Mandatory Visors?

[betterREDthandead 58]

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.

My point was this. Who's got more to lose? The Penguins, or Crosby?

And my other point was this: If you're that concerned about Crosby's safety and the possibility of a devastating career-ending injury, why visors? Why go halfway? Why not the full face cage?

Helmets are different. Helmets, as Bill Masterton would have attested, save lives. Visors do not save lives, and neither would a face shield.

[spydrwebb 0]

no.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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.

helmets don't affect your on ice vision the way a visor does.

they could make Crosby wear a visor, but then what if he's only 75% as good?

Not to mention from a marketing standpoint, it's better to be able to see the star players faces.

[hawkupaloogie 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.

this is exactly how i feel. i was a lot of college hockey, at least 20 games live each season. the dirty stick work up in and around the players' faces absolutely sickens me. this year, there was one time i distinctly remember when northern's star player, mike santorelli, got slashed across the cage. no call. i was horrified that someone would even do that, full cage or not. added to that that it wasn't being penalized and it made the whole ncaa look like a joke to me. i think part of the high stick problems are that so many players have used full cages when in juniors or college, and they come into the nhl without the respect needed. the ncaa will never allow college players to play without cages, though, and rightfully so, as most of these guys are not going to play pro hockey. they need the protection. as far as the nhl goes, mandatory visors get a big no from me. i'd hate to see what happens in college happen in the nhl.

[Kp-Wings 3]

If Holmstrom wore a visor the injury would probably have been 10x worse. It would have gotten stuck between his face and the visor, and have nowhere to go. Without the visor, he has room to escape the errant stick, and throw it out of the way. With the visor, there is a risk of it getting stuck behind the visor and potentially in his eye, and the injury would have been a lot worse.

I don't want to sound like a Don Cherry kool-aid drinker, but mandatory visors are not the answer. There is always the off chance you get an incident like with what happened to Saku Koive in last years playoff. If a stick get's wedged between the visor and a players eye, it can do some serious damage.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Plus , it would make manly Men like Brendan Shanahan and Dan Cleary look weak

Edited April 29, 2007 by Detroit # 1 Fan

[Kp-Wings 3]

Plus , it would make manly Men like Brendan Shanahan and Dan Cleary look weak

Shanahan is weak. A visor would make no difference. Have you not noticed how in the late stages in his career he's gone totally soft?

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Shanahan is weak. A visor would make no difference. Have you not noticed how in the late stages in his career he's gone totally soft?

Yeah , I know , I still like Shanny , despite his softness

[HomeNugget 2]

why don't we just go all the way and make everyone where the same equipment as goalies? that way no one ever gets hurt. i also think skates are too sharp. someone could get cut. they should take away the skates and just let the players run around a gym. and to make extra sure no one hurts anyone else we can make touching opposing players illegal. if you touch another player it will be called a foul and he'll get two free shots from the blue line.

[BringHomeTheCup! 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.

Have you ever tried playing without a haffie, then putting one on and playing with it? It IS a HUGE difference. Any player who has done this will agree.

And what do you mean 'if the visor curves around the temple'? Have you even seen a hockey helmet? Or a haffie? They don't work that way. In order to make your idea of 'curving the visor around the temple' work, you'd have to redesign the helmet, and there would be no way around losing the protection to the temple that the hemlet provides.

If you had ever played hockey at any remotely high level, you would know that players in fact DO have the time to use common sense, and the players policing themselves DOES work. It's not a utopian idea. How many times did Gretzky get hit hard in his career? That's right. Why? Because he had McSorley to protect him. In the same fashion in which Gretz was protected by McSorley, if there were no instigator penalty, players could protect themselves against stick work. It worked for decades, before the first helmet was worn by a player, and long before the first haffie was worn.

Mandating full cages would just further the recent rise in stick work. Look at the NCAA, watch a game and count the sticks to the face. It is brutal. Although, I'm sure Bettman loves the idea of mandating full cages, it would virtually eliminate fighting from the game, without him taking it out. It's brilliant! Just keep it up Bettman, pretty soon instead of expansion of 2 teams, you'll be talking about contraction of 20 teams.

[DaKineMaui 8]

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

.

Think about it......technically - yes.

[bogeygolfer 4]

the only reason players are so irreasonsible with their stick is because every wear visors

they should begin to regulate player's elbow and shoulder pads before they make manditory visors, softer pads like what chelios wears would help illiminate concussion causing hits to the head

[JaketheShark 0]

If you had ever played hockey at any remotely high level, you would know that players in fact DO have the time to use common sense, and the players policing themselves DOES work. It's not a utopian idea. How many times did Gretzky get hit hard in his career? That's right. Why? Because he had McSorley to protect him. In the same fashion in which Gretz was protected by McSorley, if there were no instigator penalty, players could protect themselves against stick work. It worked for decades, before the first helmet was worn by a player, and long before the first haffie was worn.

Mandating full cages would just further the recent rise in stick work...

Thats right. Getting rid of all visors would be a better idea. Getting rid of the "instigator" penalty and cracking down on high-sticking would be much better protection for the players than the visor. Make any high stick 2-min and contact with a player a 5-min major, with a mandatory suspension if the player is seriously injured and watch how fast the sticks come down and are controlled, even in the "heat of battle". When players didn't wear helmets there were a lot fewer high-sticking incidents because players knew how serious it was and every player on the other team would be lining up to take a shot at you if you were "careless" with your stick.

[eva unit zero 271]

Have you ever tried playing without a haffie, then putting one on and playing with it? It IS a HUGE difference. Any player who has done this will agree.

And what do you mean 'if the visor curves around the temple'? Have you even seen a hockey helmet? Or a haffie? They don't work that way. In order to make your idea of 'curving the visor around the temple' work, you'd have to redesign the helmet, and there would be no way around losing the protection to the temple that the hemlet provides.

Why would you have to redesign the helmet? If the visor curls around the side of the helmet--meaning there is no visible edge from the player's perspective--how does that make peripheral vision worse than wearing the same helmet with no visor?

If you had ever played hockey at any remotely high level, you would know that players in fact DO have the time to use common sense, and the players policing themselves DOES work. It's not a utopian idea. How many times did Gretzky get hit hard in his career? That's right. Why? Because he had McSorley to protect him. In the same fashion in which Gretz was protected by McSorley, if there were no instigator penalty, players could protect themselves against stick work. It worked for decades, before the first helmet was worn by a player, and long before the first haffie was worn.

Yzerman took a lot of hard hits. Yzerman had Probert and Kocur, better protection than Gretzky's combo of Semenko and McSorley.

Gretzky didn't get hit because he was Gretzky, not because he was protected by enforcers.

Mandating full cages would just further the recent rise in stick work. Look at the NCAA, watch a game and count the sticks to the face. It is brutal. Although, I'm sure Bettman loves the idea of mandating full cages, it would virtually eliminate fighting from the game, without him taking it out. It's brilliant! Just keep it up Bettman, pretty soon instead of expansion of 2 teams, you'll be talking about contraction of 20 teams.

Mandating full cages would provide protection for all players from the stick work. Sticks are up now, with a lot of players NOT wearing facial protection. If everyone has to wear it, nobody can claim it disadvantages them--if there is any effect on play, everyone would suffer it.

Also...if fighting is so integral to the game, mandating facial protection won't kill it off. If it does, fighting wasn't important.

[joshy207 156]

I'm not in favor of a visor mandate. It's the player's choice.

Requiring full cages would be a terrible mistake.

I'm also in favor of getting rid of the instigator rule. The current rule lets idiots be idiots.

I grew up wearing a cage, went to a visor after Midgets, took a puck to the eye and put the cage back on. But I hated it so much, I eventually went back to a visor and then took that off too. The difference in seeing the ice is incredible. After taking ANOTHER puck to the eye, fracturing my orbital bone in 2 places, I put the cage back on. I still hate the cage and every so often I think of putting a visor back on, but I've taken a few stray sticks and pucks to the cage, so I keep wearing it.

With the AHL and other minor leagues now requiring visors, full facial in college, visors in the CHL, and the popularity of visors in Europe, you'll have very few players coming into the NHL that have ever played bare-faced. They'll all be used to visors, so that part of the argument will disappear. Any "peer pressure" to lose the visor will diminish. Fewer players will be inclined to take it off. I think in 4-5 years, we'll see a much higher percentage of NHLers wearing visors.

Edited April 29, 2007 by joshy207

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Why would you have to redesign the helmet? If the visor curls around the side of the helmet--meaning there is no visible edge from the player's perspective--how does that make peripheral vision worse than wearing the same helmet with no visor?

Yzerman took a lot of hard hits. Yzerman had Probert and Kocur, better protection than Gretzky's combo of Semenko and McSorley.

Gretzky didn't get hit because he was Gretzky, not because he was protected by enforcers.

Mandating full cages would provide protection for all players from the stick work. Sticks are up now, with a lot of players NOT wearing facial protection. If everyone has to wear it, nobody can claim it disadvantages them--if there is any effect on play, everyone would suffer it.

Also...if fighting is so integral to the game, mandating facial protection won't kill it off. If it does, fighting wasn't important.

First, the way the helmet is designed, you can't wrap a haffie past the temple as the poster suggested, this is why you would need to reshape the helmet. However, have you ever tried to look through a concaved piece of glass? It isn't the same, it distorts to view.

Yzerman was always protected. He never took a hard hit without the hitter paying the price. But you are right, Gretz didn't have to put up with it as much as Stevie did. Some of that had to do with him being Gretz. But my point still stands, imagine the punishment Stevie would have had to endure if it weren't for the bash brothers?

Fighting, at the NHL level is extremely integral to the game. What I said in my post was FULL CAGES would kill fighting, not facial protection. Why full cages would stave off fighting simply have to do with the referees and linesmen. They would have more opportunity to break up a fight if the players were forced to take off the helmets to fight. Sure, every now and again you'd see two guys square off with them on, but that isn't a fight.

The reason helmets would come off before a fight is this. The fighters in the NHL aren't stupid. They aren't going to punch a metal cage with their bare fist. And punching the cage with a glove doesn't really do anything.

Lastly, as I said in the first post. Haffies create just as many cuts as they prevent. Anyone who has worn one can attest to this. You go into the boards, and your helmet gets pushed down, or up, and boom, you are bleeding. Mandating haffies isn't the answer. If you want to mandate something, tell players they can't wear them, save for medical reasons alla Beard.

[eva unit zero 271]

First, the way the helmet is designed, you can't wrap a haffie past the temple as the poster suggested, this is why you would need to reshape the helmet. However, have you ever tried to look through a concaved piece of glass? It isn't the same, it distorts to view.

Or perhaps you could just redesign the VISOR.

Yzerman was always protected. He never took a hard hit without the hitter paying the price. But you are right, Gretz didn't have to put up with it as much as Stevie did. Some of that had to do with him being Gretz. But my point still stands, imagine the punishment Stevie would have had to endure if it weren't for the bash brothers?

Yzerman endured more punishment than comparable players today see without the bruisers. Your point doesn't stand.

Fighting, at the NHL level is extremely integral to the game. What I said in my post was FULL CAGES would kill fighting, not facial protection. Why full cages would stave off fighting simply have to do with the referees and linesmen. They would have more opportunity to break up a fight if the players were forced to take off the helmets to fight. Sure, every now and again you'd see two guys square off with them on, but that isn't a fight.

Nothing short of a full cage qualifies as true facial protection.

The reason helmets would come off before a fight is this. The fighters in the NHL aren't stupid. They aren't going to punch a metal cage with their bare fist. And punching the cage with a glove doesn't really do anything.

So far, I have yet to hear a reasonable example from anyone why making sure players can still fight is more important than ensuring the safety of said players.

Lastly, as I said in the first post. Haffies create just as many cuts as they prevent. Anyone who has worn one can attest to this. You go into the boards, and your helmet gets pushed down, or up, and boom, you are bleeding. Mandating haffies isn't the answer. If you want to mandate something, tell players they can't wear them, save for medical reasons alla Beard.

So you're saying you don't like a half shield, and because full cages inhibit fighting you would rather see more Yzerman-style injuries? Or those like Rhett Warrener suffered in the first round?

[Yzerfan1999 81]

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 ?

I think this post proves that visors should be mandatory. Just like you said, some older players wouldn't wear a helmet either, but just thinking about that now makes me cringe. Only a crazy man would play todays game without head protection. You've got to change with the times, its becoming far too dangerous to play without one, and even though it doesn't completely protect you from all stick (Sakku Koivu), it definitely cuts down the danger.

While I agree it really cuts down vision, its just something you adapt too. The best player in the league wears one, it can't be that bad can it? I wear one when I play, and it pisses me off sometimes, but the amount of times I've had sticks bounce off the visor makes me realize how important they are.

I say grandfather them in...now. I bet you all 10 years from now every player will be wearing one.

Oh, and this crap about visors giving you as many cuts as they prevent? Thats b.s. Try tightening your helmet! sheesh. Sure, I've had the visor come down a couple times, but a little red scrape on my lower cheek is much more acceptable than a scraped cornea, or having my eye poked out.

[jagr68 0]

Such a big debate over visors.

I can see why some people would want them mandatory, to protect the players. Makes sense.

Like someone else already said, it is the players responsibility and choice to choose to wear one or not. Parents want the best for their children because most of the time, children may not make the best decisions, but these are NHL players, grown men, they should be able to choose if they want to wear a visor or not. They understand the risk of not wearing one, and also, wearing one.

Injuries can be prevented by wearing them, no doubt. But wearing one can also cause injury. Many players get cut by their own visors. More times than not, visors reduce injuries. Logicially, it's fine the way it is. Their is a risk of wearing and not wearing one, so it should the NHL player's choice. I don't really see the debate in it. If their was no chance at all of injury by wearing one, then sure, I can see the arguement that they should be enforced. But that's just not the case.

I can see the concern of a GM, a team, or the fans for them to lose a player to a injury that could have been prevented by a visor. But that's the way it is. And should stay. You can't enforce safety in every situation. I'm one of the biggest Crosby fans around, but if he was a guy that chose not to wear a visor, and he ended up with a injury that could have been prevented by wearing one, the last thing I'd do is blame the team, the GM, the league, or the NHLPA. I would blame Sid. It's his choice. Players have a comfort level. Some players do not feel right with them, and some do not feel right without them. I feel a player should do what he feels he can do to play the best to his ability.

Now, as far as Gretzky goes. Come on, everybody knows you were not allowed to hit Gretzky. He had protection from his bullies and he was able to play at a high level a good part of his career (Odd, his points per game averaged dropped to just above Yzerman's once he left Edmonton). People have said Gretzky never played the same once he got hit for the very first time. Can't remember who it was, think it was a Toronto guy, could be wrong, but sometime around 1991 or so, he got hammered and after that it's said he wasn't the same. Who knows. I say he never played the same again once he left his all-star team in Edmonton, who was so good they won a Cup without him.....anyways...

Don Cherry knows the instigator rule is pretty foolish. You used to be able to protect the superstars. Like he said, if Lemieux wasn't allowed to get hit and had the same guys protecting him as Wayne, he would have scored 1,000 goals.

He brought up another interesting point. They started to enforce helmets years ago. Cherry said that guys never got hit in the head or elbowed back when they didn't wear helmets, but after he and other started wearing them, injuries went up. In fact, he said the first time he ever had a head injury was when he wore a helmet. The way Cherry explains it, with nobody wearing helmets players were more careful and more respectful of other players in the league. That is something hard to prove because you can't put players respect on paper or show it in stats, but the idea makes sense.

The league would never go for that today. But I think the problem isn't visors or lack of visors, but respect between the players. I would guess if their was more respect for each other, from superstar to fourth line grinder, head injuries would decrease whether everybody had visors, or nobody had visors.

[eva unit zero 271]

Such a big debate over visors.

I can see why some people would want them mandatory, to protect the players. Makes sense.

Like someone else already said, it is the players responsibility and choice to choose to wear one or not. Parents want the best for their children because most of the time, children may not make the best decisions, but these are NHL players, grown men, they should be able to choose if they want to wear a visor or not. They understand the risk of not wearing one, and also, wearing one.

Injuries can be prevented by wearing them, no doubt. But wearing one can also cause injury. Many players get cut by their own visors. More times than not, visors reduce injuries. Logicially, it's fine the way it is. Their is a risk of wearing and not wearing one, so it should the NHL player's choice. I don't really see the debate in it. If their was no chance at all of injury by wearing one, then sure, I can see the arguement that they should be enforced. But that's just not the case.

I can see the concern of a GM, a team, or the fans for them to lose a player to a injury that could have been prevented by a visor. But that's the way it is. And should stay. You can't enforce safety in every situation. I'm one of the biggest Crosby fans around, but if he was a guy that chose not to wear a visor, and he ended up with a injury that could have been prevented by wearing one, the last thing I'd do is blame the team, the GM, the league, or the NHLPA. I would blame Sid. It's his choice. Players have a comfort level. Some players do not feel right with them, and some do not feel right without them. I feel a player should do what he feels he can do to play the best to his ability.

Now, as far as Gretzky goes. Come on, everybody knows you were not allowed to hit Gretzky. He had protection from his bullies and he was able to play at a high level a good part of his career (Odd, his points per game averaged dropped to just above Yzerman's once he left Edmonton). People have said Gretzky never played the same once he got hit for the very first time. Can't remember who it was, think it was a Toronto guy, could be wrong, but sometime around 1991 or so, he got hammered and after that it's said he wasn't the same. Who knows. I say he never played the same again once he left his all-star team in Edmonton, who was so good they won a Cup without him.....anyways...

Don Cherry knows the instigator rule is pretty foolish. You used to be able to protect the superstars. Like he said, if Lemieux wasn't allowed to get hit and had the same guys protecting him as Wayne, he would have scored 1,000 goals.

He brought up another interesting point. They started to enforce helmets years ago. Cherry said that guys never got hit in the head or elbowed back when they didn't wear helmets, but after he and other started wearing them, injuries went up. In fact, he said the first time he ever had a head injury was when he wore a helmet. The way Cherry explains it, with nobody wearing helmets players were more careful and more respectful of other players in the league. That is something hard to prove because you can't put players respect on paper or show it in stats, but the idea makes sense.

The league would never go for that today. But I think the problem isn't visors or lack of visors, but respect between the players. I would guess if their was more respect for each other, from superstar to fourth line grinder, head injuries would decrease whether everybody had visors, or nobody had visors.

Scotty Bowman, Ace Bailey, and Ted Williams would disagree with Cherry regarding head injuries that could have been prevented had they been helmeted.

Cherry just thinks helmets and visors are things brought to the game by Europeans and French Canadians, and that real Canadians who play hockey would rather not have one.

[Yzerfan1999 81]

Such a big debate over visors.

I can see why some people would want them mandatory, to protect the players. Makes sense.

Like someone else already said, it is the players responsibility and choice to choose to wear one or not. Parents want the best for their children because most of the time, children may not make the best decisions, but these are NHL players, grown men, they should be able to choose if they want to wear a visor or not. They understand the risk of not wearing one, and also, wearing one.

Injuries can be prevented by wearing them, no doubt. But wearing one can also cause injury. Many players get cut by their own visors. More times than not, visors reduce injuries. Logicially, it's fine the way it is. Their is a risk of wearing and not wearing one, so it should the NHL player's choice. I don't really see the debate in it. If their was no chance at all of injury by wearing one, then sure, I can see the arguement that they should be enforced. But that's just not the case.

I can see the concern of a GM, a team, or the fans for them to lose a player to a injury that could have been prevented by a visor. But that's the way it is. And should stay. You can't enforce safety in every situation. I'm one of the biggest Crosby fans around, but if he was a guy that chose not to wear a visor, and he ended up with a injury that could have been prevented by wearing one, the last thing I'd do is blame the team, the GM, the league, or the NHLPA. I would blame Sid. It's his choice. Players have a comfort level. Some players do not feel right with them, and some do not feel right without them. I feel a player should do what he feels he can do to play the best to his ability.

Now, as far as Gretzky goes. Come on, everybody knows you were not allowed to hit Gretzky. He had protection from his bullies and he was able to play at a high level a good part of his career (Odd, his points per game averaged dropped to just above Yzerman's once he left Edmonton). People have said Gretzky never played the same once he got hit for the very first time. Can't remember who it was, think it was a Toronto guy, could be wrong, but sometime around 1991 or so, he got hammered and after that it's said he wasn't the same. Who knows. I say he never played the same again once he left his all-star team in Edmonton, who was so good they won a Cup without him.....anyways...

Don Cherry knows the instigator rule is pretty foolish. You used to be able to protect the superstars. Like he said, if Lemieux wasn't allowed to get hit and had the same guys protecting him as Wayne, he would have scored 1,000 goals.

He brought up another interesting point. They started to enforce helmets years ago. Cherry said that guys never got hit in the head or elbowed back when they didn't wear helmets, but after he and other started wearing them, injuries went up. In fact, he said the first time he ever had a head injury was when he wore a helmet. The way Cherry explains it, with nobody wearing helmets players were more careful and more respectful of other players in the league. That is something hard to prove because you can't put players respect on paper or show it in stats, but the idea makes sense.

The league would never go for that today. But I think the problem isn't visors or lack of visors, but respect between the players. I would guess if their was more respect for each other, from superstar to fourth line grinder, head injuries would decrease whether everybody had visors, or nobody had visors.

Cherry's opinions on most things should really not be taken for much.

Problem is, if half of the guys are wearing helmets and visors and half aren't, the guys who ARE wont take it easier on the guys who chose to wear nothing. Its a silly argument from a silly man.

[Burninator 0]

Visors will become mandatory in the NHL.

But when that happens it will only affect a small group of players still in the NHL. Look at most of the junior players that are playing, they have visors. I could be wrong but I think every junior player that played on the Flames this year had a visor. The only exception was Eric Godard, and he is a goon/fighter. He was called up basically to fight his clone on the other team. And that type of player is becoming extinct in the new NHL.

It won't take long for the majority of the players in the NHL to be wearing visors. I think this visor debate will end by it self by the players deciding that they want to wear visors. It will be grandfathered in just like helmets and then shortly after it will be mandatory. Sure visors do cause damage and injuries but I bet the injuries that are prevented from the visors far out weight the ones caused by them.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Or perhaps you could just redesign the VISOR.

Yzerman endured more punishment than comparable players today see without the bruisers. Your point doesn't stand.

The reason helmets would come off before a fight is this. The fighters in the NHL aren't stupid. They aren't going to punch a metal cage with their bare fist. And punching the cage with a glove doesn't really do anything.

So far, I have yet to hear a reasonable example from anyone why making sure players can still fight is more important than ensuring the safety of said players.

So you're saying you don't like a half shield, and because full cages inhibit fighting you would rather see more Yzerman-style injuries? Or those like Rhett Warrener suffered in the first round?

Yzerman played a different style that superstars today do, or even other superstars of his day. His most problematic injusry did not come from a bone crunching hit in the corner, but rather a knee meeting post hit. Sure, Yzerman got beat up, but you never saw Gretz, or Mario dropping down to block a shot.

Fighting needs to be in the game for a few reasons. One, to help police the players. Hockey is the only sport in which every player has a weapon, the stick. If fighting were taken out of the game, players such are Claude Lemieux and Ville Neminem (sp?) would take liberties with their sticks on the superstars. Fighting keeps this in line. If you don't think so, than I might suggest you start watching hockey at the NHL level. Two, sometimes, the only way to get your team going in the playoffs or regular season, is with a fight. When two enforces square off, it gets both teams pumped up. Third, and finally, the fans love it, and so do the players. I highly doubt any NHL player would argue that fighting isn't an integral part of the game.

You can't use Yzerman's eye injury as an argument for the mandation of visors. It is irrelevent. Just like it would be pointless to use the Koivu eye injury to aruge for the outlaw of visors. Both injuries were freak accidents. In Yzerman's case, yeah a visor would have prevented the injury. But in Koivu's case, while the lack of a visor may not have fully prevented the injury, it most certianly would have cut down on the severity.

And as for redesigning the visor rather than the helmet, how would you suggest to do this? How could you possibly still provide ample eye protecton, while not cutting down on the periffial vision, and temple protection? You can't do it. The way the helmet is designed forces you to mount the visor in the manner you see. This mounting method is obviously the best way to go in order to keep the visor attached to the helmet, and is also the safest for the player.

Like Jagr68 said, it comes down to respect. Players today just don't have the respect for each other that they did way back when. In the helmetless days you would never have seen Draper get run face first into the boards (btw, a visor in that senario would just have made things worse.) by Claude the Turtle. Ask a vet like Cheli, or an old timer like Gordie, players just don't respect each other or the game like they used to. It's sad really.

As for Cherry's comments about head injuries, and the disagreement that Bowman and the crew you listed would have. I think you are talking about two different types of injuries. Cherry is speaking of the injuries caused by players wearing helmets. Just like mandating visors would case, the mandation of helmets caused a drop in respect for other players, and a subsequent rise in unnecessary injuries. Yeah, sure, the elbow to the head was only a concussion, and not severe brain damage because of the helmet. But if no one was wearing the helmet to begin with, the elbow wouldn't have be up there in the first place.

It's like saying that since the invention of the automobile, auto accident deaths have increased 100%. So lets make everyone wear seatbelts. Yeah, seatbelts can prevent injury, but if people weren't driving cars in the first place, there would be no need for the seatbelts.

Visors will become mandatory in the NHL.

But when that happens it will only affect a small group of players still in the NHL. Look at most of the junior players that are playing, they have visors. I could be wrong but I think every junior player that played on the Flames this year had a visor. The only exception was Eric Godard, and he is a goon/fighter. He was called up basically to fight his clone on the other team. And that type of player is becoming extinct in the new NHL.

It won't take long for the majority of the players in the NHL to be wearing visors. I think this visor debate will end by it self by the players deciding that they want to wear visors. It will be grandfathered in just like helmets and then shortly after it will be mandatory. Sure visors do cause damage and injuries but I bet the injuries that are prevented from the visors far out weight the ones caused by them.

I'm not sure what junior level you are speaking of, possibly the farm team for Calgary? However, ever minor hockey league, from juior c to the ncaa, to qmjhl requires players to wear at least visors, if a player is under 18, a full cage is required.

The Wings farm team in Grand Rapids, plays in the AHL, facial protection is not mandatory.

[jagr68 0]

BringhometheCup is right, Cherry was not talking about head injuries in general. But senseless injuries.

He basically explained that with everybody wearing helmets, players would play a little dirtier leading to more head injuries. Which stems to a lack of respect. So having helmets prevents likely injuries from a random puck, or a clean body check to the boards, but also lead to more dirty play, elbows, and cheap shops to the head.

But BringhometheCup is wrong, in that Mario actually did block shots in his career. He didn't do it much, I'll give you that, but he did. Mostly during the playoffs of those two Cups they won back to back. It wasn't much, but it's nice to know the NHL's greatest player did block shots, and even fought guys early in his career. Yzerman blocked shots, Sidney even blocked some shots while on the PK (that's how he got his ankle injury this year). Far as I know, Wayne never did.

Speaking of Wayne. Joe Thornton may be on the verge of breaking one of his records. From what I understand, Thornton lead the league in empty net goals this year. By the end of his career, he may just pass up Wayne for that record. What a race that will be.....

[DaKineMaui 8]

If you had ever played hockey at any remotely high level, you would know that players in fact DO have the time to use common sense, and the players policing themselves DOES work. It's not a utopian idea. How many times did Gretzky get hit hard in his career? That's right. Why? Because he had McSorley to protect him. In the same fashion in which Gretz was protected by McSorley, if there were no instigator penalty, players could protect themselves against stick work. It worked for decades, before the first helmet was worn by a player, and long before the first haffie was worn.

This should be required reading for any member of LGW. (Scroll up. Please read again)

Many mahalos and aloha..........kudos.

P.S. Do you remember when Mess jumped the boards for Wayne inda playoffs? Knowingly taking a 3 game bump? It worked. The Great One went untouched for the rest of that series. Thank you Probie and Kocur for extending Stevie's career 8 years.