- This topic has 31 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Heh, I was about to go find some evidence to say you are wrong. However most of the reports I found suggest there is a negligible decrease in concussion rates amongst mouthguard wearers:
"http://www.tripanswers.org/answer.aspx?criteria=&tagtrail=/concussion/&qid=753&src=0":p6tjxcvg wrote:A 2002 prospective study recorded dental injuries and concussions among 50 men’s Division I college basketball teams during one competitive season, then compared injury rates between mouthguard users and nonusers. The authors found:?There were no significant differences between mouthguard users and nonusers in rates of concussions (0.35 vs 0.55) or oral soft tissue injuries (0.69 vs 1.06). Mouthguard users had significantly lower rates of dental injuries (0.12 vs 0.67; P < 0.05) and dentist referrals (0.00 vs 0.72; P < 0.05) than nonusers. Custom-fitted mouthguards do not significantly affect rates of concussions or oral soft tissue injuries, but can significantly reduce the morbidity and expense resulting from dental injuries in men's Division I college basketball.?
There is also a 2001 review (4) asks whether mouth guards prevent concussion. The author suggests:?Although many authors claim that mouthguards offer an effective means of preventing concussion and spinal injuries, the evidence for this statement is limited.?[/quote:p6tjxcvg]
This is exactly my point Ryan. That’s why people should get proper mouthguards made. In case you think I’m just making a punt for my dad’s business, let me point out that you can get them made directly at the technician
” title=”Wink” />(Besides, the money a dentist gets from making moulds for mouthguards wouldn’t even cover the electricity needed to keep the lights running for that length of time – it’s hardly a money spinner)
I do wish ice hockey equipment rules made some sort of sense.
If a neck guard is important to protect my son’s neck, why isn’t it important to protect my own?
If a cage is needed for any female player, why don’t all males have to wear one?
If the mouthguard is only there to protect your teeth, why do you have to wear one behind a cage?
People would be more likely to follow them and they’d be easier to enforce if they made consistent sense.
1.) As an adult, you have a say as to what is acceptable risk for you.
2.) Some faces are worth protecting, others…..not so much!
3.) In the absence of definitive proof of not helping prevent concussions, the default of most leagues is, “wear mouthguards”. Plus I can elbow/punch you under the chin with a cage on and your teeth are still at risk.
Yeah and if you are over a certain age you are deemed ugly enough not to have to wear any face protection and you can smash up your face if you want to, cause your’e not much good for procreation anyway.
Theres so many advantages to being older."vpatrol":1ec47uxt wrote:1.) As an adult, you have a say as to what is acceptable risk for you.
[/quote:1ec47uxt]But not as an adult female apparently. And only in a couple of areas as an adult male.
If it made logical sense in some way, that’d be great, but it doesn’t,
Yeah, the IIHF equipment rules are totally screwed. God knows what planet the nutters were on when they came up with some of them. Perhaps some of the rules were added over time due to political pressure and so they’ve turned into the weird concoction of regulations we have now?
They make Juniors wear a neck guard, but yet there is no requirement to wear shin guards, so go figure!
When Kyle and I were writing the DIHA rule book we added in a bunch of extra stuff including compulsory shin guards, elbow pads etc. etc. None of it really matters as you need to be an idiot not to wear that stuff anyway.
"Active":1lno9lvf wrote:Yeah and if you are over a certain age you are deemed ugly enough not to have to wear any face protection and you can smash up your face if you want to, cause your’e not much good for procreation anyway.
Theres so many advantages to being older.
[/quote:1lno9lvf]So for males under 18 it’s okay to procreate and after that you shouldn’t?
"Chris":2ap1tjhu wrote:This is exactly my point Ryan. That’s why people should get proper mouthguards made.[/quote:2ap1tjhu]I don’t think you read the quote I posted above correctly. It says that properly fitted mouthguards don’t help prevent concussions, just jaw and tooth injuries, most of which are avoided with a cage anyway.
I had a good Google around and that was the best data I could find. There were a few other pages I found with similar’ish types of data, but again, they didn’t seem to find any conclusive evidence that mouth guards noticeably reduce concussion rates.
I think that if you were born before a certain year ( 30 something years ago) you are not required to wear face protection. I cant remmember what year but all I know is that I qualify. I have mashed my teeth before with a face guard on by been hit from below in an upwards direction
Ah, you are referring to the IIHF visor rule which is not applicable in New Zealand as visors are compulsory across the board here. I was referring to the full face protection rule which is set to 18 and applies in NZ too.
I think the IIHF rule says if a player is born before 1974 they don’t need to wear a visor.
EDIT: Some clubs in NZ ignore NZIHF regulations and use IIHF rules instead. I know the CIHA used to do this, not sure if they still do or not.
"Active":37e5usxg wrote:I think that if you were born before a certain year ( 30 something years ago) you are not required to wear face protection. I cant remmember what year but all I know is that I qualify. I have mashed my teeth before with a face guard on by been hit from below in an upwards direction
[/quote:37e5usxg]I think that was a political compromise when they bought the visor rule in. Essentially, to stop the current players from revolting, they agreed that the rule would never apply to them, only future players.
"Ryan":37e5usxg wrote:Ah, you are referring to the IIHF visor rule which is not applicable in New Zealand as visors are compulsory across the board here. I was referring to the full face protection rule which is set to 18 and applies in NZ too.
[/quote:37e5usxg]The NZIHF events manual is remarkably unclear on this point:
The IIHF rules regarding safety shall apply, i.e. rule numbers:-
223 -Players Helmet.
During the game and pre-game warm-up, all players must wear a hockey helmet that meets approved international standards, with chin strap properly fastened.
A helmet shall be worn so that the lower edge of the helmet is not more than one finger-width above the eyebrows, and there should only be room between the strap and the chin to insert one finger.224-Players Visor.
Players in Senior Men?s Championship shall wear, as a minimum, a visor that meets approved international standards.
The visor shall extend down to cover the lower edge of the nose.I’d be dubious to interpret that as NZ specific rules, more that it is a bad transcription of the IIHF rules (which we follow).
"Kyle":3o8517de wrote:"vpatrol":3o8517de wrote:1.) As an adult, you have a say as to what is acceptable risk for you.
[/quote:3o8517de]But not as an adult female apparently. And only in a couple of areas as an adult male.
If it made logical sense in some way, that’d be great, but it doesn’t,
[/quote:3o8517de]
well you can lump it into the debate of women contact hockey. women should then also be permitted to fight etc etc. All the rules should change. I’m not sure the rationale for all the female specific rules but if you change one, you should change them all since I imagine the criteria were all influenced by similar arguments.
"vpatrol":3i7nyl8u wrote:women should then also be permitted to fight etc etc.[/quote:3i7nyl8u]I don’t think there is any difference in fighting rules between womens and mens hockey. It’s banned for both sexes and the penalities are identical AFAIK.
I don’t think the treatment of fighting are similar. Ref intervention is a little more proactive in my experience. They jump in very quickly during scuffles. Heavily frowned upon.
"vpatrol":1txg09vt wrote:I don’t think the treatment of fighting are similar. Ref intervention is a little more proactive in my experience. They jump in very quickly during scuffles. Heavily frowned upon.
[/quote:1txg09vt]I don’t think that has anything to do with the rules, that’s just sexist referees I assume.
Plus girls aren’t as scary to get in the middle of brawl with so you could pry them off each other a lot easier.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.