• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Youngsters ditching the visors

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

ive played juniors, where visors are required. Ive sustained more injuries from the visor itself cutting me.

plus im 6'5 so everything just goes right up under it anyway.

I think people underestimate the amount of injuries that can be caused by visors. They likely reduce the amount of serious eye injuries, but they can also cut you (as you said) or direct a stick into your face.

My decision was simple. As soon as we hard our son 2 1/2 years ago I decided that I would rather be able to look at my kid with both eyes instead of 1. It took me maybe 5 games to get used to. Teeth can be fixed...eyes..well you only get 2 of them.

I've been using a visor since I've been able to ditch the cage. I never went without one because I knew I would probably like having nothing more than a wearing a visor. However, I like knowing I have the choice to not wear a visor. If you and I have the choice, I believe the players getting paid 500+k/year should also have the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ph34r:

Add Murray to the list with Draper, Clearly, Lidstrom and Yzerman of players who decided to wear facial protection AFTER sustaining serious facial injuries. He's right, hockey players ARE idiots, there's so much macho BS in hockey around the wearing of visors, that only soft euros, frenchies and ******* wear them. The Don Cherry mindset. As someone who is required to wear eye protection all day as part of his job, I find the attitude baffling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add Murray to the list with Draper, Clearly, Lidstrom and Yzerman of players who decided to wear facial protection AFTER sustaining serious facial injuries. He's right, hockey players ARE idiots, there's so much macho BS in hockey around the wearing of visors, that only soft euros, frenchies and ******* wear them. The Don Cherry mindset. As someone who is required to wear eye protection all day as part of his job, I find the attitude baffling.

Who, in the NHL, gets chirped for wearing a visor in today's NHL? There is talk after players with visors square-up with players without visors because that is much more dangerous for the player who may punch the visor. Also, the players you mentioned came into the NHL when visors were rare, so seeing them change isn't surprising.

As I said before, not wearing a visor is a risk the player decides on. This is no different from the risks we choose on a day-to-day basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is a Referee with USA Hockey - He told me that there is a rule proposal to mandate that all Refs wear visors next year. also stated that (he has friends in high places) that NHL refs are close to mandating and players may be required to as well in the future. just to add to the conversation and what I "Heard" nothing but hearsay at this point

but from (what he claims) high and credible sources. take it for what it is worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add Murray to the list with Draper, Clearly, Lidstrom and Yzerman of players who decided to wear facial protection AFTER sustaining serious facial injuries. He's right, hockey players ARE idiots, there's so much macho BS in hockey around the wearing of visors, that only soft euros, frenchies and ******* wear them. The Don Cherry mindset. As someone who is required to wear eye protection all day as part of his job, I find the attitude baffling.

Yeah those guys had the choice to wear it or not and they exercised their right to put one on.

Why should someone like Bertuzzi who has never wore a visor and has tried it and says he cant stand the way it affects his vision be forced to wear a visor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yzerman wasn't a fan of the visor, then this happened:

a_yzerman_i.jpg

After that, he decided the visor was all right.

A puck or stick in the eye can be career-ending. If players want to gamble with their careers and play without one, that's fine with me, not my livelyhood. If I were playing, I'd put on the visor.

That being said, I don't think the NHL should force anyone to wear one either. You just have to assume the risks.

Edited by ACallToArms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird seeing some of the veteran guys that have never worn them before sporting the visor. Brian Rolston started wearing one last year. Brenden Morrow sustained an eye injury earlier this year and has sported one since. Weird to see him with one on, as well. I'd say it's about 50/50 as far as players who wear one and players who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah those guys had the choice to wear it or not and they exercised their right to put one on.

Why should someone like Bertuzzi who has never wore a visor and has tried it and says he cant stand the way it affects his vision be forced to wear a visor?

How would a deflected Lidstrom slap-shot in his face affect his vision? Its alright saying its personal choice, but at the risk of coming over all nanny-state, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. I remember the same arguments being presented by people 30 years ago when the wearing of seatbelts was made mandatory in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I can think of to force players to wear visors is $$$. I agree that if someone wants to take the risk, it's his life, etc. but a player not wearing a visor is going to cost the team more money in insurance. With the amount of money invested in some of these players, the last thing you want is an injury that could have been avoided with a visor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kind of like my neighbor kid getting his girlfriend pregnant despite my neighbor's extensive training/educating/provisioning the kid with birth control options throughout high school. The kid's excuse was that "condoms don't feel right." Well, how the heck does supporting a child and baby-mama feel at the age of eighteen?!

If visors don't feel quite so good, how do they rate with major maxilo-facial reconstructive surgery and an eye prosthesis?

+1

Well said man, the condom thing is priceless and a good comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that some of the young guns have ditched the visors this year. Zach Bogosian, Jamie Benn, and Davis Drewiske are 3 guys off the top of my head. Good to see the youngsters kickin' it old-school :thumbup:

Anyone noticed any other players that have switched?

That's a real shame. After seeing the horrific injuries to Malhotra and Yzerman I wouldn't be caught dead without a visor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would a deflected Lidstrom slap-shot in his face affect his vision? Its alright saying its personal choice, but at the risk of coming over all nanny-state, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. I remember the same arguments being presented by people 30 years ago when the wearing of seatbelts was made mandatory in this country.

Seatbelts are completely different and irrelevant.

There were people who did not want helmets to become mandatory, and I can see why they forced them on people. Wearing ahelmet has no affect on your game play or anything, it just sits on your head and you dont even notice it. Visors can however actually affect how you play. Your vision is affected despite what some people want to think. If the puck is in your feet its especially bad and they can fog up etc.

The reason some players dont wanna wear them is because it does hurt your on ice vision, try playing with and without one and youll see the difference yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

This is life, we all take risks that we are comfortable with. Some choose to drink, some choose to smoke, some choose to eat unhealthy, and some choose not to wear a visor when playing hockey. They are all controllable, but not wearing a visor is the least likely to kill you. Should we now compare all of your life decisions to that of your neighbor's child?

Why should we be telling hockey plays what they can and cannot choose to wear on their helmet? I don't think any of them are ignorant to the possible injuries of not wearing a visor. A lot of facial injuries occur to players with visors, but the change to cages would probably seem ridiculous to most.

How would a deflected Lidstrom slap-shot in his face affect his vision? Its alright saying its personal choice, but at the risk of coming over all nanny-state, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. I remember the same arguments being presented by people 30 years ago when the wearing of seatbelts was made mandatory in this country.

See the bold section of the above quote. I don't know why some posters on this board, some of which have never played hockey, believe that they know more about a player's health than the player. Should the hockey player be able to force you to eat healthy, not drink, not smoke, etc? How ignorant do you think Bert is when it comes to visors are being in the league for so many years?

Visors don't eliminate many facial injuries. A lot of players get cut by their own visor, and visors can also deflect a stick into someone's eye. While visors likely reduce the amount of facial injuries, they are not perfect. Therefore, why not then force all players to wear cages/fishbowls? While this is a stretch, cages are safer than visors and it seems the pro-visor posters are all about safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys say that it should be optional.

Here's why it shouldn't.

NHL players, when at practice, or games of any kind (exhibition, RS, playoff) are at work. Doing their job.

Now think about that.

Think about how much their employers pay them.

Now consider that facial injury happens in hockey and is random and unpredictable.

A visor protects in many cases, but can exacerbate or even cause injury in some cases.

But a cage or a full shield protects the whole face, and would significantly reduce random puck and stick injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since I moved on from minor hockey I've been wearing a visor and I don't see the problem with it. I don't buy this argument that it affects your vision greatly. Took a quick look at the current top 30 in scoring and 27 of them have visors on. Crosby and Datsyuk seem to able to function just fine with them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

grown men can choose what they want the visor rule in the ahl is silly, they know the risks for gods sake.

Ever since I moved on from minor hockey I've been wearing a visor and I don't see the problem with it. I don't buy this argument that it affects your vision greatly. Took a quick look at the current top 30 in scoring and 27 of them have visors on. Crosby and Datsyuk seem to able to function just fine with them on.

different individuals have different preferances. i personally cant stand them. and the glare changes depending on the arena your in so the glare and reflection is different everywhere you go which was the main problem for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys say that it should be optional.

Here's why it shouldn't.

NHL players, when at practice, or games of any kind (exhibition, RS, playoff) are at work. Doing their job.

Now think about that.

Think about how much their employers pay them.

Now consider that facial injury happens in hockey and is random and unpredictable.

A visor protects in many cases, but can exacerbate or even cause injury in some cases.

But a cage or a full shield protects the whole face, and would significantly reduce random puck and stick injuries.

You are forgetting a big difference here: NHL teams seem fine in paying players when they get injured. Workplace injuries result in worker's compensation from the company to the person who is injured. Normal employers tend to want to minimize this risk, while professional sports don't (to a degree). NHL revenues for most teams are based on their success (Toronto notwithstanding). Therefore, the owners want their star players to preform at their best level, and for some this involves not wearing a visor or cage (cage for all players). The amount of facial injuries that occur because of not wearing a visor are very small, especially when only star players are concerned.

Based on your belief, there should be full cages, no fighting, no hitting, not shots over 30mph, etc because they all lead to injuries. The NHL (and all professional sports) are different than a normal workplace. Comparing them isn't correct.

Ever since I moved on from minor hockey I've been wearing a visor and I don't see the problem with it. I don't buy this argument that it affects your vision greatly. Took a quick look at the current top 30 in scoring and 27 of them have visors on. Crosby and Datsyuk seem to able to function just fine with them on.

Have you ever tried not wearing a visor? If you haven't played without a visor, your example isn't relevant because a visor allows much better visibility than a cage. The removal of the visor only extends the gains you experienced in moving from cage to visor.

Since Crosby and Dats can score without visors, then all players should be forced to wear visors? This argument is ridiculous at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are forgetting a big difference here: NHL teams seem fine in paying players when they get injured. Workplace injuries result in worker's compensation from the company to the person who is injured. Normal employers tend to want to minimize this risk, while professional sports don't (to a degree). NHL revenues for most teams are based on their success (Toronto notwithstanding). Therefore, the owners want their star players to preform at their best level, and for some this involves not wearing a visor or cage (cage for all players). The amount of facial injuries that occur because of not wearing a visor are very small, especially when only star players are concerned.

Based on your belief, there should be full cages, no fighting, no hitting, not shots over 30mph, etc because they all lead to injuries. The NHL (and all professional sports) are different than a normal workplace. Comparing them isn't correct.

Have you ever tried not wearing a visor? If you haven't played without a visor, your example isn't relevant because a visor allows much better visibility than a cage. The removal of the visor only extends the gains you experienced in moving from cage to visor.

Since Crosby and Dats can score without visors, then all players should be forced to wear visors? This argument is ridiculous at best.

I have tried not wearing a visor before, and the I find the difference is very minor. Virtually all the top players in the NHL wear visors; if visors were really the injury causing machines some people are making them sound like and obstructed your vision enough to make you better with no visor then why do we not see a correlation in the stats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried not wearing a visor before, and the I find the difference is very minor. Virtually all the top players in the NHL wear visors; if visors were really the injury causing machines some people are making them sound like and obstructed your vision enough to make you better with no visor then why do we not see a correlation in the stats?

You're confusing correlation with causation. The top-scorers are largely younger players, and younger players are more likely to wear visors. This is a product of the mandatory visors in the CHL, and the prevalence of visors in top Euro leagues- it has nothing to do with skill.

The above result supports that visors shouldn't be mandatory. The players are exposed to visors, and can then choose to keep them. Therefore, it isn't that the players don't know the benefits of visors, but that they don't like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing correlation with causation. The top-scorers are largely younger players, and younger players are more likely to wear visors. This is a product of the mandatory visors in the CHL, and the prevalence of visors in top Euro leagues- it has nothing to do with skill.

The above result supports that visors shouldn't be mandatory. The players are exposed to visors, and can then choose to keep them. Therefore, it isn't that the players don't know the benefits of visors, but that they don't like them.

You are working against your own argument here. You argue visors are bad, and then say that players should be able to choose whether to have them. That visors impair performance. Yet as you said, the younger players who have been exposed to them keep them and still manage to dominate the league. The majority of players without visors are older players who came up playing without a visor.

How many top players really even go visorless? Not many.

As for the "it's different fro a normal workplace" well sure. But that doesn't mean that available safety equipment shouldn't be made mandatory to protect the millions of dollars the owners have invested in these players. If Brendan Smith gets a career-ending eye injury in his fourth season as a Wing, what is that? Ilitch has just spent a few million to develop him to that point, plus however many millions are remaining on his contract.

It's not about should visors be mandatory. It's about when will it happen, because it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this