Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#21 Rhah

Rhah

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 502 posts
  • Location:Champaign, IL

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:26 AM

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.



#22 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,871 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:44 AM

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/n...ors-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.

#23 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,004 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:55 AM

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


Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, disney.com (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: disney.com.  CONSOLATION PRIZE: $5/goal by: Datsyuk (3), $3/goal by: Z (1). MOTB TOTAL: $30


#24 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 10:08 AM

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. :clap:

 

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.


Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

#25 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:08 AM

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.



#26 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,447 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:22 AM

Consideration of any other angle beyond this is irrelevant.  Edit....the biggest thing for me, which you haven't mentioned, is the risk of losing the player and the time and money invested in said player.  Your argument related to cost and insurance, etc. is good, but for me, I'd be more concerned about losing franchise player that I thought I'd have for another 10-15 years.

 

Yes, yes, your very clever. :clap:

 

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.

 


Edited by toby91_ca, 05 June 2013 - 11:35 AM.


#27 St. Michael (the Red Wing)

St. Michael (the Red Wing)

    Heavenly With the Puck

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Location:Mankato, MN

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:26 AM

I'm all in favor of this rule. Think it's a good idea going forward in the NHL.



#28 sleepwalker

sleepwalker

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 12:22 PM

Lame, but expected.



#29 IILeiBlazeII

IILeiBlazeII

    Top-Tier Double Backup

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 130 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 12:43 PM

Yes, yes, your very clever. :clap:
 
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.

 
 
Clearly the players disagree with you, as it was the PLAYERS that have voted in favor of grandfathering it in. I have no clue why people think just because you *can* do something (like playing without a visor, without a helmet, etc) you *should* do it. The world changes and evolves... and everyone should be evolving along with it! Player safety is an issue that isn't going to go away, and with the expansion of medical knowledge comes the understanding that head and face injuries can have long-lasting effects on the brain. Why do you want 18 year old finesse kids coming into the league and getting their brains scrambled when the majority of big, strong, manly NHL players don't? Tough guys (which I'm all for, btw) can still drop their gloves and TAKE THEIR HELMETS OFF to fight - they still have that choice, though you rarely see them do it anymore.

Maybe each of my fingers is an undulating shrimp! It's a world of possibilities.

#30 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 12:54 PM

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.
 
 
 


http://espn.go.com/n...ors-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.


I think the safety issues are being put first is all.

#31 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • Location:Minneapoilis, MN

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:17 PM

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

 

And why stop at helmets. All those pads are heavy and restrict players ability to move. Away with all that. Just skates, shorts and a stick.


Edited by Pskov Wings Fan, 05 June 2013 - 01:24 PM.


#32 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,683 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:42 PM

Just mandate the full cages already.
"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

#33 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,876 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:53 PM

For me it comes down to this:  Just how much does a man value his most prized and irreplaceable function?  How about his second most?  How about third most?

 

Was there this much fight when they mandated helmets and nut cups?  I remember that there was when they argued the former, but I don't recall any fury over the latter.



#34 Bring Back The Bruise Bros

Bring Back The Bruise Bros

    RIP Probie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,683 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 02:11 PM

For me it comes down to this:  Just how much does a man value his most prized and irreplaceable function?  How about his second most?  How about third most?
 
Was there this much fight when they mandated helmets and nut cups?  I remember that there was when they argued the former, but I don't recall any fury over the latter.

That's the thing, if a guy doesn't care about possibly losing his sight, I think it should be his choice whether to wear one or not. I don't hate visors. There's no reason to. I just think the players should make the choice for themselves.
"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

#35 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,447 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 02:39 PM

That's the thing, if a guy doesn't care about possibly losing his sight, I think it should be his choice whether to wear one or not. I don't hate visors. There's no reason to. I just think the players should make the choice for themselves.

I have no problem with that line of thought, if the consequencies only impact the person making that decision.  But that is clearly not the case here.

 

If you thik about it, why is there are there speed limits?  It's not really to protect the individual driver, it's to protect all the other innocent people in proximity of that driver.  If you left it up to that driver to decide how fast he drove, the risk he would take on in driving way too fast is impacting a lot more individuals than just himself.



#36 BottleOfSmoke

BottleOfSmoke

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,959 posts
  • Location:It's so hot in the P

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:05 PM

Was there this much fight when they mandated helmets and nut cups?  I remember that there was when they argued the former, but I don't recall any fury over the latter.


*queue my one allotted sexist comment for the day*

Are any of us surprised that most men value their balls over their brains?!

*thus ends my rampant sexism for the day. I apologize.*

Back on topic, I totally agree with the concept that an individual should be able to make their own dumbass decisions about how they want to impact their health (smoking, triple double baconator of death, willingness to take pucks to the dome)--given that that decision does not adversely affect others. These players are not only investments money-wise on someone else's insurance dime, but as others have pointed out they are an investment that a team makes to reasonably assume that a particular role is filled, frequently long term, on their team. Their coaches rely on them being there. Their teammates rely on them being there. And I, as a fan, rely on them being there and doing everything they can to ensure that my team stays competitive. If a player wants to have unprotected sex with a Thai hooker whilst drinking moonshine and inserting cockroaches into his ass, fine. Just don't flipping do it while you're signed to play for my team.

So...uh...I guess I feel the same way about the visor issue. Signed to play for my team? Then wear a damn visor, wear a damn helmet, and no damn Thai hookers. *Mic drop*

LGWsig_zpsa75c5d1e.jpg

 


#37 Drake_Marcus

Drake_Marcus

    Pariah

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,335 posts
  • Location:Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:09 PM

I still think it should be the persons choice.


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

 

Oh it's the player's choice.  No one is forcing them to play.  If they have a strong dislike of visors (despite having had to wear them in Jr/College/EuroLeagues they're welcome to step aside and try a new career.  No one is forcing anybody to do anything.  If I want to walk onto a construction site to review a piece of work I have to wear a helmet; the option of actually entering the construction site (and thus put on the helmet) is 100% voluntary.

 

None of this should be a problem.  These guys are all making at more than half a million dollars a year.  Given all that money I think it's fair to expect them to follow some minimum safety standards designed to protect them and the investment they represent to the people paying their salaries.



*queue my one allotted sexist comment for the day*

Are any of us surprised that most men value their balls over their brains?!

*thus ends my rampant sexism for the day. I apologize.*

Back on topic, I totally agree with the concept that an individual should be able to make their own dumbass decisions about how they want to impact their health (smoking, triple double baconator of death, willingness to take pucks to the dome)--given that that decision does not adversely affect others. These players are not only investments money-wise on someone else's insurance dime, but as others have pointed out they are an investment that a team makes to reasonably assume that a particular role is filled, frequently long term, on their team. Their coaches rely on them being there. Their teammates rely on them being there. And I, as a fan, rely on them being there and doing everything they can to ensure that my team stays competitive. If a player wants to have unprotected sex with a Thai hooker whilst drinking moonshine and inserting cockroaches into his ass, fine. Just don't flipping do it while you're signed to play for my team.

So...uh...I guess I feel the same way about the visor issue. Signed to play for my team? Then wear a damn visor, wear a damn helmet, and no damn Thai hookers. *Mic drop*

 

Female players wear genital protection as well (a "Jill" rather than "Jock").  That area of the body is vulnerable to damage from a slapshot for any gender.


Dedicated to lulz once lost:
Posted Image
Thanks TeeMan!

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas
of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage" --H.P. Lovecraft

#38 kylee

kylee

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,452 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:10 PM

Visors for every player? What's Next, opposing teams' benches on the same side of the ice?

 

 

-Don Cherry



#39 Drake_Marcus

Drake_Marcus

    Pariah

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,335 posts
  • Location:Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:15 PM

Just mandate the full cages already.

 

That'll never happen.  Full cages impact a player's ability to see the puck at their feet. A high quality visor shouldn't negatively impact your vision. 

 

If anything, we may one day see a full mask that is clear.  "Glass-like" ceramics already exist (for example Aluminum Oxynitride), so once the machining methods, costs and designs are sufficiently advanced to allow for a better solution we might see that type of mask.  The main problem aside from strength and cost is probably related to the fine optical properties of the material (players want to be able to see just like they do without the mask in front of their face) and likely condensation build-up on the inside of the mask.


Dedicated to lulz once lost:
Posted Image
Thanks TeeMan!

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas
of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage" --H.P. Lovecraft

#40 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:27 PM

Clearly the majority of the players players disagree with you, as it was the PLAYERS that have voted in favor of grandfathering it in. I have no clue why people think just because you *can* do something (like playing without a visor, without a helmet, etc) you *should* do it. The world changes and evolves... and everyone should be evolving along with it! Player safety is an issue that isn't going to go away, and with the expansion of medical knowledge comes the understanding that head and face injuries can have long-lasting effects on the brain. Why do you want 18 year old finesse kids coming into the league and getting their brains scrambled when the majority of big, strong, manly NHL players don't? Tough guys (which I'm all for, btw) can still drop their gloves and TAKE THEIR HELMETS OFF to fight - they still have that choice, though you rarely see them do it anymore.

 
There, I fixed it for you (see bolded text). It was not a unanimous decision. Also, I didn't make any argument based on the rules popularity amongst the players, nor did I make an argument based on the whether it was smart or not to wear a helmet or visor... these are arguments you invented in your head and erroneously applied to what I said.
Tim Thomas - Patriot and generally awesome human being.
 
Romans 10:13 - For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users