View Single Post
03-06-2013, 01:16 AM
Registered User
mrhockey193195's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 4,827
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Progress towards what? Progress towards less injuries. It's a decrease in player choice.

It's not "progressive" towards any end except the one you are advocating for. Therefore it makes no sense to call it "progressive" as if achieving progressiveness itself is some kind of state we should all be striving for. Just say there would be less injuries and be done with it.

That being said, again, I'll ask for what those numbers are; as well as what types of injuries it prevents. This study says it reduces injuries, but which ones? Cuts on a cheek? Or disconnected retinas? If they have proof that a visor prevented 1000 cuts on cheeks last year, well, I really don't care.

I never said it wouldn't reduce eye injuries, of course it would.

I just don't think there are enough serious ones out there that it merits an official response. For example, reducing from one Bryan Berard incident every twenty years to zero Bryan Berard incidents every twenty years is reducing; but I'm not going to make every player in the league where a visor because of one freak accident.

Obviously it happens more than just once, but that is the heart of what I'm getting at. It hasn't risen to the level of legitimate safety concern that I believe the league needs to mandate.

I think this one still belongs in the realm of player choice.

Your argument is valid. But I'm not convinced without statistics on the subject that facial injuries have remained fairly constant in the last several years. My gut feeling tells me that since shots are faster, players are faster and stronger, sticks are lighter, etc... that there must be more facial injuries (and therefore more potential for serious facial injuries). But I also don't have any data to back that up. And you're right, we're only had a handful of very serious eye injuries (Berard, Yzerman, Malhotra, etc). But my fear is that frequency is going to start going up. And before it does, we have a decent, not-terribly intrusive way of preventing that.

With neck-guards, for example, just by the eye-test I feel like there have been a significantly larger number of skate blade injuries (not just to the neck) in the last 10 years than any period prior that I can remember. I posted about this on a different thread, so I don't want to repeat the same thing, but to me that was justification for serious consideration into grandfathering in neck guards.

Last edited by mrhockey193195: 03-06-2013 at 01:28 AM.
mrhockey193195 is offline