concussion
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
concussion
I thought i would put this out their to all. Concussion - shock or jarring from a blow. they have special helmets to help avoid this problem. my eyes have been opened latley to the real dangers of this injury and just how easy it can happen. i always use to say the skates are a hockey players most important piece of equipment but their a distant second to a good helmet. so to my fellow hockey board members go get a good helmet for your son or daughter thats made to prevent concussions their out there. my boy was wearing a bauer 8000.
-
gerryodrowski
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:35 am
- Location: Trout Creek Ontario
concussion
Watchdog - I agree that a good helmet is very important. However, no one can claim that their helmet can prevent concussions. They can simply engineer their product to do the best job possible of absorbing or dissipating the impact of a blow to the head. A concussion is the result of the brain slamming into the inside of the skull. One may even sustain a concussion without direct head impact at all. Rotational forces including whiplash can result in concussion. Buy your kids the best helmet you can afford, make sure they wear their mouthguard, educate yourself on the symptoms of concussion, be vigilant and allow your player plenty of time to heal in the event of a concussion. Good luck to your boy Watchdog.
what many fail to realize, in regard to concussions, is that a good mouth guard will go a long way in helping minimizing some concussions. I know they enforce the mouth guard policy pretty well in D6 youth hockey.
The high school level allows way too much discretion in how players utilize mouth guards. My son thinks it's a pc. of gum the way he cuts them down and then chews them up
All helmets need to meet a certain standard of safety in regard to protection that is established on a national basis. Adding and properly using a good mouth guard adds additional protection
The high school level allows way too much discretion in how players utilize mouth guards. My son thinks it's a pc. of gum the way he cuts them down and then chews them up
All helmets need to meet a certain standard of safety in regard to protection that is established on a national basis. Adding and properly using a good mouth guard adds additional protection
fighting all who rob or plunder
Explain to me how this can be done easily, from the stands??? Most players that I know either chew it, let it hang in their mouth, and some don't even wear one at all, which they aren't legally allowed to do by USA Hockey rules but where I'm from I haven't seen too many refs worrying about itmake sure they wear their mouthguard,
stud-lee wrote:Explain to me how this can be done easily, from the stands??? Most players that I know either chew it, let it hang in their mouth, and some don't even wear one at all, which they aren't legally allowed to do by USA Hockey rules but where I'm from I haven't seen too many refs worrying about itmake sure they wear their mouthguard,
I know the MSHSL officials are going to be monitoring it very very closely. It was brought up by the officials at the rules meetings. Maybe the youth ranks will take it equally as serious and take care of that problem. As for the helmets, there are other things that cause concussions as well. Improper technique of checking by one player (hands get high, in the face) may lead to a concussion for the other. Part of this problem is coaching from Peewees and Bantams coaches on properly giving and taking a check.
Actually the way they changed the mouthguard rule will make it even easier for players to not wear them at all. The requirement that mouthguards be attached to the helmet was deleted, in addition officials are now required to warn teams prior to administration of a penalty.
From first hand experiance most times you can't tell if a player even has a mouthguard or not unless it was attached. All this rule change did was make it so it doesn't look so bad when kids are skating around with their mouthguard in their earpiece or hanging between the mouth and the cage. It takes the onus off the officials both technically and liability wise. Football has gone the complete other way with mouthguards and made them not only mandatory but also in a color other than white or clear and it's a personal foul for not having one.
Bottom line is unless the coach enforces the mouthguard rule nobody will.
From first hand experiance most times you can't tell if a player even has a mouthguard or not unless it was attached. All this rule change did was make it so it doesn't look so bad when kids are skating around with their mouthguard in their earpiece or hanging between the mouth and the cage. It takes the onus off the officials both technically and liability wise. Football has gone the complete other way with mouthguards and made them not only mandatory but also in a color other than white or clear and it's a personal foul for not having one.
Bottom line is unless the coach enforces the mouthguard rule nobody will.
D6 requires both tethered mouth guards as well as throat gaurds...It is easy to see and enforce. Had a scrimage between D6 and D10, threw 2 D10 players off the ice for not having mouth guards, they came back with mouth guards in. One had to go to the locker room. It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.goldy313 wrote:Actually the way they changed the mouthguard rule will make it even easier for players to not wear them at all. The requirement that mouthguards be attached to the helmet was deleted, in addition officials are now required to warn teams prior to administration of a penalty.
From first hand experiance most times you can't tell if a player even has a mouthguard or not unless it was attached. All this rule change did was make it so it doesn't look so bad when kids are skating around with their mouthguard in their earpiece or hanging between the mouth and the cage. It takes the onus off the officials both technically and liability wise. Football has gone the complete other way with mouthguards and made them not only mandatory but also in a color other than white or clear and it's a personal foul for not having one.
Bottom line is unless the coach enforces the mouthguard rule nobody will.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. Do us all a favor and make a kid wear a tethered mouth guard so the game doesn't need to be stopped to get the hot dog tongs out and pull the mouth guard out of a kids throat. It gets slippery and gross.
-
6ampractice
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:14 pm
hiptzech wrote:
"It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. "
My player received a 10 minute penalty last season for not wearing his mouthgaurd, and had to sit the last 10 min. of a very close game. That is all it took for him, I found the ref after the game and thanked him, as far as I was concerned, the best penalty he ever received. I think if the refs really crack down on this (not to say that it easy to do) that would go a very long way. An annoying penalty today, could prevent seriuos injury tomorrow.
"It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. "
My player received a 10 minute penalty last season for not wearing his mouthgaurd, and had to sit the last 10 min. of a very close game. That is all it took for him, I found the ref after the game and thanked him, as far as I was concerned, the best penalty he ever received. I think if the refs really crack down on this (not to say that it easy to do) that would go a very long way. An annoying penalty today, could prevent seriuos injury tomorrow.
You are wrong, the official gives a warning to the team first, then a misconduct to individual players. The mouthguard also has to be non-clear. Here is the rule from the USA Hockey rulebook:hiptzech wrote:D6 requires both tethered mouth guards as well as throat gaurds...It is easy to see and enforce. Had a scrimage between D6 and D10, threw 2 D10 players off the ice for not having mouth guards, they came back with mouth guards in. One had to go to the locker room. It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.goldy313 wrote:Actually the way they changed the mouthguard rule will make it even easier for players to not wear them at all. The requirement that mouthguards be attached to the helmet was deleted, in addition officials are now required to warn teams prior to administration of a penalty.
From first hand experiance most times you can't tell if a player even has a mouthguard or not unless it was attached. All this rule change did was make it so it doesn't look so bad when kids are skating around with their mouthguard in their earpiece or hanging between the mouth and the cage. It takes the onus off the officials both technically and liability wise. Football has gone the complete other way with mouthguards and made them not only mandatory but also in a color other than white or clear and it's a personal foul for not having one.
Bottom line is unless the coach enforces the mouthguard rule nobody will.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. Do us all a favor and make a kid wear a tethered mouth guard so the game doesn't need to be stopped to get the hot dog tongs out and pull the mouth guard out of a kids throat. It gets slippery and gross.
(c) All players, including goalkeepers, in the Pee Wee through
Midget (including High School) and in the Girls/Women
12 & under through 19 & under age classifications are
required to wear a colored (nonclear) internal mouthpiece
that covers all the remaining teeth of one jaw, customarily
the upper.
For the first violation of this rule, the team shall be issued
a warning. A misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any
player or goalkeeper of that team for a subsequent violation
during that game.It is strongly recommended, in all classifications, that all
players wear a mouthpiece form fitted by a dentist.
The only time the official can do anything about the mouthguard NOT being used is at a face off while play is at a stop. If the mouthguard becomes dislodged, chewed on or spit out, the play can not stop. They can not penalisze a player for losing the mouthguard during play. They need to check all players before the puck is dropped.
You are actually wrong in the way you are looking at this. The thinking is that the players will not want to have a mouth guard attatched, therefore it will have to be in their mouth or they will be considered as not having one. The ref sees one player, he warns both benches as well as talking about it during pre game.goldy313 wrote:Actually the way they changed the mouthguard rule will make it even easier for players to not wear them at all. The requirement that mouthguards be attached to the helmet was deleted, in addition officials are now required to warn teams prior to administration of a penalty.
To add to this, Minnesota Hockey also requires all squirts and girls 10-U to wear mouth guards as well. It is on top of the above rule that USA hockey has put out.RLStars wrote:You are wrong, the official gives a warning to the team first, then a misconduct to individual players. The mouthguard also has to be non-clear. Here is the rule from the USA Hockey rulebook:hiptzech wrote:D6 requires both tethered mouth guards as well as throat gaurds...It is easy to see and enforce. Had a scrimage between D6 and D10, threw 2 D10 players off the ice for not having mouth guards, they came back with mouth guards in. One had to go to the locker room. It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.goldy313 wrote:Actually the way they changed the mouthguard rule will make it even easier for players to not wear them at all. The requirement that mouthguards be attached to the helmet was deleted, in addition officials are now required to warn teams prior to administration of a penalty.
From first hand experiance most times you can't tell if a player even has a mouthguard or not unless it was attached. All this rule change did was make it so it doesn't look so bad when kids are skating around with their mouthguard in their earpiece or hanging between the mouth and the cage. It takes the onus off the officials both technically and liability wise. Football has gone the complete other way with mouthguards and made them not only mandatory but also in a color other than white or clear and it's a personal foul for not having one.
Bottom line is unless the coach enforces the mouthguard rule nobody will.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. Do us all a favor and make a kid wear a tethered mouth guard so the game doesn't need to be stopped to get the hot dog tongs out and pull the mouth guard out of a kids throat. It gets slippery and gross.
(c) All players, including goalkeepers, in the Pee Wee through
Midget (including High School) and in the Girls/Women
12 & under through 19 & under age classifications are
required to wear a colored (nonclear) internal mouthpiece
that covers all the remaining teeth of one jaw, customarily
the upper.
For the first violation of this rule, the team shall be issued
a warning. A misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any
player or goalkeeper of that team for a subsequent violation
during that game.It is strongly recommended, in all classifications, that all
players wear a mouthpiece form fitted by a dentist.
The only time the official can do anything about the mouthguard NOT being used is at a face off while play is at a stop. If the mouthguard becomes dislodged, chewed on or spit out, the play can not stop. They can not penalisze a player for losing the mouthguard during play. They need to check all players before the puck is dropped.
From the District 6 PoliciesRLStars wrote:You are wrong, the official gives a warning to the team first, then a misconduct to individual players. The mouthguard also has to be non-clear. Here is the rule from the USA Hockey rulebook:hiptzech wrote:D6 requires both tethered mouth guards as well as throat gaurds...It is easy to see and enforce. Had a scrimage between D6 and D10, threw 2 D10 players off the ice for not having mouth guards, they came back with mouth guards in. One had to go to the locker room. It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.goldy313 wrote:Actually the way they changed the mouthguard rule will make it even easier for players to not wear them at all. The requirement that mouthguards be attached to the helmet was deleted, in addition officials are now required to warn teams prior to administration of a penalty.
From first hand experiance most times you can't tell if a player even has a mouthguard or not unless it was attached. All this rule change did was make it so it doesn't look so bad when kids are skating around with their mouthguard in their earpiece or hanging between the mouth and the cage. It takes the onus off the officials both technically and liability wise. Football has gone the complete other way with mouthguards and made them not only mandatory but also in a color other than white or clear and it's a personal foul for not having one.
Bottom line is unless the coach enforces the mouthguard rule nobody will.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. Do us all a favor and make a kid wear a tethered mouth guard so the game doesn't need to be stopped to get the hot dog tongs out and pull the mouth guard out of a kids throat. It gets slippery and gross.
(c) All players, including goalkeepers, in the Pee Wee through
Midget (including High School) and in the Girls/Women
12 & under through 19 & under age classifications are
required to wear a colored (nonclear) internal mouthpiece
that covers all the remaining teeth of one jaw, customarily
the upper.
For the first violation of this rule, the team shall be issued
a warning. A misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any
player or goalkeeper of that team for a subsequent violation
during that game.It is strongly recommended, in all classifications, that all
players wear a mouthpiece form fitted by a dentist.
The only time the official can do anything about the mouthguard NOT being used is at a face off while play is at a stop. If the mouthguard becomes dislodged, chewed on or spit out, the play can not stop. They can not penalisze a player for losing the mouthguard during play. They need to check all players before the puck is dropped.
13.1.5 All players, including goaltenders, are required to wear a tethered colored (non-clear) mouthpiece, which covers all the remaining teeth of one jaw. Non-compliance with this rule is a 10-minute misconduct penalty for a player’s first offense in a game and a game misconduct for the player’s second penalty in a game.
Like I said the warning is handled as a courtesy, and I have never seen a misconduct handed out for it. Some refs like the idea of the mouthguard not being tethered and others like them tethered. If the mouth gaurd is not tethered they have to keep it in their mouth, if it is tethered they have a tendancy to let it sit in their face mask. My preferrence is the tethered mouth guard, I an interested in attempting to save a life with parents, players and coaches look on...
Done splitting hairs on that one...
It doesn't take much does it. I bet the time went even slower for mom and dad sitting in the stands. They planned a family outing to the local sporting goods store...6ampractice wrote:hiptzech wrote:
"It is obvious when they don't have their mouth guard in, if you don't know you ask. There is no requirement to warn anybody, it is a 10 min misconduct. The warning is a curtiousy not a requirement.
Parents have just as much responsibility as the coaches and officials. "
My player received a 10 minute penalty last season for not wearing his mouthgaurd, and had to sit the last 10 min. of a very close game. That is all it took for him, I found the ref after the game and thanked him, as far as I was concerned, the best penalty he ever received. I think if the refs really crack down on this (not to say that it easy to do) that would go a very long way. An annoying penalty today, could prevent seriuos injury tomorrow.
What district where you in?
ref and hiptzech - I do think the requirement for neck guards on goalies needs to be reviewed. Last year my son was kicked off the ice and told to change into a players neck guard. Also they did so 5 minutes into the game so the pre-game review and notification did not happen.
He was wearing a certified padded goalie neck guard. Problem according to the rules it didn't completely cover the back of the neck.
A skater's neck guard is typically no more than a thick pc of cloth and offers far less protection for a goalie than what he was forced to take off.
My wife sewed and incorporated the skater neck guard and the goalie neck guard into a one pc unit. We still ended having to bring a skater only neck guard because we had a few referees in D6 that didn't want us using the "new" neck guard because we had altered it.
I know safety is the number one concern but it seemed like common sense in the application to the goalies was not applied
He was wearing a certified padded goalie neck guard. Problem according to the rules it didn't completely cover the back of the neck.
A skater's neck guard is typically no more than a thick pc of cloth and offers far less protection for a goalie than what he was forced to take off.
My wife sewed and incorporated the skater neck guard and the goalie neck guard into a one pc unit. We still ended having to bring a skater only neck guard because we had a few referees in D6 that didn't want us using the "new" neck guard because we had altered it.
I know safety is the number one concern but it seemed like common sense in the application to the goalies was not applied
fighting all who rob or plunder
Curious as to whether this was at the high school or youth level and if D6 has different rules towards neck protection for goaltenders that go beyond the USA Hockey rule book at the youth level. As far as I know, they are recommended, but not required for players or goalkeepers. At the high school level however, two forms of throat protection are required and one cannot be the built in throat protection of the chest protecter. I guess I'd need a little more info or perhaps Hiptzech can pick up whatever I might be missing.tomASS wrote:ref and hiptzech - I do think the requirement for neck guards on goalies needs to be reviewed. Last year my son was kicked off the ice and told to change into a players neck guard. Also they did so 5 minutes into the game so the pre-game review and notification did not happen.
He was wearing a certified padded goalie neck guard. Problem according to the rules it didn't completely cover the back of the neck.
A skater's neck guard is typically no more than a thick pc of cloth and offers far less protection for a goalie than what he was forced to take off.
My wife sewed and incorporated the skater neck guard and the goalie neck guard into a one pc unit. We still ended having to bring a skater only neck guard because we had a few referees in D6 that didn't want us using the "new" neck guard because we had altered it.
I know safety is the number one concern but it seemed like common sense in the application to the goalies was not applied
From the District 6 Policy Manual:tomASS wrote:ref and hiptzech - I do think the requirement for neck guards on goalies needs to be reviewed. Last year my son was kicked off the ice and told to change into a players neck guard. Also they did so 5 minutes into the game so the pre-game review and notification did not happen.
He was wearing a certified padded goalie neck guard. Problem according to the rules it didn't completely cover the back of the neck.
A skater's neck guard is typically no more than a thick pc of cloth and offers far less protection for a goalie than what he was forced to take off.
My wife sewed and incorporated the skater neck guard and the goalie neck guard into a one pc unit. We still ended having to bring a skater only neck guard because we had a few referees in D6 that didn't want us using the "new" neck guard because we had altered it.
I know safety is the number one concern but it seemed like common sense in the application to the goalies was not applied
13.1.6 Properly fitted, hockey designed, neck/throat protection is required for all players, including goaltenders, except Junior Gold and 16U. Non-compliance with this rule is a 10-minute misconduct penalty. Neck/throat protection must be worn for ALL games, scrimmages and practices.
Although this rule appears to need further definition is does an adequate job of the intent of the guard. The protected area is not just the throat but for the neck as a whole. The padding is not as critical as the fact that there is something in between the skin and the blade. The neck guard is there to prevent lacerations, not padding from pucks or sticks. The guard needs to be an approved piece of equipment, not home made. Liabilities… One additional change to the D6 rule this year. There is a shirt with a built in throat protector that has been approved. At this point I do not know the name of the manufacturer, Canadian Hockey has approved it and apparently that is good enough for D6. I will need to research the name of the manufacturer.
With regard to your comment about the necessity of the rule, I disagree with you. I don’t write the rules, and this is definitely a rule that I would not re-write or eliminate. As with my comment regarding the mouth guard and the hot dog tongs, I am not interested in attempting to save the life of a player with a lacerated neck. A friend of mine that played goalie as a junior was stepped on and had his neck cut open. Fortunately, he is alive today and I will hopefully be drinking beers with him on November 11th that accident happened in 1984. At any rate, again I disagree.
Its real simple D6 has put a couple rules in place in an effort to make the game safer for the player. The cost of these safety measures in minimal in financial cost and performance. The gains far outweigh the losses.
I am surprised a parent of a goalie would be making such a comment. When you look at the position that goalies are in and all of the activity around them they are the ones that need it the most. These guys are focused on nothing but getting the puck under control, they are padded and protected everywhere but the backs of the legs and the neck with bare skin exposed. They will do virtually anything to stop the puck, the last thing they think about is where the padding is. Think about the Gopher vs. Mankato game last year.
Published December 02, 2006 01:19 am - The starting goaltender was gone, and a three-goal lead was lost.
Minnesota State’s starting goalie, Dan Tormey, appeared to be getting some of the mojo from his rookie season back and stopped 17 of 18 shots over the game’s first 30 minutes. But at the 10:31 mark of the second period, with Minnesota on the power play, Gophers forward Blake Wheeler crashed skate-first into Tormey and sliced a long, deep cut above the goalie’s left thumb. A tendon was severed, and he will need surgery.
There is a lot of padding with the glove and arm pads there, good thing he was hit where he was…Just a thought.
Brown is/was the manufacturer of the shirt/guard combo you speak about and also was the maker of the goalie neck guard he was wearing last year. It was approved and sanctioned by all governing bodies except District 6 because of a 2"exposure of skin on the back of the neck.
The reason a goalie parent would bring this up
1) a goalie product manufacturer probably has a greater sense of the safety of a product and what safety is required in the position than D6 would. They have greater liability issues as a manufacturer - most companies are required to carry 2-5 mil worth of liability to sell the product via retail
2) The only thing homemade about the pc was the fact it combine both sanctioned and improved guards into a one pc unit. If the most important element is a pc of material between skin and skate than this more than did the trick.
3) you know goalies -they are a peculiar breed and like to have a consistent feel to the equipment they are wearing.
4) I probably have a far great sense for my child's safety than D6 does
5) lack of a consistent rule across the state
6) if you want to talk about safety then as a referee you also need to be aware of the play around the crease . I know you need to see the completion of a play and make sure that the continued movement of the puck is not blown dead too quickly (or at least that is what it seems in many instances) but when you lose sight of the puck you are suppose to blow the play dead? When a goalie covers the puck with his glove is it not then out of sight? I have seen more sticks come up to the neck or throat when a puck is covered because of the ensuing battle in front.
I am not trying to be combative, your posts are highly informational and I enjoying hearing your perspective. I have never refereed hockey but did soccer for over 35 years so I know it is not easy. I'm just looking for consistency of application
ref - looked at the comparison chart for neck guards in HS - required as is mouthguards - I have seen very few players complying with the HS rules thus my confusion
The reason a goalie parent would bring this up
1) a goalie product manufacturer probably has a greater sense of the safety of a product and what safety is required in the position than D6 would. They have greater liability issues as a manufacturer - most companies are required to carry 2-5 mil worth of liability to sell the product via retail
2) The only thing homemade about the pc was the fact it combine both sanctioned and improved guards into a one pc unit. If the most important element is a pc of material between skin and skate than this more than did the trick.
3) you know goalies -they are a peculiar breed and like to have a consistent feel to the equipment they are wearing.
4) I probably have a far great sense for my child's safety than D6 does
5) lack of a consistent rule across the state
6) if you want to talk about safety then as a referee you also need to be aware of the play around the crease . I know you need to see the completion of a play and make sure that the continued movement of the puck is not blown dead too quickly (or at least that is what it seems in many instances) but when you lose sight of the puck you are suppose to blow the play dead? When a goalie covers the puck with his glove is it not then out of sight? I have seen more sticks come up to the neck or throat when a puck is covered because of the ensuing battle in front.
I am not trying to be combative, your posts are highly informational and I enjoying hearing your perspective. I have never refereed hockey but did soccer for over 35 years so I know it is not easy. I'm just looking for consistency of application
ref - looked at the comparison chart for neck guards in HS - required as is mouthguards - I have seen very few players complying with the HS rules thus my confusion
fighting all who rob or plunder
-
whockeyguy
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:56 pm
lets see , a goalie that is laying around the ice at the level of skates the major part of the time and at a time whan nobody is concerned about him or his whereabouts,,, WHY in the world wouldnt anybody want the goalie to have the most protection available, It should MANDITORY for all goalies to have the neck gaurd on at all times, and no the plastic throat protector doesnt cover anything except the shot of the puck,, all it would take for some of these players and or parents is to see one cut player in the neck and thier thinking would change for ever
I have no problem with it being mandatory. I absolutely agree it should be worn. But I can guarantee you that goalie specific one did a better job of protecting the overall safety of the player than a pc. of cloth. If skates can cut through the material in the glove or blocker with ease - simple 3 ply cotton material offers very little protection for what you and the others are describing.whockeyguy wrote:lets see , a goalie that is laying around the ice at the level of skates the major part of the time and at a time whan nobody is concerned about him or his whereabouts,,, WHY in the world wouldnt anybody want the goalie to have the most protection available, It should MANDITORY for all goalies to have the neck gaurd on at all times, and no the plastic throat protector doesnt cover anything except the shot of the puck,, all it would take for some of these players and or parents is to see one cut player in the neck and thier thinking would change for ever
Why isn't there consistency?
fighting all who rob or plunder
TomASS,
Sorry it took so long, the home computer is out of commission. I did some checking on the topic of throat guards, from the D6 perspective. I agree with you, with regard to the safety features built into goalie equipment. I miss-understood your position regarding the throat protection requirement. I am clear where you stand, sorry for the confusion. With regard to the D6 requirement, other than the current Velcro throat guards, the emblem that you need to look for is BNQ (link to site, to view label: http://www.scc.ca/Asset/iu_images/BNQ-typo.gif ). The letters BNQ needs to be in place, this is like the UL, or CSA standards. For legal purposes, if the equipment in modified like yours was, the certification is void. Modifying any equipment, can nullify the certification of any equipment thus leaving the equipment manufacturer held harmless in any claims.
This topic was brought up during the annual D6 refs meeting this past fall, and I believe it is a modification from past years. I believe they are trying to put more flexibility into the requirements. If a player is challenged because the equipment doesn’t appear to be the norm, however the equipment has the BNQ, I would suggest pointing this out to the ref in a tactful manner. Again, this is new to the D6 refs so they may need a gentle reminder.
Furthermore on this topic, it sounds like there are plenty of parents out there complaining about the requirement put in place for throat guards. This is a hot topic, and will actually be discussed this evening at the D6 meeting. I would encourage anyone of interested (for or against) to voice your opinions to their D6 reps, today if possible. I did several games over this past weekend with a great deal of teams from outside of D6, I was impressed to see that approx. 50% of the players from outside the district where wearing throat guards, this alone sends a clear message to me. These players, and parents obviously see the benefits gained by utilizing throat protection without any requirements to adhere to their use.
Hope this post has been helpful. Have a great, and safe season.
Sorry it took so long, the home computer is out of commission. I did some checking on the topic of throat guards, from the D6 perspective. I agree with you, with regard to the safety features built into goalie equipment. I miss-understood your position regarding the throat protection requirement. I am clear where you stand, sorry for the confusion. With regard to the D6 requirement, other than the current Velcro throat guards, the emblem that you need to look for is BNQ (link to site, to view label: http://www.scc.ca/Asset/iu_images/BNQ-typo.gif ). The letters BNQ needs to be in place, this is like the UL, or CSA standards. For legal purposes, if the equipment in modified like yours was, the certification is void. Modifying any equipment, can nullify the certification of any equipment thus leaving the equipment manufacturer held harmless in any claims.
This topic was brought up during the annual D6 refs meeting this past fall, and I believe it is a modification from past years. I believe they are trying to put more flexibility into the requirements. If a player is challenged because the equipment doesn’t appear to be the norm, however the equipment has the BNQ, I would suggest pointing this out to the ref in a tactful manner. Again, this is new to the D6 refs so they may need a gentle reminder.
Furthermore on this topic, it sounds like there are plenty of parents out there complaining about the requirement put in place for throat guards. This is a hot topic, and will actually be discussed this evening at the D6 meeting. I would encourage anyone of interested (for or against) to voice your opinions to their D6 reps, today if possible. I did several games over this past weekend with a great deal of teams from outside of D6, I was impressed to see that approx. 50% of the players from outside the district where wearing throat guards, this alone sends a clear message to me. These players, and parents obviously see the benefits gained by utilizing throat protection without any requirements to adhere to their use.
Hope this post has been helpful. Have a great, and safe season.
tomASS, I agree with your post concerning the goalie gear. what seemed apparent though was the hypocracy of your post. You are the first person to tell people that if they are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem. You know that the neck guard was not compliant with the rules. If you are not going to petition or request that D6 change it's rules, then don't complain about them. If everyone made changes to their equipment because they think their child will be safer, where will it end. Instead of taking it upon yourself to make your own rules, maybe you should work to get the rules changed. Your motto should be "do as I say, don't do as I do."