A
Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60063/title/In_youth_hockey,_more_contact_means_more_injuries) story reports on a
Journal of the American Medical Association article on the impact (forgive the pun) of checking on the frequency of concussions in Canadian youth ice hockey leagues. In the late 1980's Quebec banned checking below the 12 year old level, so there is data. The researchers compared 76 Quebec Pee Wee (11-12) teams with 74 Alberta teams, where checking is allowed.
Quote from: Scince NewsThere were 209 injuries, including 73 concussions, during games involving the Alberta players. The Quebec teams, which don't allow checking, suffered 70 game-related injuries, of which 20 were concussions. Doctors verified the injuries. Among the Alberta players, checking was involved in the majority of injuries, the data show.
They did not address the question of whether Quebecois players were less successful at higher levels without the early experience of damaging their opponents' brains.
The rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
Quote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
c.f. Cherry, Don.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
A point which you conveyed through clear and concise English. :-D
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
A point which you conveyed through clear and concise English. :-D
It was at least concise, and I figured, if the sentence was reread, people could see the sentence structure. Oh well. I'll be clearer next time.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean that the usage isn't horrible just like it is in so many news reports.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Reminds me of the old adage that having to explain a joke is like dissecting a frog - sure, you can get inside to see how it works, but it sort of ruins the frog.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Reminds me of the old adage that having to explain a joke is like dissecting a frog - sure, you can get inside to see how it works, but it sort of ruins the frog.
That aphorism has a Cornell pedigree:
Quote from: E.B. WhiteAnalyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.
Quote from: RobbQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Reminds me of the old adage that having to explain a joke is like dissecting a frog - sure, you can get inside to see how it works, but it sort of ruins the frog.
I don't understand that metaphor. Could you explain it?
Quote from: ftyuvQuote from: RobbQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Reminds me of the old adage that having to explain a joke is like dissecting a frog - sure, you can get inside to see how it works, but it sort of ruins the frog.
I don't understand that metaphor. Could you explain it?
It's a simile, not a metaphor.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: ftyuvQuote from: RobbQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Reminds me of the old adage that having to explain a joke is like dissecting a frog - sure, you can get inside to see how it works, but it sort of ruins the frog.
I don't understand that metaphor. Could you explain it?
It's a simile, not a metaphor.
Now look what you've started.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: ftyuvQuote from: RobbQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: ugarteThe rest of the injuries were stick-related because youth hockey leagues do not allow fighting, the report did not say. (I don't even know if Canadian youth hockey bans fighting; it sounds un-Canadian.)
??????
It's a joke, repeating an oft stated opinion about the need for fighting.
I was actually referring to the English, or lack thereof.:-}
Reread it. It scans perfectly for its intended purpose.
Well, did you mean the report did not say if fighting was allowed, or did not say if they were stick related, or both, as was the case. There, how's that for a sentence. ::nut::
I meant to say that it said nothing about fighting or stickwork or the correlation between the two. As KeithK said, it was a joke about the alleged correlation and the people who make it.
Well, that wasn't fun.
Reminds me of the old adage that having to explain a joke is like dissecting a frog - sure, you can get inside to see how it works, but it sort of ruins the frog.
I don't understand that metaphor. Could you explain it?
It's a simile, not a metaphor.
In the same way that "hockey" is a noun, not a word.