I think the reason that they make that stipulation is that in lacrosse (and maybe football, I don't know), the rule used to be that the mouthguard could not be clear. This was so that it was easier for the officials to tell who had them in.

Weren't they a bubble gum pop group in the 60's? :)

Yeah. They had that big hit, "Are Those Two Basketballs In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?"

The flip side was a song about both a coach and his assistant getting whacked. It was called "T for Two".

...Another freedom of choice issue down the drain.

Re: Mouth guards
 

As a parent, I applaud your diligence and care for your kids. But will you tell other parents that they must make their kids wear one?

When is the last time that you actually saw a kid take an elbow to the mouth? I've reffed HS ball for 11 years, and college ball for 6 and I have never seen an elbow to the mouth. Does it happen? Maybe. Could it happen? Absolutely. But do those possibilities justify the requirement of wearing a mouthguard? JMO, but I don't think so.

It's a dumb rule.

Well, if that's the case, then let's make 'em wear lacrosse or football helmets!! Those would be much more effective, and would provide protection against an awkward fall, which is a much more likely source of head injury.

Additionally, as I've already stated, it will be a problem when we get teams from out of state who do not bring mouthguards with them.

As always, just my opinion.

Re: Re: Mouth guards
 

Ya know, I was thinking the same thing when I read jdccpa's post. Not saying I've never seen a kid take one in the chops, not saying I've never seen *some* blood in a players mouth, just saying I've never seen any more mouth damage than a kid might sustain in ordinary daily life.

BTW, I've heard of the occasional player getting cold-cocked, no mouth guard is going to protect against that.

Re: Re: Mouth guards
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by jdccpa Quote: Protecting a great smile is only a secondary purpose of a mouthguard, preventing brain injuries is the primary reason for wearing one. Well, if that's the case, then let's make 'em wear lacrosse or football helmets!!

When the rule was first proposed for football,I remember our Association being sent a multi-page study on why the rule was being proposed.The main reason was prevention of concussions.The results of the study that I read back then showed that mouthguards reduced concussions by about 75%,if I remember right.That's on top of the helmet being worn.That's why hockey,rugger and lacrosse adopted them,too.I'm not sure if they're mandatory in soccer,but I've seen a lot of players wearing them there too.I would imagine that other sports are thinking of making their use mandatory for the exact same reason.

Gotta be studies concerning this on the internet somewhere.However with 14 NFL games and 3 MLB playoff games on the dish today,I do believe that I will wait for another time before looking.

I gotta do everything around here??

http://www.flash.net/~dkennel/guards.htm
http://www.canadiansportstherapy.com...oncussions.htm
http://www.chadashot.org.nz/art12.php
http://www.wipss.com/JOEL%20FABREY_USMC_mouthguard.htm

Re: Re: Mouth guards
 

I think it's a good rule from a safety standpoint for contact sports like football,hockey, lacrosse,rugger,etc. The studies that Dan found seem to support that view. Basketball is becoming more and more like a contact sport every year.The amount of contact allowed in today's game is much greater than what was allowed 20 or 30 years ago imo.I don't know whether mouthguards really are necessary for basketball yet,but I think we will be getting to that point some day.

Well, I'm a HS baseball umpire and I check every bat and helmet prior to every game. Part of my job.

Rich

Re: Back in the old days...
 

Have I finally met another person who believes that legislating the mandatory wearing of seatbelts and enforcing it with fines is not the purpose of government? I am with Mill on this one; paternal legislation is not a good thing for society. People need to think for themselves and make their own decisions.

Now a couple of comments. I have played soccer since I was six. I played in high school, on a regional select team from the west coast, and at Georgetown. Never did I wear a mouthguard. Never have I had a concussion. Never have I chipped a tooth or had one knocked out. There is clearly no need for them to be required.
I now officiate soccer and can tell you that mouth guards are definitely NOT required. The current rule is, "Intraoral (within the mouth) mouth and tooth protectors, including those with an occlusal (protecting and separating the biting surfaces) and/or a labial (protecting the lips) portion, are legal."

For those that believe all the studies and WISH to wear them, I think that is great. They should have the freedom to do so, but no one should tell others that they HAVE to wear them. They should have the freedom to not.

If I were in Mass I simply wouldn't enforce this rule; just as I don't enforce the NFHS rule on shinguards in soccer. If the kid doesn't want to wear them, the parents don't make him, and the coach doesn't care, why should I? Certainly not because the NFHS says so!

Then again remember that I am from Nevada, where we have guns, gambling, legal prostitution, and can get a beer 24/7. I guess that I am just used to living free. Unlike those who suffer under the senatorship of Ted Kennedy.
When it comes down to it, the bottom line is that it is my life and my body, I'll take care of it the way I choose.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Oct 6th, 2003 at 02:11 AM]

If I were in Mass I simply wouldn't enforce this rule; just as I don't enforce the NFHS rule on shinguards in soccer. If the kid doesn't want to wear them, the parents don't make him, and the coach doesn't care, why should I? Certainly not because the NFHS says so!

[/B][/QUOTE]Do you enforce the jewelry rule in basketball? If you did football,and a player didn't want to wear his helmet,would you go along with that if the parents and coach were in agreement?

Have you ever thought of the legal repercussions that you could be looking at if you ever had a disabling lower leg injury in a soccer game, and it happened to someone that you had let play without making them wear shinguards?

Do you know that if you carry sports liability insurance,you could possibly void it if you didn't enforce written safety rules?

Are there any other rules that you don't like,so you just don't bother enforcing them?

Just wondering.

In Kentucky, we call them toothguards and no, we don't require them to be worn during basketball games due to the low probability that the tooth will be hit.

Re: Re: Mouth guards
 

Unless I'm going blind, jdccpa has deleted his post where he originally wrote the following:

Quote:

Originally posted by jdccpa Protecting a great smile is only a secondary purpose of a mouthguard, preventing brain injuries is the primary reason for wearing one.

I've just now gotten around to checking the links that Dan provided and it just doesn't seem to be the case that the above comment is true.

http://www.flash.net/~dkennel/guards.htm This web site provides a list of reasons for wearing the mouthguards:

The first four reasons listed deal with oral injuries. Reduction of risk of concussion is listed fifth here.

http://www.canadiansportstherapy.com...oncussions.htm states that


An additional concern is that the only mouthguards that are considered truly effective have to be custom fitted at a cost of at least $85 each. This is a tremendous expense to place on every HS athlete's family, b/c I guarantee the schools aren't going to pay for them. If anything, the schools will provide the cheapest -- and thus the least effective -- option.

And finally, as I've stated before, how often do you actually see a kid get an elbow to the face? In basketball (in Massachusetts, anyway), it's almost never. The mouthguard is only useful if the contact occurs on the head or jaw. This almost never happens, even at higher and more physical levels of basketball. Is the risk of this type of injury so high that it justifies mandating high-cost protective equipment? I just don't think so.

After doing some research as jdccpa suggested, I guess I can see that the mouthguards really do provide some protection from concussion, and that really is a good thing. It just seems like over-reaching on the part of our state athletic association.

Re: Re: Re: Mouth guards
 

It might be over-reaching in basketball,but I don't think that it is for contact sports. I "googled" this under "concussion reduction through the use of mouthgaurds",and found a whole bunch of reports on-line.They are pretty well unanimous in agreeing that mouthguard usage in contact sports is recommended,and that the chance of concussions occurring will be lessened through the usage of them.