View Single Post
06-15-2006, 11:00 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to technophile
Originally Posted by AGraveOne
And a helmet would reduce the risk ALL THE MORE.

Are you implying that death is common from pucks to the face? I am not sure i understand? I mean, an aggressive predator is ALL ABOUT INTENDING TO EAT YOU, a hockey puck and the players who shoot them are never aiming at another player's head. The risk is ENORMOUSLY different.

A helmet in a car is INFINITELY more value than a face cage in hockey.
According to your own argument, a helmet is only of INFINITELY more value in a car than in hockey if the steering wheel is intending to smash you in the face. Which it's not, at least in any car I've ever been in.

Death may not be common from pucks to the face, but facial injuries, up to and including the loss (temporary or permanent) of vision in an eye, are quite commonly caused by high sticks. In fact, it's a rare NHL game where you don't see at least one high-stick and someone grabbing at their face. That's an entirely predictable, easily avoidable danger--much more predictable and avoidable than nearly any car accident.

If full visors/cages were required, Al McInnis might still be playing. Brian Berard would still be able to see out both eyes. etc, etc.

technophile is offline   Reply With Quote