and you get HARDER
COLLISIONS. Those are all variables that have to be taken into consideration.
 
 
<We are presently investigating head injuries. Frankly, the initial
conclusion as to why "concussions" are up so much in recent years is because
of a major change in the way they are diagnosed in the last 10 years.
 
Yes, concussions went undiagnosed and untreated. Over all it's a more health
conscious world we live in. Remember when cigarettes didn't have warning
labels and everyone smoked. Remember the great fighters of this century and
how most succumbed to diseases linked to brain damage. The American Academy
of Neurology, I believe has put a ban on boxing. Remember your own biker days
as a kid.. on training wheels maybe.. without a helmet. Today, every youthful
two-wheeler, with or without training wheels wears one.
 
I'm scaring you know, aren't I?
 
 
Dr. Robert's study sites these mechanisms as causing the following injuries.
A full shield was worn by 273 male players, less than 20 years of age in a
test study:
 
Injury                  Cause
 
Concussion              Checks from behind
Jaw Laceration          Illegal elbow
foot contusion          Puck
Chest contusion and     Check from behind
clavicle fracture
 
Facial laceration       Legal check, inadequate
                        equipment (poor helmet fit)
concussion              Grabbed by helmet and thrown into the
                        boards
 
Draw your own conclusions. Remember, that I'm not presenting information that
only subscribes to the use of half shields. I'm throwing out everything that
is relevant to understanding that neither affords PERFECT PROTECTION. But,
does one offer better protection than the other? According to the statements
I quoted in another post, a helmet, full face shield and mouthguard didn't
stop Moreau of Wisconsin from having several serious concussions. So, then we
have to talk about infractions, officiating and the playing field (boards and
glass). Regarding Moreau's concussions, I don't know the particulars as to
causation.
 
 
<It's how the violence happens.
 
Tell me how does it happen in your view?
 
<Have a nice memorial day, and keep your head up...it's the best way to avoid
a concussion! (-:
 
USA hockey says: Be "Headsafe", by being "Headsmart."
 
The Concussion Free Zone at
http://www.violentcontact.net says,
Brainwork it; don't brainknock it.
 
(-:
 
 
Vicki
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.