The tragic death of Adam Johnson, a 13-year-old hockey player in Canada, has prompted a re-examination of the youth hockey guard mandate. The mandate requires all players under the age of 18 to wear a neck guard when playing hockey.
Adam Johnson was hit in the neck by a puck during a game in March of 2019. He was not wearing a neck guard at the time of the incident, and he died from his injuries. His death has sparked a debate about the effectiveness of the youth hockey guard mandate.
Proponents of the mandate argue that it is necessary to protect young players from serious injury or death. They point to studies that show neck guards can reduce the risk of neck and head injuries by up to 50%. They also argue that the cost of the guards is minimal compared to the potential cost of a serious injury or death.
Opponents of the mandate argue that it is an unnecessary burden on players and parents. They point out that neck guards can be uncomfortable and restrictive, and they argue that there is no evidence that they actually reduce the risk of injury or death. They also argue that the cost of the guards can be prohibitive for some families.
The debate over the youth hockey guard mandate is likely to continue in the wake of Adam Johnson’s death. It is clear that more research is needed to determine whether or not neck guards are effective in preventing serious injuries or deaths. In the meantime, it is important for parents and players to make informed decisions about whether or not to wear a neck guard when playing hockey.
