Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Might be hard to totally quantify but this would indicate that helmets have had no effect on the number of concussions with the use of helmets while skiing.
He said his research had not found any decline in what he called P.S.H.I.’s, for potentially serious head injuries, a classification that includes concussion, skull fracture, closed head injury, traumatic brain injury and death by head injury.
[Sigh]. No it doesn't. Without factoring number of skier/boarder man hours, average speeds, prevalence of tree skiing, park skiing, and jumping, etc, etc--the raw number of injuries is meaningless. Another factor that has to be considered is the increased interest and concern with sports head injuries, which will result in increasing numbers of injuries being reported--injuries that in the past would not have been reported. Football is a great example of this. In any given week there are a number of players out of action because of concussions. Twenty years ago how many do you think there would have been--zero or close to it, because nobody paid any attention to concussions, they just kept playing. And finally, a mild concussion that is made a little milder by a helmet, or a cerebral hemmorhage that bleeds a little less still shows up in a study as an injury. But I've already explained most of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
You keep throwing quotes at us. Maybe I missed it, but would you please share the source.
Here are four articles from peer reviewed medical journals that do a show a reduction in head injuries in helmet wearers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27531522
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26827559
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23117389
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16493105
Note that there is some overlap here--a couple of review articles which may reference some of the same original studies. I haven't read the full studies so I don't know what methodologic problems they might have. Also, it's important to understand what 60% reduction--the highest degree of benefit cited means. If you have 10 skiers with helmets and 10 without and all of the skiers without have head injuries but only 4 of those with, that's a 60% reduction--a huge benefit. If you have 100,000 skiers in each group with 10 head injuries in the helmetless group and 4 in the helmet group--you have the same 60% reduction. Is that enough to justify 100,000 people wearing helmets. A lot harder to say. So one has to look at the actual numbers of people benefitted, not just percentages. This is a common problem in reading medical studies. Data is usually summarized as relative risk reduction--the way it is in the examples I just gave, assuming the researcher wants to show a benefit or a difference. But someone trying to understand the magnitude of the benefit or difference would want to look at the absolute risk reduction. In the case of the 100,000 skier study that would be 0.006%.
word. not a fan of the rule change. def no pro but played this game since 6, still playing and just have played a shit ton of games and can see how its changed the game a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080Rider
my 10 yr old can play and its a blast watching him on his club team and he’s scored headers off crosses and corners before but with the rule change, it has been an adjustment for him. to someone’s earlier point, the philosophy is different now and the opportunities are less but absolutely still exist. i’ve told him to still head in crosses and corners on occasion in practice and his coach is cool about it because he knows its another component to his game that he will need soon. if its taught and practiced properly, they are some of the best goals you can score. diving headers, those sweet little skimmers that just mess with the gk enough to get by, redirects and of course a corner. a dangerous weapon imo
a big problem with the rule change is how its being enforced. or not. was at one tournament this summer where in quarters, heading was allowed, semis no heading, final you could head the ball again? just sat, at his first indoor game and after no whistles on two headers in middle of the field and then not again on an obvious headed shot. guess heading is on this session?
it was enforced in fall outdoor but you can see especially in the defensive half, the indecision it causes with the kids at times. not saying its a ton but when normally they’d just clear it, or head away a high bouncing ball or a defensive header of a throw in at certain times, you see kids not sure how to approach or attack the ball or hesitate. i would say there are usually a couple of headed balls each game, not many and sometimes none. it also changes corner and indirect kick strategy. never saw so many short corners as i have this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
i will say a positive result of the rule change is its forced my boys to learn how to chest trap the ball pretty well.
just think if you don’t want to head the ball, don’t. no one is making your kid head punts, goal and corner kicks or even at all but don’t take away a very effective method of scoring for those who want to head the ball. its not for everyone. i’m teaching the boys to head the ball in offensive positions when those opportunities present themselves and defending throw in’s for counterattacks but do tell them to keep away from heading punts and goal kicks, and just use your abilities to get it on the ground as quickly as you can.
I agree, I competed in Freestyle skiing for years, and sustained several concussions and even a KO, Dr. Mark Gordon has done extensive reaserch on Traumatic brain injury. and talks about how prolonged exposure ie. boxing, MMA and even water skiing can cause brain injury. Pretty interesting info.
Not saying we should wrap our selfs in bubble wrap and hide in the corner shredding newspaper but should take care of our noodle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grskier