Well, at the risk of entering into something on egriz that likely cannot be civil, no matter what ...
It's been a long time ago in our sport, nearly 25 years, but there was a concern about concussions in children. We established a study, including pediatric neurologists, sport specialists, the neuropathology specialist at that time from the NIH, and officials with deep knowledge of the sport and rule implications based on long experience in the sport.
These are questions we felt we had to answer.
1) Was there an inherent risk?
2) Were children more susceptible to the risk?
3) Was that risk such that as parents became more aware and educated, that they would view the sport negatively and reduce the participation pool?
4) Was the risk of lower juniors participation a risk to the ability to field competitive collegiate teams nationally and internationally?
5) If there was a risk, could it be minimized by changes in the rules and still preserve the fundamental purpose of the sport (the "Central Test")?
6) What should those rule changes be?
7) Would the rule changes be effective and reassure parents?
8) Could we keep the sport growing at the junior level by demonstrating competent evaluation and response to parental concerns, and preserve and grow the athlete pool at the collegiate level?
9) Did we change the rules?
The answers were "yes," except for #6, in which we spent the better part of 18 months devising the changes. Everyone was happy, and the kids were safer.
Much like the "targeting" rule change in football, none of the changes impacted the inherent purpose or practice of the sport; but they reassured parents, and did make the sport safer for the kids. Mission accomplished.
