New hand signal for ref's calling new penalties?

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

almostashappy
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Post by almostashappy »

inthestands wrote: I'm not sure what's right or wrong, but the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past. That's just one area of major change. Boxing, Football, Hockey and on and on.. Take a look at professional soccer.. The concussion outlook for that sport is much different than the more "protected" sports we are used to seeing.
There may have been less diagnosed concussions in the past, but that doesn't mean the actual number of brain injuries was lower. Listen to any of the old-timers talking about not missing a shift after their bell was rung. :roll:
puckbreath
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:08 pm

Post by puckbreath »

inthestands wrote:
StanleyCup55 wrote:What if we took the face masks off and even wore less padding? Athletes wear a ton of protection nowadays and there are more injuries than ever. Taking checking out of Pee Wees doesn't help the situation either, unless you're going to get rid of checking at all levels. Kids learning to deliver and take hits at age 14 and 15 instead of 12 or 13... I just think that was a step in the wrong direction to prevent injuries and a step in the right direction towards putting more kids at risk of being severly injured. Or maybe it's the start of abolishing hits for good. In 100 years, the only sport that will exist is golf, but that will probably be considered too dangerous too because you could get hit by a golf ball and die. People just need to man up. If it's too physical for you or your kids, do something else... play basketball. There are plenty of alternatives. The thing I can't understand is why people always feel we should accomidate their needs? If you don't like something the way it is and you don't call the shots, then do something else.
You ask some very good questions.

All sports today are at a much higher speed than 20 years ago. The protection has improved drastically and gives the participants much more confidence.

When hockey players didn't have total face protection, most players had respect for their counterparts as well as themselves. Overall pucks and hits were lower. As the protection increased, so did the aggression.

I'm not sure what's right or wrong, but the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past. That's just one area of major change. Boxing, Football, Hockey and on and on.. Take a look at professional soccer.. The concussion outlook for that sport is much different than the more "protected" sports we are used to seeing.
I would bet the kids are also stronger and bigger themselves.

I'm not sure I'd say the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past.
More of a "weren't nearly as much attention paid to them" vs. a higher number of them today, I believe.

I remember getting a couple concussions, during football practice, when I was in high school.
Saw stars, black, the whole nine yards.

Never even mentioned them to the coach at the time, just kept on practicing.
inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands »

Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
puckbreath
Posts: 692
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:08 pm

Post by puckbreath »

inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
Thin skin, eh ?
inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands »

puckbreath wrote:
inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
Thin skin, eh ?
Not really, just making an observation.
green4
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:02 am
Location: Edina

Post by green4 »

I agree with the aggression aspect with more pads now. I think it has a lot to do with the mental state that they won't get hurt with all that padding. I look at another sport that I play and have a lot of passion for which is rugby as the best way I can prove this. Rugby is a very physical sport but compared to football which I played in high school, you're less likely to get hurt I would say. Having no pads makes people almost hold up for a second before you hit. If you watch a rugby player hit compared to a football player the difference in clear, its much more cautious and way more fundamental. Not that nobody gets hurt in Rugby, as concussions still effect that sport a lot but compared to football its a big difference. I think relating it to hockey all these high end pads that now have harder shells along with bigger kids make them feel like they are invincible.
inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands »

Green4 clarify in my earlier post.
Soccer = rugby
bestpopcorn
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:47 am

Post by bestpopcorn »

inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
Hurt feelings. Even worse than a concussion.
inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands »

bestpopcorn wrote:
inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
Hurt feelings. Even worse than a concussion.
Yes I'll be crying myself to sleep.
Typical forum response I suppose.
Good one!
almostashappy
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Post by almostashappy »

green4 wrote:I agree with the aggression aspect with more pads now. I think it has a lot to do with the mental state that they won't get hurt with all that padding. I look at another sport that I play and have a lot of passion for which is rugby as the best way I can prove this. Rugby is a very physical sport but compared to football which I played in high school, you're less likely to get hurt I would say. Having no pads makes people almost hold up for a second before you hit. If you watch a rugby player hit compared to a football player the difference in clear, its much more cautious and way more fundamental. Not that nobody gets hurt in Rugby, as concussions still effect that sport a lot but compared to football its a big difference. I think relating it to hockey all these high end pads that now have harder shells along with bigger kids make them feel like they are invincible.
I agree with rugby being a useful comparison. The main difference is the fact that the elbows thrown within the scrum travel a whole lot slower than pucks flying face-high.

Oh, and hockey doesn't have the haka. :wink:
StanleyCup55
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:36 am

Post by StanleyCup55 »

inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
I replied to you and I am not an expert. Maybe try to offer some information on why your point is valid before giving up. Otherwise it kind of proves you're wrong. Should we all just apologize to you so you feel better? Do you work at a fast food restaurant?
bestpopcorn
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:47 am

Post by bestpopcorn »

inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
I read back... I can't even figure out where the disagreement is. Inny, are you female?
inthestands
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am

Post by inthestands »

Apologies for the passing cheap shot post. Didn't realize that observation would be taken offense too.

Stanley, although I wasn't specific my reply wasn't pointed in your direction.

Fast food - no

Female - no

Had to leave for a game tonite.
Post Reply