Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#41 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:32 PM

 

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.

 

Drawing in sufficient oxygen with a full glass cage on may also present a problem.



#42 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:36 PM

 

Drawing in sufficient oxygen with a full glass cage on may also present a problem.

 

Not with that oxygen tank on your back. Just make them all astronauts.



#43 evilmrt

evilmrt

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts
  • Location:Winter Freakin Wonderland

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:46 PM

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.

Agree, bring back wooden sticks.

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.

What part of working for a team owner as part of a multi million dollar CONTRACT don't you understand? You waive many of your rights and become property upon signing the contact. Your thinking only applies to UFAs.
IPB Image

#44 LeftWinger

LeftWinger

    42 years in Detroit! Time to spend the rest in paradise!

  • Silver Booster
  • 8,257 posts
  • Location:HART - MI

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:54 PM

I like the wooden sticks idea for sure!  I think the visor mandatory is ridiculous. Even though most players where them coming out already, it still shouldn't be mandatory....and what about Kronwall? He wears one, but it obviously protects the top of his helmet more than his face...will they make him wear it correctly or let players circumvent the rule by wearing it like KRonner?


Laugh it up, delete it all, I'll be laughing when it happens! -4/17/14

 

Money on the board: $30.00 plus immunity.

 

Franzen = 0.50 PPG


#45 RedWingsDad

RedWingsDad

    Bigot

  • Restricted
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:57 PM

 

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.

 

Regarding any kind of full face mask... I wouldn't approve. I like being able to clearly see players faces, their emotions, battle scars, and missing teeth. Even a clear mask would make it significantly less personal.


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

#46 LeftWinger

LeftWinger

    42 years in Detroit! Time to spend the rest in paradise!

  • Silver Booster
  • 8,257 posts
  • Location:HART - MI

Posted 05 June 2013 - 04:02 PM

If anyone thinks that visor's do not inhibit a players play, just look at Fedorov and Lidstrom.  When Lids first came to the league he wore a visor.  I am not saying he was average then, but when he decided to remove it, he became super human, then later on in his career he put it back on and became human again.... Fedorov was the best player in the league when he was sans visor, then one day he broke his nose and played the rest of his career in a visor and his game suffered.  He was still a great player, but not as dominant as he once was. Even when he was still young in Anaheim... It is what it is, but I believe whole heartedly that a visor seriously effects a players ability...Yzerman is another example.

 

 

The only saving grace is that players wont be forced to wear them that already don't.  The kids coming in should be used to the visor and it shouldn't change their game.


Edited by LeftWinger, 05 June 2013 - 04:04 PM.

Laugh it up, delete it all, I'll be laughing when it happens! -4/17/14

 

Money on the board: $30.00 plus immunity.

 

Franzen = 0.50 PPG


#47 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,709 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 05 June 2013 - 04:42 PM

 

 

 

The only saving grace is that players wont be forced to wear them that already don't.  The kids coming in should be used to the visor and it shouldn't change their game.

This is the big thing.  If they're used to them, it won't change anything for them.  If they have to suddenly start wearing them, it will.

 

If you've always (or at least for many, many years) worn glasses, you don't even think about it, but if you get a pair after never wearing them, you have to re-learn how to see.  I'm at the reading-glasses age, and it's a royal pain.

 

My supervisor has worn glasses since he was a kid, and I've never seen him with fogged-up glasses no matter how hot and humid it gets, but you can put a pair on me in the dead of winter, and I'm apparently exhaling out of my tear ducts.

 

Visors aren't a bad thing- far from it.  Having to change your game in the later stages of your career is a pain, and they've avoided it by allowing grandfathering.  It's a good call.


Money on the board:  Current total: $6

$1 for a goal by any current Wing after whom I have named a hamster.  An additional $5 for a series-clinching goal scored by any current Wing after whom I have named a hamster. $5 if the other team fails to score against a current Wing goalie after whom I have named a hamster.

Hamsters I have had:  (current Wings highlighted)

Henrik Pavel Tomas Nicklas Dominik

Niklas Matthew Daniel Robert

Johan Andreas Valtteri Jonathan

Andrew Patrick Ian Todd

Jordin Damien Gustav James


#48 matt198913

matt198913

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,861 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 05:12 PM

Not a fan of this really. I never liked wearing a visor while playing when I was young. Makes fighting fairly a lot more difficult. Turns guys like Clutterbuck into tough guys real quick....
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#49 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,070 posts

Posted 05 June 2013 - 05:41 PM


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.


No worries, everyone is entiteled to his opinion and if that's you opinion I am more than fine with it, I just happen to disagree with you.

The insurance thing is just a big bluff, they use the safety issue as a reason to charge these premium fee but in the end, insurances surely know that they are getting more out of this even if they have to pay sometimes...

Hockeyplayers are tough as nails and will come back till its no longer possible, telling them what to wear is just wrong in my opinion but it fits with a lot of bad decisions this league has made over the past years.

lidsretire2.jpg
 

Thank you so much perfect human being #5

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

Phase I: injury rattled roster Phase II: BABCOCK Phase III: Playoffs XXIII !


#50 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 05 June 2013 - 06:17 PM

Not a fan of this really. I never liked wearing a visor while playing when I was young. Makes fighting fairly a lot more difficult. Turns guys like Clutterbuck into tough guys real quick....

 

I was going to write that fighting issue is easy to fix, just penalize the guy who fights having a visor on. But then I though how many times you see a guy being taken down during the fight. So taking helmets off before the fight is not really the safest thing to do. Better hit your knuckles against the visor than your head against the ice.



#51 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:05 AM

What part of working for a team owner as part of a multi million dollar CONTRACT don't you understand? You waive many of your rights and become property upon signing the contact. Your thinking only applies to UFAs.

 

I was going to touch on this, I've never heard a specific case in regards to hockey, but many athletic contracts limit the player's freedom to do things outside of the sport as well, for example, not being allowed to ride a motorcycle.  Think about Roethlisberger...he almost ended his career because of a motorcycle accident IIRC.  This is just another aspect of teams protecting their assets.


Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, Glendening (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: Glendening.  MOTB TOTAL: $12


#52 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:20 AM

I was going to touch on this, I've never heard a specific case in regards to hockey, but many athletic contracts limit the player's freedom to do things outside of the sport as well, for example, not being allowed to ride a motorcycle.  Think about Roethlisberger...he almost ended his career because of a motorcycle accident IIRC.  This is just another aspect of teams protecting their assets.



It wasn't that bad but I know what you're saying.


But I think there needs to be limits. Not allowing a player to ride a motorcycle is going too far. Players should still be allowed to live their lives.

#53 Z Winged Dangler

Z Winged Dangler

    GooZe! Z Jr. ~ Acting Captain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,028 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB

Posted 06 June 2013 - 07:39 AM

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 agree that the league is becoming more of a joke with a lot of that s*** that goes on, but this is a positive change.  Player safety is important and with the amount of injuries that could have been prevented or at least minimized by the injured player wearing a visor is relatively high.  I'm all for letting guys do their own thing, but a line's gotta be drawn in the sand on some things and this is one.  Now we just need the new "hybrid' icing to be full no touch so we stop seeing guys ankles fold to their shins sideways.  That s*** is gross and makes me want to puke when I see it. 



 

I was going to touch on this, I've never heard a specific case in regards to hockey, but many athletic contracts limit the player's freedom to do things outside of the sport as well, for example, not being allowed to ride a motorcycle.  Think about Roethlisberger...he almost ended his career because of a motorcycle accident IIRC.  This is just another aspect of teams protecting their assets.

 Maybe it's time to ban NHLers from driving any car worth more that 100K.  Apparently that just reeks of disaster. :eh:   I don't like that tree....it's gotta go!


This offseason will determine whether Ken Holland should still be employed with the Wings organization.

 

Please put Smith on the Power Play!


#54 jollymania

jollymania

    Heavy Hitter

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,606 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:07 AM

players can wear there visor like kronner anyways.


"I assure you the hits along the boards he(Aaron Downey) constantly threw SEVERAL TIMES EVERY SHIFT were far more damaging hits that what Kronwall throws."
- uk_redwing
HockeyArchive Twitter

#55 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:17 PM

I don't understand being against this.

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#56 dirtydangles

dirtydangles

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,402 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

This is one rule change I think makes sense - the other s*** with the trapezoid and the new face-off penalty and puck over glass is garbage to me. I also hate the 3 point game inflation and instigator rule. 



#57 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,888 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 June 2013 - 04:20 PM

 Maybe it's time to ban NHLers from driving any car worth more that 100K.  Apparently that just reeks of disaster. :eh:   I don't like that tree....it's gotta go!

 

I think you would be surprised with some of the stuff that can make it's way into a contract.  People are willing to give up all kinds of things when you offer them $5 million dollars a year.


Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid

 

MONEY ON THE BOARD: $10/Kronwalling (1), $1/goal by: Nyquist, Tatar, Jurco, Sheahan, Glendening (1), Andersson, Dekeyser, Pulkinnen, Ouellet, or Sproul.  2X MULTIPLIER: Glendening.  MOTB TOTAL: $12


#58 DeGraa55

DeGraa55

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 06 June 2013 - 06:38 PM

I understand mandatory helmets it makes sense. But mandatory visors does not.



If they make visors mandatory then I think a full cage should be an option.


I think a cage is better for vision than a Visor.

#59 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,113 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 06 June 2013 - 11:50 PM


 
 
It's not fun to be in Marian Hossa's shoes where you're high stick caused the end of someone's career, it can have a traumatic effect on how you go on in life. If a simple rule can cut down on those situations I don't see the big deal about it.

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 07 June 2013 - 10:22 PM.
removed non-hockey portion


#60 Pskov Wings Fan

Pskov Wings Fan

    1st Line All-Star

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

Posted 07 June 2013 - 10:30 AM


 
I think we are going off-topic here but the other side of freedom is personal responsibility for ones actions. If a hockey player were to cover his own medical care and compensate team for the portion of his contract he is unable to fulfill because that player decided not to wear a mandated piece of equipment, suffered an injury and now unable to play that would be fair. But I doubt anybody is willing to go there to preserve their freedom from regulations.

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 07 June 2013 - 10:22 PM.
deleted non-hockey portion






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users