mouthguard rule

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by mick
...
(Dumb Rule not dissimilar to the seat-belt law.)
mick

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]