- Jan 8, 2019
- 668
- 93
I just finished my safesport training, so I was really exercising my thesaurus to avoid actually saying it, but yes.At the risk of tarnishing my already oxidized reputation ... in your medical opinion, the answer is “boobs”?
I just finished my safesport training, so I was really exercising my thesaurus to avoid actually saying it, but yes.At the risk of tarnishing my already oxidized reputation ... in your medical opinion, the answer is “boobs”?
According to that article, softball is the #2 sport for occurrences. Possibly boys’/men’s softball?
I am curious to see the breakdown of the data (just because I am a curious person). However, I cannot find the raw data. When looking up the cited “U.S. Commotio Cordis Registry” I just end up at a generic page on the NFHS website.
The article I posted cites 225+ cases since 1995. That is somewhere just above 9 cases per year.
Here are the things I am curious about:
1) What percentage of incidents are catchers? Pitchers? Other positions, batters, etc. (Every incident I have heard of has been a pitcher or a fielder. Granted, that is only a handful.)
2) What percentage occurred during organized sports? (This actually happened to a neighbor of my grandparents when I was a kid ... he was playing in his own yard with a few other kids.)
3) What is the breakdown by sport? The article states: “The sport with the highest incidence of commotio cordis is baseball, followed by softball, hockey, football, soccer and lacrosse.“ It makes sense to target the highest, but why skip everything in between and then go to the lowest? Especially when #2 is essentially the same sport as #1 (in vague terms).
Pure speculation, but seems like the result of one lawsuit that ended badly for company x and perhaps NOCSAE itself. But then, as you state, why would they then not go toward better protection for pitchers (based on the data) and softball players (based on similarity in risk)?No, the position does not matter. In fact, from the articles it sounds as if catching could be low on the list. Without the raw data or a specific statistic though, it’s hard to tell.
My unsubstantiated point being: if that is how the numbers pan out wouldn’t a focus on a chest protector for pitchers/fielders been more warranted than rolling out a new standard and making catchers buy new gear?
At risk of once again sounding as if I am against safety equipment (I am not; I’m against inappropriate marketing and use of said equipment) ... I’m curious on how decisions were made when the data doesn’t seem to entirely pan out in support (assuming you pick the biggest bang for your buck when deciding).
Pure speculation, but seems like the result of one lawsuit that ended badly for company x and perhaps NOCSAE itself. But then, as you state, why would they then not go toward better protection for pitchers (based on the data) and softball players (based on similarity in risk)?