Time to Ring in the Body Checking, Head Contact, and Suspected Injury Rates in Youth Ringette: A Video-Analysis Study in Youth Ringette and Female Ice Hockey.

OBJECTIVE

To compare physical contacts (PCs), including head contacts (HCs), suspected concussion, and nonconcussion injury incidence rates between youth ringette and female ice hockey.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Alberta ice arenas.

PARTICIPANTS

Players participating in 8 U16AA (ages 14-15 years) ringette and 8 U15AA (ages 13-14 years) female ice hockey games during the 2021 to 2022 season.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS

Dartfish video-analysis software was used to analyze video recordings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Univariate Poisson regression analyses (adjusted for cluster by team-game, offset by game minutes) were used to estimate PCs (including HCs) and suspected injury (concussion and nonconcussion) and concussion-specific IRs and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to compare sports. Proportions of all PCs that were body checks (level 4-5 trunk PC) and direct HCs (HC 1 ) penalized were reported.

RESULTS

Ringette had a 2.6-fold higher rate of body checking compared with hockey (IRR = 2.63, 95% CI: 1.59-4.37). Ringette also had a 2-fold higher rate of HC 1 compared with hockey (IRR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.37-3.16). A 3.4-fold higher rate of suspected injury was found in ringette (IRR = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.40-8.15). There was no significant difference in suspected concussion IRs in ringette compared with hockey (IRR = 1.93, 95% CI: 0.43-8.74). Despite being prohibited in both sports, only a small proportion of body checks (Ringette = 18%; Hockey = 17%) and HC 1 (Ringette = 6%; Hockey = 6%) were penalized.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher rates of body checking, HC 1 , and suspected injuries were found in ringette compared with female ice hockey. Body checking and HC 1 were rarely penalized, despite rules disallowing them in both sports. Future research should consider other youth age groups.