I just finished reading a post on this recent ruling and I’m firmly on the side of David’s opening line in that I’m conflicted about the level of “violence” in hockey. I think hitting, not fighting, is part of the game. I understand we need to protect our children, but I’m at a loss as to where to draw the line. I’ve mentioned here before that the Devil has had a mild concussion from hockey and she has never played a single game of “contact” hockey, while the Boy has played 13 seasons of concussion-free hockey, most of which included body-checking. Hockey is a fast game played on a hard, slick surface and with as many kids playing as there are across our country, there are bound to be accidents and injuries, with or without body contact. Where I live there are now options to play in contact or non-contact leagues and I believe this might be the more appropriate solution. The operative word here being “options”. David said if hitting remained in the game in Alberta that his family would have looked at pulling their youngest in Peewee and this is certainly the parents’ prerogative/choice. Those who truly want their kids to be safe in our “safety-obsessed culture” should not let their kids set foot on the ice, or the soccer pitch, or the football field or outside their front door for that matter. Friends of my kids have also had concussions and broken bones from snowboarding and basketball. Yes, hockey can and is played at a high level without contact and yes I agree there is a need to remove blatant hits and unnecessary fisticuffs from the game as neither are doing its violent reputation any favours. But I’m hard-pressed to say there is no room for any hitting based on my own small personal experience and sample size. And the debate will no doubt rage on.