Mandatory Visors?

[Guest LivingtheDream]

Maybe a visor would have prevented Homer's injury or lessened the severity. Sure would have helped Yzerman, Draper (he wears one now) and many others. For the sake of argument, let's say a visor would have prevented Homer's injury. It just may cost us our post season. Set aside the macho attitude on these things, if I am Mike Illitch, why the heck wouldn't I want all my players, especially key players, wearing a visor??? In ten years I am sure people will think about visorless hockey players they way we look at old films where guys didn't wear a helmet. It is obvious.

Now if you write back that the stick may have still slipped in between a visor on Homer, you are missing the point.

Edited April 27, 2007 by LivingtheDream

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Visors shouldnt be mandatory.

Safer sure , but Players shouldnt be forced to wear them.

I actaully wouldnt want all my players to wear them , a visor doesnt change how you play , it doesnt make you safer from getting a stick in say the neck or mouth. Proetcts your eyes which is great. I also think that had Homer been wearinga visor the same out come probably wouldve happened.

Also , some of the older players in the league probably wouldnt wear helmets either if they had a choice .

Better ?

Edited April 27, 2007 by Detroit # 1 Fan

[Guest LivingtheDream]

Well, that solid rebuttal sure convinced me! Why didn't I think of that? Should cups be optional too?

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Maybe a visor would have prevented Homer's injury or lessened the severity. Sure would have helped Yzerman, Draper (he wears one now) and many others. For the sake of argument, let's say a visor would have prevented Homer's injury. It just may cost us our post season. Set aside the macho attitude on these things, if I am Mike Illitch, why the heck wouldn't I want all my players, especially key players, wearing a visor??? In ten years I am sure people will think about visorless hockey players they way we look at old films where guys didn't wear a helmet. It is obvious.

Now if you write back that the stick may have still slipped in between a visor on Homer, you are missing the point.

Speaking from experience, going to a haffie from nothing isn't easy. It really cuts down on your periffial vision. Also, there are a lot of unnecessary cuts that come from wearing a haffie. When a player is checked into the boards, and his helmet flys backwards, it's really easy to get cut. I understand the protection side of wearing a haffie, I do wear one. However, there is a lot to be said for being able to see the ice curface without one.

I don't think that wearing a haffie would have helped Homer, as the angle the stick hit him, it looked to me like it still would have hurt him. Even worse, a haffie may have redirected the blade into his eye. On the flip side, a haffie most definatly would have saved Stevie from that awful eye injury he suffered.

A NHL owner can't demand his players to wear haffies, it would violate terms of the CBA. The NHL could make it a mandation, but it would first have to pass throught the NHLPA, which I highly doubt it would.

[Viperar 16]

As far as homer goes as mentioned many times before, the visor wouldnt have helped his injury from the angle it came into his face, and as some members reported, it would have actually hurt him to have a visor, possibly knocking the stick causing more damage to his eye

[Guest LivingtheDream]

Oh, well if it was mentioned many times it must be true. I tell you, the magical thinking on this board is amazing, just amazing.

[Viperar 16]

Oh, well if it was mentioned many times it must be true. I tell you, the magical thinking on this board is amazing, just amazing.

whats with the instantaneous defense mechanism?

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Oh, well if it was mentioned many times it must be true. I tell you, the magical thinking on this board is amazing, just amazing.

Watch the replay, unless the haffie he would have been wearing were to come down past his chin, Conroy's stick in all likelyhood, would have still hit Homer. In such case, Homer might as well have been wearing a full cage. Hell, if a mandatory haffie is such a good idea, why not just make a full cage mandatory just like in college hockey?

Edited April 27, 2007 by BringHomeTheCup!

[Copenhagen848 58]

If it were up to me, I'd make them mandatory.

[gwelch1340 0]

Just to state my position, no i do not think visors should be mandatory. I, personally, think if someone is crazy enough not to wear a helmet, then let them. But that is just me.

Anyways, wasn't it Al McaInnis that had to sit out for a season after a blade got in between his visor? As i remember he never was the same afterwards. Yes, he was getting old and i am sure he had other complicating injuries. But that one was particularly nasty.

Other than Homer, I cannot think of another serious eye injury in the past season. Stitches? Yeah sure, they are hockey players. They know a thing or two about stitches. But, if try and tell me that NHL hockey players are checking into the Optometrist as often as they are checking for the tooth fairy? Then i am going to have to all BS on that.

[sean 19]

I think the NHLPA has something to do with rules like these. So, I guess its somewhat up to them.

[Jesus 0]

Maybe current players won't want to wear visors because their not used to the visor but what if the NHL used the same method they used in making helmets mandatory? They could use the grandfather clause. New players coming into the NHL would have visors mandatory since their already use to wearing a visor or some sort of protective facial shield in the NCAA or junior leagues and current players in the NHL could have a choice of the visor. Maybe a visor wouldn't of prevented Holmstrom's injury but the type of injuries that players such as Yzerman, Draper, Berard, Heward, etc got from pucks, sticks, or skates to the upper portion of their face could be prevented in the future if a visor is worn.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Jesus

[Zetter is Better 0]

Visors shouldn't be mandatory but It would really suck to learn the hard way to use a visor

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

The NHLPA would have to approve any changes to the equipment rules, i.e. the size of a goaltenders pads.

You can sit here and say that wearing a haffie would cut down on eye injuries, but I think it would add to them. Something not yet said in this thread is that if all players were to wear haffies, there would be less concern about hitting each other in the eyes/face and sticks would come up more. Just like when Gary 'I am trying to destroy hockey' Bettman decided to add the instigator penalty to reduce fighting. This is directly related to the incline in eye injuries.

One more tidbit. How many players back in the early days, when they didn't wear helmets, had to deal with these unecessary eye injuries? VERY few. If anything, I'd say take haffies out of the game, and you will see players start to watch their sticks more.

Of course that isn't going to happen, but it's just an example. BTW, I'm not the only one who thinks that way. I borrowed the idea from Mick. He was talking about it earlier in the season when someone got sticked in the face.

The bottom line is that the players are responsible for what happens on the ice. Did Conroy intend to hit Homer? No, that's a ridiculous notion. However, Conroy obviously did not take enough catuion with his stick. If he had, Homer wouldn't be out.

Edited April 28, 2007 by BringHomeTheCup!

[thehockeyguy 0]

I think the NHLPA has something to do with rules like these. So, I guess its somewhat up to them.

I am a head equipment manager at the pro level, and I will tell you that every pro level like AHL,ECHL,CHL,UHL,SPHL all have to wear visors.

Also over in the IIHL in euro they all have to wear visors

The reason why is the NHLPA is the reason why

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

The NHLPA may be why, but it's because the players don't want them made mandatory. It's not like the NHLPA is fighting this when all the players are in favor.

The difference between requiring helmets, and as someone joked, cups, is that a visor affects your vision. Yes, it may lower the chances of getting hit in the eye with a puck or stick, but some players may feel that acceptable risk is worth not having anything obstructing your vision.

And as someone else also mentioned, greater player responsibility with the stick would also help.

Edited April 28, 2007 by haroldsnepsts

[omnipotent_hudler 0]

Well, that solid rebuttal sure convinced me! Why didn't I think of that? Should cups be optional too

Oh, well if it was mentioned many times it must be true. I tell you, the magical thinking on this board is amazing, just amazing.

So you opened a thread for discussion so you could insult people? Congratulations!

To add to the discussion, I'd rather not have the Wings organization require mandatory visors for all their players unless the rest of the league followed suit. Think of the flak the Wings would take(beyond what they already take!) if we became the first team to require visors. Also, some players in the league might not want to sign with the Wings if visors were required for the team and they had similar offers in terms of $$ from other teams.

[Viperar 16]

So you opened a thread for discussion so you could insult people? Congratulations!

[lets go pavel 2]

I think there is some truth to the notion that the more armored the players are the more reckless they are ... but not so much because they figure the other player is protected more ... I would think the first thought that enters a player's mind is their own well-being, and if they feel more protected they are more likely to throw the vicious check or be more aggressive with the stick ... self-preservation, more than consideration?

[Vladinator 0]

Visors should not be mandatory.

If they did 2 things, stick infractions (as well as some other dirty plays) would become much more rare.

1. Penalize the infractions more heavily. 5 minute majors used to be called for most high sticks that resulted in a bad cut. A 5 minute penalty that doesn't expire with a goal is a very good reason to learn to keep your stick under control.

2. Get rid of the instigator penalty and allow players to police themselves once again. It used to be very rare that sticks were up in other players' faces. Players used to respect one another on the ice, partly because of the role that the enforcers played.

It may make a lot of sense to wear a visor, but it should remain the choice of the players.

[eva unit zero 271]

Berard

Berard's injury would not have been prevented by a visor--the stick blade came up from underneath.

Ultimately, eye injuries caused by sticks are RARELY the kind that wouldbe prevented by a half shield. Homer and Berard are two classic examples of this kind of injury, and the best either could have gotten from a visor is what they got without one. A full cage is the only kind of mask that would have prevented it.

[Stu in Israel 0]

How many times have you heard of a player in college or in the junior ranks suffering facial injuries?!

I say mandatory visors AND cage masks below the visor (peripheral vision will not be affected if the visor curves around the temple!) - cheeks and jaws have to be protected also!

Not having extra physical protection and having players "police themselves" is a utopian idea which works in theory, but during the "heat of battle" players can't take the time to use reasoning as to be more careful with their sticks, etc.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

These are adults, they are capable of making their own collective decisions.

the NHLPA doesn't want them and that's that.

And chances are Homer's injury would've happened even with a half shield.

You can bet that he won't want to wear a facemask when he comes back.

[betterREDthandead 58]

Why argue for visors? We all know they won't protect someone from a mouth or neck injury. Draper would have been hurt just as badly by Lemieux with a visor as without. But a full face cage would have prevented that injury.

I say, go all the way or go home. Mandate full face cages or no mandate at all. They play with them in college and it doesn't seem to affect the quality of the game from the fan's standpoint.

- "But those are the younger kids, they need more protection." Most of those college kids are older than THE new face of the league, Sidney Crosby.

- "But the players would REALLY complain about loss of vision on the ice." And many have the same complaints about visors.

If you're really serious about preventing facial injuries on the ice, a full face cage is the only solution. Visors are half-assed.

And for the record, I do not favor mandating either a visor or face cage. The players don't want them, and the players are the ones who ought to know best what their risks are. Sure, these guys are an investment. But who's got the greater investment - the team that can replace the player the following year and move on? Or the guy who can only have one career?

If you do take the stance that a visor is for the players' protection and should be mandatory, then why not go all out and protect them from nearly all injuries instead of just the ones that come in at a certain angle and a small portion of the face?

[eva unit zero 271]

And for the record, I do not favor mandating either a visor or face cage. The players don't want them, and the players are the ones who ought to know best what their risks are. Sure, these guys are an investment. But who's got the greater investment - the team that can replace the player the following year and move on? Or the guy who can only have one career?

So if Sidney Crosby gets a stick like Homer did, and it ends his career. Pittsburgh can just up and replace him?

The players didn't want helmets either.