HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

GMs call for mandatory visors (from the Leafs board)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2011, 10:54 PM
  #26
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
There was once a time when goalie masks were scoffed at. Now they're seen as common sense.
Good example, too. My dad played college goal in the days before masks. He had some interesting nose architecture from taking a follow-through stick blade to the bridge.

The game is faster now, and it's impossible to protect yourself just by keeping your head up. It just makes sense to protect your eyes.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:28 AM
  #27
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Good example, too. My dad played college goal in the days before masks. He had some interesting nose architecture from taking a follow-through stick blade to the bridge.

The game is faster now, and it's impossible to protect yourself just by keeping your head up. It just makes sense to protect your eyes.
What about the rest of your face? If the league is going to make face protection mandatory for the "safety of the players" then they should be wearing full cages.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:42 AM
  #28
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
The league is not able to force the players to wear anything. It says specifically in the CBA that the competition committee, which is made up of players and clubs, decides on equipment standards. They'll probably discuss it in the offseason. It's clear the owners want it, but not so clear the players do. If they do, I'm sure it will be mandatory soon. If the players don't, it may not happen. Either way, the league can't just come in and mandate visors. They likely couldn't do that even if the stuff in about the competition committee wasn't in the CBA.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:53 AM
  #29
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
What about the rest of your face? If the league is going to make face protection mandatory for the "safety of the players" then they should be wearing full cages.
There's always going to be a balance needed between this and marketing the players.

As much as I want to say it's the players freedom, the teams are investing millions of dollars into the players to actually PLAY. If they make anything mandatory, make visors and mouthguards mandatory (not sure if mouthguards are mandatory but they should be worn at that level).

Another option is leave the option of a mandatory visor to the team. Each team can choose if visors or mandatory, that way it's their decision if they want to take the risk.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 01:17 PM
  #30
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
What about the rest of your face? If the league is going to make face protection mandatory for the "safety of the players" then they should be wearing full cages.
You can't compare eyes with nose/mouth in terms of irreplaceable loss.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 01:23 PM
  #31
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
You can't compare eyes with nose/mouth in terms of irreplaceable loss.
A mouthguard will do oh so much if a puck hits you in the mouth.

Besides, a broken cheekbone or jaw can also do serious/career ending damage, just ask Lappy.

All I am saying is that requiring a visor is a half-a**ed attempt to protect the players. If the league/PA are to implement something to protect their players with some sort of grandfathering clause (like they did with helmets) do the right thing and fully protect the players. Even a visor is not 100% effective at protecting your eyes as a stick or puck can still get under it. A full cage, on the other hand, will protect the players.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 01:40 PM
  #32
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
A mouthguard will do oh so much if a puck hits you in the mouth.

Besides, a broken cheekbone or jaw can also do serious/career ending damage, just ask Lappy.

All I am saying is that requiring a visor is a half-a**ed attempt to protect the players. If the league/PA are to implement something to protect their players with some sort of grandfathering clause (like they did with helmets) do the right thing and fully protect the players. Even a visor is not 100% effective at protecting your eyes as a stick or puck can still get under it. A full cage, on the other hand, will protect the players.
Speaking of Lappy, a visor would have prevented his career-ending injury.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Last edited by Beef Invictus: 11-02-2011 at 01:43 PM. Reason: meh.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 02:56 PM
  #33
Chris Pronger
Valar morghulis
 
Chris Pronger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,248
vCash: 400
One day NHL players will have football helmets...seriously..it will happen

Chris Pronger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 03:12 PM
  #34
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyersfan182018 View Post
One day NHL players will have football helmets...seriously..it will happen
That's the way things are going in all sports. Once a baseball player gets hit in the face with a ball people will be calling for cages on baseball helmets. I'm surprised no one suggested an alternative to sharp skate blades when Richard Zednik got sliced a couple years ago. The whole world is becoming way too soft. Politics, movies, tv, music, sports, school, etc is all going down the toilet because everyone is scared that someone will get hurt physically or mentally.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 03:58 PM
  #35
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
A mouthguard will do oh so much if a puck hits you in the mouth.

Besides, a broken cheekbone or jaw can also do serious/career ending damage, just ask Lappy.

All I am saying is that requiring a visor is a half-a**ed attempt to protect the players. If the league/PA are to implement something to protect their players with some sort of grandfathering clause (like they did with helmets) do the right thing and fully protect the players. Even a visor is not 100% effective at protecting your eyes as a stick or puck can still get under it. A full cage, on the other hand, will protect the players.
It may be half-assed, but is a step up from select players not donning visors. You and I both know it's a balance of risk vs. what players will accept, and I don't see an overwhelming leap past mandatory visors to beginning an implementation process for cages.

If we wanted to expand safety talk to even the most remote possibility, we could also discuss requiring goalie masks to have grills rather than curved bars, after Lehtonen almost ate a stick blade a few nights ago, but risk ratio is too low to bother addressing IMHO.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 04:47 PM
  #36
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedjpd View Post
It's completely different, though. If you don't wear a helmet riding your motorcycle and knock yourself in to a concussion, the only person that loses is you.

If you're a player that's paid millions by somebody to *not* get injured and be a part of their payroll, they have every right to tell you to suit up and be as protected as possible. If you don't wear a helmet playing hockey and get a concussion, the team still has to pay you (or, at least, in some form). It's not just you that suffers, but somebody who's paying you to play.

Injuries happen and teams accept that risk - but players need to be willing to accept in that case that teams DO have a say in what they wear, protection-wise.

Otherwise, let's do this. Players play for millions, assuming all the risk. If you get a concussion for not wearing something that the team asks you to wear, your salary is void until you return.

That's fair, right? Let's see how that one goes over.
A very good counter argument.

However, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, I thought that players and teams were required to purchase insurance against possible long term / career ending injuries, no? That way if a player under contract was injured that insurance would guarentee that player's salary for the remainder of his contract. After that a player's own personal insurance policy would kick in (but would only cover a fraction of his previous salary.)

Let's do this: If players wear all the required equipment mandated by the league, teams and players get a discount on their premiums.

That's fair, right? Let's see how that one goes over with insurance companies.

Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 05:20 PM
  #37
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
It may be half-assed, but is a step up from select players not donning visors. You and I both know it's a balance of risk vs. what players will accept, and I don't see an overwhelming leap past mandatory visors to beginning an implementation process for cages.

If we wanted to expand safety talk to even the most remote possibility, we could also discuss requiring goalie masks to have grills rather than curved bars, after Lehtonen almost ate a stick blade a few nights ago, but risk ratio is too low to bother addressing IMHO.
That is another item that could come up and be grandfathered as "cats eye" cages are starting to be outlawed in lower levels.

But, again, players are used to full cages when playing in the younger ranks. It should not be that much of a stretch to grandfather cages.

With regards to DrinkFight's comments, it has nothing to do with getting too "soft", it is more to do with being better educated about head injuries today. That said, years ago people would have said the same thing about goalies wearing cages and players wearing helmets.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 05:22 PM
  #38
pelts35.com
Registered User
 
pelts35.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 11,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
A very good counter argument.

However, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, I thought that players and teams were required to purchase insurance against possible long term / career ending injuries, no? That way if a player under contract was injured that insurance would guarentee that player's salary for the remainder of his contract. After that a player's own personal insurance policy would kick in (but would only cover a fraction of his previous salary.)

Let's do this: If players wear all the required equipment mandated by the league, teams and players get a discount on their premiums.

That's fair, right? Let's see how that one goes over with insurance companies.
Paying for a salary is just one part of it. A team losing a key member cannot be replaced by insurance.

pelts35.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 05:59 PM
  #39
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
With regards to DrinkFight's comments, it has nothing to do with getting too "soft", it is more to do with being better educated about head injuries today. That said, years ago people would have said the same thing about goalies wearing cages and players wearing helmets.
Eh, I mean it is and isn't. Yes, we are better educated about head injuries today, and the elimination of blind-side hits was something that needed to be done. But this is different. A visor is not going to prevent a concussion. It may prevent the loss of an eye or a broken face, but those injuries are very rare. Remember when Buster Posey broke his leg in a collision at the plate and some people were clamoring to outlaw that. People get all worked up when someone gets injured and wants someone to do something about it and players should be protected more blah blah blah. These are grown men, making millions of dollars who are making the choice not to wear the visor. If they get hurt because of that, it really sucks, but its a choice they made. If this were an epidemic of players losing eyes and suffering career ending injuries because of it, then let's change some rules. But that is not how it is and the players don't seem to want it. Now, if the players are in favor of this and they want to make it mandatory, then ok I'm all for it. But it really doesn't seem that way.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 08:04 PM
  #40
GetPucksDeep
Registered User
 
GetPucksDeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the other Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 3,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelts35.com View Post
What about the rest of your face? If the league is going to make face protection mandatory for the "safety of the players" then they should be wearing full cages.
Muhammed Ali once said that his career choice was between boxing and playing football, and he chose boxing because no one could see his face in football. - and that's why cages aren't coming to the NHL.

Remember with the development of goalie masks that the game changed once sticks starting being curved. The new sticks made the game a lot more dangerous for goalies. The masks and stick changes went hand in hand.

They should require visors for all players. It's time.

GetPucksDeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:12 PM
  #41
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Come on. Think about what some of you guys are saying. These players, who are actually playing, don't want to wear visors. But YOU think it is too dangerous so they should have to because a handful of guys have been injured and a visor COULD have prevented it.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:17 PM
  #42
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Come on. Think about what some of you guys are saying. These players, who are actually playing, don't want to wear visors. But YOU think it is too dangerous so they should have to because a handful of guys have been injured and a visor COULD have prevented it.
Come on. Think about what you are saying. Losing Lappy and almost losing ****ing Pronger is no big deal, because they get to feel a little macho! It's totally worth it!

It's a clear, curved piece of plastic that prevents blindness. It's not a castration. These guys are worth millions. Protecting their eyes should be a given.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:27 PM
  #43
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Come on. Think about what you are saying. Losing Lappy and almost losing ****ing Pronger is no big deal, because they get to feel a little macho! It's totally worth it!

It's a clear, curved piece of plastic that prevents blindness. It's not a castration. These guys are worth millions. Protecting their eyes should be a given.
I understand what DFF is saying: it's a free country and these players are adults who can make their own decisions about their health. I believe, though, that the precedent has been established for a minimum level of protective equipment (ie, helmets), and it is the responsibility of the league and owners to maintain the health and continued competitiveness of their employees.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:30 PM
  #44
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Come on. Think about what you are saying. Losing Lappy and almost losing ****ing Pronger is no big deal, because they get to feel a little macho! It's totally worth it!

It's a clear, curved piece of plastic that prevents blindness. It's not a castration. These guys are worth millions. Protecting their eyes should be a given.
I'm not saying it doesn't suck when a guy gets hurt, but if a player doesn't want to wear one why should he be forced to? There are probably more pads you could wear on your forearms to prevent injuries there. Same thing with on your knees. I understand the concern for wanting to keep the players safe, but if it is something that is a rarity and not a regular occurring thing, why force these guys to do something they don't want to because you think is too dangerous.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:35 PM
  #45
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I'm not saying it doesn't suck when a guy gets hurt, but if a player doesn't want to wear one why should he be forced to? There are probably more pads you could wear on your forearms to prevent injuries there. Same thing with on your knees. I understand the concern for wanting to keep the players safe, but if it is something that is a rarity and not a regular occurring thing, why force these guys to do something they don't want to because you think is too dangerous.
If this attitude prevailed a couple decades ago hockey players wouldn't be wearing helmets.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:38 PM
  #46
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
If this attitude prevailed a couple decades ago hockey players wouldn't be wearing helmets.
That's a little different. Head injuries are regular occurrences and with no helmets would be even more of an issue. How many people in the last 10 years have had serious injuries that could have been prevented with a visor? I can think of two.

Like I said, if this was an ongoing concern and people were dropping like flies, then ok.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:40 PM
  #47
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
I understand what DFF is saying: it's a free country and these players are adults who can make their own decisions about their health. I believe, though, that the precedent has been established for a minimum level of protective equipment (ie, helmets), and it is the responsibility of the league and owners to maintain the health and continued competitiveness of their employees.
I'm all for personal freedom, but I'm of the opinion that if you are in a position where a career ending injury can end up costing other people a LOT, the least you can do is at least take the minimum step to prevent such an injury. A visor is a minor step, and I fail to see why it's such a big deal. Or, I guess you can be selfish. Whichever.

(obviously not you personally, but "you" as a hypothetical hockey player who doesn't want to wear a visor because he thinks it will shrink his balls or something.)

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:41 PM
  #48
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That's a little different. Head injuries are regular occurrences and with no helmets would be even more of an issue. How many people in the last 10 years have had serious injuries that could have been prevented with a visor? I can think of two.

Like I said, if this was an ongoing concern and people were dropping like flies, then ok.
What difference does it make? How does a visor change the game negatively? There is zero risk, and huge potential for reward.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:46 PM
  #49
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,413
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
What difference does it make? How does a visor change the game negatively? There is zero risk, and huge potential for reward.
I know there is no risk in wearing visors. It won't hurt anyone. But if a guy doesn't want to wear one because he doesn't like the way it sits on his helmet or some equally silly reason, maybe it will mess with the way he plays. And since it isn't a huge deal not playing with one (see: number of players suffering from injuries that a visor could have prevented) why make a guy who doesn't want to wear one wear one?

If the competition committee decides to mandate it this summer then ok, but I think it is silly for fans to be whining about it because it is too dangerous for them to watch while the players out there don't even care.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2011, 09:50 PM
  #50
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,558
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I know there is no risk in wearing visors. It won't hurt anyone. But if a guy doesn't want to wear one because he doesn't like the way it sits on his helmet or some equally silly reason, maybe it will mess with the way he plays. And since it isn't a huge deal not playing with one (see: number of players suffering from injuries that a visor could have prevented) why make a guy who doesn't want to wear one wear one?

If the competition committee decides to mandate it this summer then ok, but I think it is silly for fans to be whining about it because it is too dangerous for them to watch while the players out there don't even care.
Apparently lots of players do care and have deemed them necessary. Many more players wear visors now than don't.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.