HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   OT: Player Safety Discussion (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1368807)

Kreider Typical 03-06-2013 07:27 AM

Player Safety Discussion
 
i like the idea of mandatory visors w/ a grandfather clause-- something allowing veterans(excluding ELCs) to bypass the rule or something

we already have the extra glove padding, why not take the full plunge? reasoning they put the behind the transition to extra glove padding is that it wasn't a major adjustment and that you barely noticed it. visor is definitely noticable and an adjustment, but most guys coming into the league already play with some form of protection

full shields/cages?

Crease 03-06-2013 07:33 AM

I think it's inevitable that visors will be grandfathered in league-wide. I don't think it should be a league-wide rule though.

At the end of the day, individual player insurance most definitely accounts for the type of equipment (or lack thereof) that they wear. And the players are grown adults, they're aware of the risks they willingly take by not wearing one.

Kreider Typical 03-06-2013 07:41 AM

the players are owner's investments though. it's not so clean cut.

if i choose not to wear my seat belt that's one thing... nobody invests millions of dollars in my health annually.

the team has 4 million dollars every year invested in staal. if staal has a career-ending injury that could be prevented, then we lose an extremely valuable roster spot that we have to fill.


also: out of curiosity why was this marked ot? isn't ot off-topic?

towely 03-06-2013 07:45 AM

i think at this stage of the game with the size and speed of today's players and the rise in injuries that a full cage like in college and high school should mandatory.

every player has a cut, bruise or missing teeth on their face and it is the only part of their body that is not protected but yet gets injured often to all players.

you would think by now they would have changed that.

i also think it is time for some changes to the helmet. they need more padding like a nfl helmet and the chin strap needs to be kept snug so the helmet stays put and combine that with the full cage and it would eliminate a lot of needless injuries.

goalies use a cage and no one needs to see what is going on more then him and they do fine.
not using cages is more of a excuse and macho thing then anything else as well as the traditionalists don't like it and some rules would be effected like high sticking and as much as teams don't want to see anyone hurt they are not ready to lose the opportunity to get a power play or even a double minor if blood were drawn.

Crease 03-06-2013 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooskating (Post 61087459)
the players are owner's investments though. it's not so clean cut.

if i choose not to wear my seat belt that's one thing... nobody invests millions of dollars in my health annually.

the team has 4 million dollars every year invested in staal. if staal has a career-ending injury that could be prevented, then we lose an extremely valuable roster spot that we have to fill.


also: out of curiosity why was this marked ot? isn't ot off-topic?

Owners take out insurance policies on contracts for their players. They pay the premium, and the insurance company makes payouts in the event the player is unable to perform but is still due money. This is why owners were gung-ho about term limits this past CBA negotiation - premiums skyrocket when contracts extend past 7 years.

The insurance company sets the player premium based on a myriad of factors, no doubt including the probability of a career ending eye injury, which is a function of whether or not the player wears a visor.

But yeah, I wouldn't have any issue with owners of individual teams mandating players on their team wear a visor. Part of contract negotiation, etc.

pld459666 03-06-2013 07:52 AM

Let the players choose.

How many shots are taken every game. How many high sticking incidents involve the eyes?

Lets look at this on a global scale and assess if this is really a problem.

I'd venture that the "issue" is less than a tenth of a percent. Most assuredly not one worth forcing players to wear visors.

I feel comfortable saying that it's not an issue.

Mio41 03-06-2013 08:11 AM

No doubt a shield would have saved Staal from injury, tough players wear shields too

Bluenote13 03-06-2013 08:16 AM

From pee wee to Juniors I wore a full mask or full Itech face shield. First year against men I wore just a helmet. I was switched to defense halfway through our season due to injuries, took a puck to the nose, broken for the 2nd time in my life. All I remember was watching the puck come at me in slow motion even though it was pretty fast in real time. Next thing i know I was on the ice writhing in pain like we saw with Staal last night. I was bleeding out both nostrils, knew it was broken. In those days no one examined you, just sat out two shifts and back out you went.

I wore a shield or full mask every game since.

Kinda think players who don't wear the best protection available cause its 'not comfortable' are idiots.

ChipAyten 03-06-2013 09:35 AM

I'd ignore all the stick other players give me regarding facial protection. Wearing a cage is totally worth whatever ridicule you have to endure from "tougher" players. At least you get to keep your teeth and eyes.

egelband 03-06-2013 10:05 AM

after seeing that, i'm thinking the rangers better all wear visors. actually, the whole league should just do it. everyone will be at the same disadvantage...they'll figure it out. and 8 or 10 times a year a major facial injury will be avoided. i sympathize with the arguments against visors, but it just makes so much sense...particularly with the speed of the game today.

i'm for less equipment/weaponry in football...but i dont think a visor makes a hockey player more reckless like it does a football player. just my gut.

Miamipuck 03-06-2013 10:54 AM

Meh yeah people that only wear full cages are the smart ones, lol.

Funny how those "smart" players are usually the dirtiest chippiest punks around.

I wore a half shield for years and got cut more from wearing that thing then when I wore no shield at all. I don't care if you wear a shield, dont wear a shield, it's your choice. I only make fun of the players that wear the full thing and skate around like punks. Otherwise, who cares.

It's one thing to make wearing a helmet mandatory. I think it's a whole other ballgame to make visors as well.

The only idiots are the ones advocating one or the other based on anecdotal evidence. Like I said, I got cut more when I had a visor on and that is verifiable. It doesn't make me right though.

Kane One 03-06-2013 10:55 AM

Like I said on the main boards, why should it be up to the player? It should only be up to the player if players don't get paid when they're out with an eye injury.

Bluenote13 03-06-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miamipuck (Post 61095279)
Meh yeah people that only wear full cages are the smart ones, lol.

Funny how those "smart" players are usually the dirtiest chippiest punks around.

I wore a half shield for years and got cut more from wearing that thing then when I wore no shield at all. I don't care if you wear a shield, dont wear a shield, it's your choice. I only make fun of the players that wear the full thing and skate around like punks. Otherwise, who cares.

It's one thing to make wearing a helmet mandatory. I think it's a whole other ballgame to make visors as well.

The only idiots are the ones advocating one or the other based on anecdotal evidence. Like I said, I got cut more when I had a visor on and that is verifiable. It doesn't make me right though.

How often were you using it to shave?

Hockey Team 03-06-2013 11:52 AM

Visors prevent an insignificant amount of severe injuries.

Full cages would be bad for the game. How are you supposed to face wash someone or jab someone in a post-whistle scrum if they're wearing cages? And less non-staged fights. Violence is a big selling point of the game. It would be a lot less fun to watch without it.

Riverdale 03-06-2013 12:03 PM

I can see why people want to make visors mandatory, but I also think it should be up to the player. If someone doesn't want to wear it, then they are taking the risk.

That said, I think its stupid not to wear one. The risk of a career or life altering injury is just not worth it.

Malarowski 03-06-2013 12:14 PM

I think leaving it up to players is fine. They react to things when they get scared. Look at the huge number of people that started wearing Kevlar socks after Karlsson got his Achilles tendon sliced. I would expect the number of visors to go up after the Staal hit.

Hockey Team 03-06-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malarowski (Post 61100291)
I think leaving it up to players is fine. They react to things when they get scared. Look at the huge number of people that started wearing Kevlar socks after Karlsson got his Achilles tendon sliced. I would expect the number of visors to go up after the Staal hit.

Yeah, there'll be some new visors in use the next few games. Some will keep them, some will remove them after a few games.

There are some players where if they wear a visor it fogs up constantly, and they don't want to have to keep wiping it down (And if it's fogging and being wiped, then they're going to be looking through a dirty visor)

ChipAyten 03-06-2013 12:30 PM

This isn't solely up to the players. It reflects poorly on the sport. The NHL doesn't want to endure the same scrutiny the NFL does in regards to injury. This is a business and it's the employees job to make their respective owners money. Expect mandates shortly. Grandfathering in current players is a fair compromise though. The same argument was had in regards to helmets and pads.

Miamipuck 03-06-2013 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13 (Post 61096137)
How often were you using it to shave?

Woo sick burn.

Bluenote13 03-06-2013 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miamipuck (Post 61101319)
Woo sick burn.

Ya like that huh butterfingers Mcgee? :p:

JeremyNYR 03-06-2013 12:35 PM

This might be an odd question, but are NHL players currently permitted to wear a full cage if they chose to? The only time I've seen them is when a guy is healing from a severe facial injury (how ironic since the cage would've prevented the injury from occurring).

To those that believe wearing a visor or cage should be up to the players, do you believe wearing any helmet at all should be up to individual players? If you think helmets should be required, don't you think you probably would've had the same opinion about helmets before they were required that you have now about visors just because that's what you were accustomed to at the time?

I think it's better for the game to avoid serious injuries to very talented players than it is to preserve such trivial aspects of the game like face scrubs after the play.

As for the impact on fighting, I don't understand why more players don't remove their helmets as an accepted part of initiating a fight. What do they get out of destroying their hands punching eachothers helmets and visors?

Mr Atoz* 03-06-2013 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeremyNYR (Post 61101547)
This might be an odd question, but are NHL players currently permitted to wear a full cage if they chose to? The only time I've seen them is when a guy is healing from a severe facial injury (how ironic since the cage would've prevented the injury from occurring).

To those that believe wearing a visor or cage should be up to the players, do you believe wearing any helmet at all should be up to individual players? If you think helmets should be required, don't you think you probably would've had the same opinion about helmets before they were required that you have now about visors just because that's what you were accustomed to at the time?

I think it's better for the game to avoid serious injuries to very talented players than it is to preserve such trivial aspects of the game like face scrubs after the play.

As for the impact on fighting, I don't understand why more players don't remove their helmets as an accepted part of initiating a fight. What do they get out of destroying their hands punching eachothers helmets and visors?

You need league permission to wear anything other than a standard visor and only for a specific injury.

The reason that you don't want to remove your helmet in a fight is the danger of hitting your head on the ice which is worse than any punch.

Clowes Line 03-06-2013 04:44 PM

You know, my dad brought up a really good idea. Due to the fact that players hate visors because it affects the way they see the game and perform, leave the current players and prospects, etc... the way they are.

But what should happen, is that at the youth levels, including college and Juniors, visors should be mandatory, starting at a specific age, right now. For example, make visors mandatory for all 13 year olds, that way players grow up wearing them all their life and no adjustment would need to be made.

Much like when helmets were introduced to the game. Wasn't mandatory, but was eased into the game through the next generation, eventually becoming mandatory as it became no big deal to the players because it was what they grew up with and were used to. Do the same with visors?

mrhockey193195 03-06-2013 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callys Chicken Parm (Post 61114481)
You know, my dad brought up a really good idea. Due to the fact that players hate visors because it affects the way they see the game and perform, leave the current players and prospects, etc... the way they are.

But what should happen, is that at the youth levels, including college and Juniors, visors should be mandatory, starting at a specific age, right now. For example, make visors mandatory for all 13 year olds, that way players grow up wearing them all their life and no adjustment would need to be made.

Much like when helmets were introduced to the game. Wasn't mandatory, but was eased into the game through the next generation, eventually becoming mandatory as it became no big deal to the players because it was what they grew up with and were used to. Do the same with visors?

This is already essentially in place. There is no level of hockey below the pros where you aren't required to wear either a face shield or a visor.

Hockey Team 03-06-2013 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callys Chicken Parm (Post 61114481)
You know, my dad brought up a really good idea. Due to the fact that players hate visors because it affects the way they see the game and perform, leave the current players and prospects, etc... the way they are.

But what should happen, is that at the youth levels, including college and Juniors, visors should be mandatory, starting at a specific age, right now. For example, make visors mandatory for all 13 year olds, that way players grow up wearing them all their life and no adjustment would need to be made.

Much like when helmets were introduced to the game. Wasn't mandatory, but was eased into the game through the next generation, eventually becoming mandatory as it became no big deal to the players because it was what they grew up with and were used to. Do the same with visors?

That's why there's more players coming into the NHL wearing visors now.

There's always some players who don't like them, others who feel they shouldn't wear them because of their playing style, and some who have severe problems with a visor (like the ones who have to constantly wipe down the visor, I doubt any player is going to put up a visor fogging up on them).

This isn't a rec league. A foggy visor is much more dangerous to a player's career then the small risk of a visor-preventable injury.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.