Jump to content

- - - - -

Veterans Players Choosing to Wear visors/ Younger Players Going Withou

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 F.Michael


    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 9,602 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 26 October 2011 - 03:38 PM

the NCAA is probably doing away with cages in the near future. going towards mandated half shield.

I'd be shocked if the NCAA were to go this route; although I could see making the half-shield a players choice.

On the bright side - those schools with dental programs would have more regular customers if they did do away with the full cages :hockeysmile:

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#42 WorkingOvertime



  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,682 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 03:48 PM

Lidstrom speaks on the issue in this article. He believes that the players should have a choice.

#43 redwingmachine


    3rd Line Checker

  • Gold Booster
  • 415 posts
  • Location:Naperville, IL

Posted 26 October 2011 - 04:17 PM

I wear a cage because only the pro’s look cool with facial scars and no teeth.

#44 Guest_Shoreline (Guest)

Guest_Shoreline (Guest)
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2011 - 05:47 PM

I can't recall ever having witnessed that scenario, and I'd also love to hear about their construction. However, that's only one possible cause of facial damage. Sticks to the face are a far more likely and common occurrence than slapshots, and 99% of them you'd be hard pressed to notice when a visor stops the stick from inflicting potentially permanent damage.

EDIT: I'm likely in the minority here, but I'm not in favor of mandating visors for pros. They are, indeed, grown ass men, and can make their own decisions. That said, I'm strongly in favor of them wearing them and think anyone who doesn't is likely overestimating the size of their own testicles. You only get two eyes. It's ok to be frugal with them.

High sticks to the face are still a common occurrence with visors, and are, overall, not much protection for the eyes, and obviously no protection below them.

I also think this should be left up to the player and for insurance purposes (Gord knows there needs to be insurance for every-*******-thing) if they elect not to wear a visor they should not be eligible for benefits to be compensated through injury should they get injured in that fashion and electing not to wear PPE.

Truthfully the issue is a tough one if you can't take a stance on a single side. I understand from a player perspective visors and cages are limiting and can be reallyf****** irritating to wear. I understand from a business perspective that part of your financial investment into a player is their well-being and obviously you aren't getting much from your investment if the player gets KO'd by a somewhat preventable injury. I understand from a litigation perspective (unfortunately this bulls*** rears it's head too often) that businesses in the U.S. and Canada are required PPE where there are specific job-related hazards but the NHL is a business (like other professional leagues in North America) exempt and allowed to largely self-regulate as far as PPE goes.

Then, there's the issue of.. if NHL teams were so much about safety, why are they encouraging players to put themselves in a situation of being injured by throwing themselves in the path of an 80-110mph vulcanized semi-frozen rubber puck? Why are fights allowed? Why is so much physicality allowed? At some point one has to understand that, regardless of the "side" you wish to take, there are risks involved with playing hockey. The impression I got about visors followed a number of facial related injuries and media attention, just like the arena netting issue followed a death and a few injuries plus media attention. The issue relating to concussions, head shots, blind side hits, etc., all followed more media attention. If you notice, logical or not, hypocritical or not, the league often acts swiftly following media attention, and people are unfortunately far too susceptible to the grandiose nature of an issue the media tends to magnify. Understanding from at least 3 perspectives, I don't believe visors or cages are a necessity, and players should both elect which they want to use, and take responsibility in every aspect for the choice they made.

Edited by Shoreline, 26 October 2011 - 05:54 PM.

#45 Shawn Lutz

Shawn Lutz


  • Member
  • 7 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 08:51 PM

I think players should still have the option to wear or not wear one. I don't wear a cage or a shield but I don't play for a living. I think as a professional and my livelihood was dependent upon my vision I'd probably wear a visor. I hated wearing a cage, I go more cuts to my chin from the cage hitting it that taking sticks or pucks to the face afterwards.

I do think that since helmets became mandatory (rightfully so I might add) that the sticks came up higher, visors added to more high sticks as well.

#46 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts

Posted 13 November 2011 - 05:07 PM

This topic hits home with the Ian White injury.
"Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct in which the score is kept."

RIP Bob Probert
RIP Wade Belak
RIP Derek Boogaard
RIP Rick Rypien

Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users