Visors Required - New NHL Players in '13-'14

[Holmstrom96 347]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=672983&navid=DL|NHL|home

The National Hockey League and NHL Players' Association have agreed to make wearing visors mandatory for players who enter the League beginning in the 2013-14 season.

The announcement came following a meeting of the League's Competition Committee at the NHL offices here Tuesday.

Current players can decide on their own if they choose to wear a visor. It's the same procedure the League used when implementing mandatory helmet usage in 1980.

...

[wingsfan4795 552]

And video review on 4 minute high sticks

[brett 1,029]

maybe this will make bert retire

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

maybe this will make bert retire

He's not affected by this.

[Firehawk 305]

Why don't they just go to the college screens?

[evilmrt 636]

Not a big deal, 73% of players voluntarily wear visors already.

Before the "let the players do whatever they want" crowd chimes in, explain to me how this is any different than having legal/policy mandated safety gear by your employer depending on your line of work.

One difference though... Hockey players are much more valuable. Well, most of them.

[Nev 1,085]

^ Exactly

[Guest DeGraa55]

Not a big deal, 73% of players voluntarily wear visors already.

Before the "let the players do whatever they want" crowd chimes in, explain to me how this is any different than having legal/policy mandated safety gear by your employer depending on your line of work.

One difference though... Hockey players are much more valuable. Well, most of them.

I still think it should be the persons choice.

But for insurance reasons and what not that's not the case.

[frankgrimes 1,836]

No Hit League

NCL N o C hoice L eague

grown up men being told what to wear lmao this league is becoming m,ore and more of a big fat joke.

[brett 1,029]

He's not affected by this.

i thought he might be i can remember a game that he used one

[55fan 5,133]

I'm glad it was grandfathered in. Sure they're a good thing safety-wise, but if you're not used to playing with them, it can throw you a bit. They just decided that one area of the plant where I work now requires safety glasses. I hate the things. We haven't worn them in that area since we got the machines over 10 years ago, and no one's been hurt.

But rules are rules and we have the whole OSHA thing to deal with, so we're stuck. I wish like crazy that they'd been grandfathered in.

I've had to wear them on other jobs and hated them just as bad. (I also hated prescription glasses, but that's neither here nor there.) It's different when you get used to doing something without and have to switch to them than if you walk in on your first day and train in seeing things weird, and that's what I think they're addressing here. Some guys have played for years without them. No reason to make them re-learn skills that call for exceptional eye-hand coordination.

Hmm... wonder if they'd let me wear a visor instead...

[RyanBarnes! 293]

This surprises nobody.

[P. Marlowe 748]

Nothing should ever change.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

Good deal. I wish Yzerman was wearing one in Game 5 of the Western Conference semifinals in 2004.

[Gizmo 21]

I'm fine with it... but a lot of guys will just wear them tilited way up as to make them useless for protection like they do in the minors where they are required.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Why don't they just go to the college screens?

NCAA is/was actually looking at going to 3/4 visors.

I still think it should be the persons choice.

But for insurance reasons and what not that's not the case.

I agree. I wonder what the rate of use would have been if players were offered the choice, but forced to pay for additional insurance themselves. I'm not a fan of the new rule, but if the NHLPA is okay with it, then I can't argue with the decision.

Nothing should ever change.

Kids today...

[Franzine 739]

The incoming player opposed to this can just wear his visor like Kronwall so that it covers as much of his face as a hat brim.

[toby91_ca 620]

No Hit League

NCL N o C hoice L eague

grown up men being told what to wear lmao this league is becoming m,ore and more of a big fat joke.

I don't really mean much offense by this, but you are exhibiting a clear lack of understanding of all the factors at play here.

Firstly, this doesn't happen if the Players Association didn't agree to it...they did.

Secondly, if the players were to play for free and waive 100% liability of anyone involved (rink, team, league, etc.), then sure, no one would care, let the guy do what he wants. HOWEVER, that is not the case. The players are being paid very significant amounts of money, teams want to protect their investments and rightfully so. Someone might say they shouldn't care, they have insurance, but that just saves them a bit of money in the future should something happen....it doesn't give them the player back. Also, if everyone was wearing visors, I'm sure their insurance premiums would decrease.

I'm sorry, but the extreme short-sighted views that grown men should be able to decide (it's their life) annoys me to no end.

[Guest RedWingsDad]

As opposed to this, in order to reduce facial injuries they could go back to wooden sticks and further limit/enforce the curves on blades in order to reduce the general velocity of the puck.

Edited June 5, 2013 by RedWingsDad

[Guest The Axe]

As opposed to this, in order to reduce facial injuries they could go back to wooden sticks and further limit/enforce the curves on blades in order to reduce the general velocity of the puck.

Red X. Slow hockey? Come on.

[Rhah 195]

I'm fine with it... but a lot of guys will just wear them tilited way up as to make them useless for protection like they do in the minors where they are required.

This. Kronwall's visor cracks me up.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

The visors seemed like an inevitability.

I'm more interested that they're taking a look at goaltending equipment again and have a new net that takes up less space behind and at the sides.

Among other changes, all of which must be approved by the board of governors and the union's executive committee before they go into effect, is the installation of nets that are four inches shallower but don't affect the size of the area between the goal posts and crossbar. Colin Campbell, the league's executive vice president and director of hockey operations, said these nets, which have been tested in research and development camps, are designed to create more offense by giving players more room to work in the offensive zone.

NHL general managers voted in March to shrink some goaltending equipment, and rather than approve that change, the competition committee decided to form a subcommittee to look at alterations to all equipment, including gear worn by skaters.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9342716/nhl-competition-committee-recommend-mandatory-visors-new-players

Hopefully the competition committee deciding to look at all equipment means the hard shell pads. And not that they're weaseling out of further restricting goalie's equipment.

[rrasco 1,312]

To those against this....do you think players should be allowed to choose whether they wear a helmet as well?

[Guest RedWingsDad]

To those against this....do you think players should be allowed to choose whether they wear a helmet as well?

Yes, yes, your very clever.

To be clear, there are two separate angles that this needs to be considered. First, the health insurance aspect and the fact that the team is on the line to foot the bill if the player get's hurt. From this angle, I understand the owners wanting the rule and can offer no argument. The second aspect, and the one you seem to be addressing, is whether or not the players, independent of insurance cost consideration, should have a choice to wear a visor, or in your case... a helmet. From that angle, and to answer your question, I think players should be able to choose if they want to wear a helmet or visor.

[StormJH1 231]

There's really no reason to be against this. Yes, visors themselves can cause cuts (usually on the cheek or mouth area, not the eye sockets), but for every one time that happens, there's probably 30 instances where a puck or stick blade was subtly deflected by a curved visor, and nobody even knew the potential harm that would have happened. The same night Mark Staal almost lost an eye, there was a late game involving Vancouver - Henrik Sedin got totally smoked in the side of the head by a shot. It looked just like the Staal thing, except it appears to have caught the visor, and Sedin got up immediately.

That being said, this is still a half measure, and a 3/4 visor or full cage would do a lot more to actually prevent serious facial injuries. But it's a good start. 70% of the league had them anyway.