HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Injured Players Thread (3/6: Staal Out Indefinitely; Not Career Threatening)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2013, 12:43 AM
  #926
TheDarkKnight
Registered User
 
TheDarkKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 297
vCash: 116
Happen to be a Jets fan, but I was watching the Rangers Flyers game during intermissions and commercials, and it sent shivers down my spine seeing Marc writhing in pain on the ice like that. I never like to see a good hockey player get hurt, and I hope its not too serious.

Get well soon Marc!

TheDarkKnight is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:45 AM
  #927
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Yes I have the opinion that players need to have mandates to protect themselves from themselves.
Great, you are allowed to think that way.

I didn't get involved here until you said the opposing argument was ignorant.

It is not.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:45 AM
  #928
Silence Of The Plams
All these feels
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,110
vCash: 500
Didn't respond to you mentioning my name? I figured as much. And your fire back response is laughable because of your asinine statement. You say it because you and I both know many players don't wear them. But go on, do you see where you mention me now?
Well, I have to be up bright and early tomorrow. Have fun being mad at a progressive fan.

Silence Of The Plams is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:46 AM
  #929
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Yes.

That's allowing the inmates to run the asylum. That's the reason.

Imagine where the NFL would be right now if they operated the same way.
I think the NFL should go back to letting you hit the QB.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:49 AM
  #930
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
I think he's upset because of Staal's importance to this team. If Bickel took that puck in his eye, I can all but guarantee he wouldn't be pounding his fist on the brick wall demanding changes.



You clearly are upset.





I can't either. But I love it. I'll save it for the Trade-Forum here on out.



There's going to be a lot of pushback if that's proposed.
No I'm concerned.

I could compile a list of injuries. Major injuries. Life altering injuries. That happened on the ice when the little pieces of gear would have prevented or reduced the injuries.

Its a very real issue. One that continually arises from happenings on the ice.

The push back is coming from traditionalists. That's an issue.

Hockey, above any sport, have advanced technologically, rapidly. This issue shouldn't have the opposition it does.

All equipment is precautionary. Jocks are precautionary.

There's nothing wrong with discussing it, without deliberately turning the discussion into a **** show.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:49 AM
  #931
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess What View Post
Also Schmidt, Re read posts on the last page. You do in fact mention my name and speak to me.


Oh, I see what you mean. No, that wasn't directed to you. I was literally saying the phrase "guess what".

The dangers of having a username that is also a popular rhetorical phrase.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:50 AM
  #932
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
I'll just leave it off with how it started.

If he's wearing a visor, he doesn't miss half the 11-12 season, or get a puck in the eye.

Visors don't do anything though!

OK. I'll keep wearing mine and I'll keep avoiding injuries.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16716662

There has been an increase in the number of concussions sustained by players in the National Hockey League (NHL). While wearing a helmet is now required by the NHL, the face visor remains optional. It is unknown to what degree face visors influence concussion, other head injury and eye-injury rates at the professional level. Data from the 2001-2002 NHL season were examined. It was found that wearing a face visor did not significantly influence the prevalence of concussion. Visor protection did, however, minimise eye-injuries and other, non-concussion head injuries. These data suggest that, while a visor may prevent some head and eye-injuries, other measures may be necessary to reduce the number of concussions.

Staal gets concussed with or without a visor. Can't believe you actually went there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khelvan View Post
This is not an argument you want to follow to its logical conclusion. This kind of choice is the slippery slope that leads to athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs and other things that have a high risk factor but potential benefit in terms of on-ice performance.

The "damn good reason" that athletes choose not to wear optional protective gear, such as visors, is because of the perception (real or imagined) that they perform better without it. I think we can both agree that the athletes likely have very good advice in terms of understanding the risks involved and the potential benefits of wearing this gear. If they choose not to, I think we can also likely agree that they do so, almost without a doubt, that they feel they perform better on the ice without said gear. Athletes look for advantages they can exploit, including in terms of their gear.

However, if each athlete was required to wear the protective gear, no one would be at a disadvantage by wearing it. Everyone would receive the benefits of the gear, and everyone would be subject to the drawbacks.

That is why people make the argument that the gear should be mandatory. Every player that chooses to wear the gear today knowingly gives up some perceived degree of performance as compared to his peers. That perceived disadvantage would disappear if -every- player had to wear the gear. But I would wager my life savings that we will never see a majority of players wearing visors until they become mandatory. No one wants to give up the advantage, because relatively few people lose eyes/take permanent injuries. Thus the relative risk is low, even if the potential consequences are devastating.
It's kind of difficult to collectively mandate something that is can distract a professionals performance. Even if it's marginal.

The game has changed over the years, but not enough to warrant something that can cause significant discomfort. You force a league to wear something they're not accustomed to, and it'll cause problems.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:50 AM
  #933
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess What View Post
Have fun being mad at a progressive fan.
I don't consider your stance to be progress. In fact, it's a little game that people who call themselves "progressive" play, ie, to insinuate that they are forward thinking and everyone who disagrees with them is backwards.

To sum up... beware of anyone who applies that label to themselves or something they believe in, as they probably don't have a legitimate enough argument to win on the merits and they have to start duping people with word games. It's a backhanded way of calling your opposition "idiots."

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:53 AM
  #934
Silence Of The Plams
All these feels
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,110
vCash: 500
I do; as it potentially increases safety in at least the eye region to a degree as BBG posted. I'd consider less injuries progress!

Silence Of The Plams is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:53 AM
  #935
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I think the NFL should go back to letting you hit the QB.
They outlawed blind side hits to vulnerable receivers.

Changed kickoffs.

Contracts are not guaranteed.

The league implement mandates.

The league runs the league. The players are passers by. The game is larger then the individuals.

And all the changes increased league popularity.

That's the difference.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:54 AM
  #936
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
I have to side with pro-visor crowd. It's simply not safe out there for a Ranger player, especially a defenseman that logs half the game in a shotblocking system to not wear a visor. This is a callout to both Girardi and Staal. I hope the NHL implements a rule like IIHF, non-visors only for over 35 and will be permanently banned in 3-4 years where all players required to wear visors in International Tournaments.

Kershaw is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:55 AM
  #937
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
They outlawed blind side hits to vulnerable receivers.

Changed kickoffs.

Contracts are not guaranteed.

The league implement mandates.

The league runs the league. The players are passers by. The game is larger then the individuals.

And all the changes increased league popularity.

That's the difference.
Yeah, I'm saying I think the league should go back to letting them hit vulnerable receivers and they should move the kickoff spot back to where it was.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 12:58 AM
  #938
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
No I'm concerned.

I could compile a list of injuries. Major injuries. Life altering injuries. That happened on the ice when the little pieces of gear would have prevented or reduced the injuries.

Its a very real issue. One that continually arises from happenings on the ice.

The push back is coming from traditionalists. That's an issue.

Hockey, above any sport, have advanced technologically, rapidly. This issue shouldn't have the opposition it does.

All equipment is precautionary. Jocks are precautionary.

There's nothing wrong with discussing it, without deliberately turning the discussion into a **** show.
You seem to think I could care less about player safety. I'm all for it. But I believe a player's choice should be respected, especially on a matter that hasn't had that many incidents as some of you guys are claiming.

I'm more concerned with the amount of boarding cheapshots than a simple visor. You can control that aspect of the game. Adding a visor will help eye/facial injuries, but it still won't prevent them. Not unless you have a full-cage on.

Look at how many times a stick catches a players face, just from a simple swipe. Or a wind-up. Visor or no visor, that player is getting whacked.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:02 AM
  #939
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guess What View Post
I do; as it potentially increases safety in at least the eye region to a degree as BBG posted. I'd consider less injuries progress!
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.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:03 AM
  #940
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 45,683
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Progress towards what? Progress towards less injuries. It's a decrease in player choice.

It's not "progressive" except towards any end but 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. 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.
This is a good post and the bolded is pretty much the main point on where I stand on this.

__________________
"New day, new hope. Richards Buyout 2014". -Ail
Bob Richards is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:11 AM
  #941
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I think everyone would agree that the league has every right to mandate visors if they want to.

I just don't see a compelling reason for the league to do so. Apparently I am "ignorant."
I think that's been lost on a few people here (not by you, and not necessarily the poster who I responded to earlier). It seems like a bunch of people are offended by the fact that there's even a debate. I think an incident like this naturally brings the debate back to light.

mrhockey193195 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:11 AM
  #942
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
I have to side with pro-visor crowd. It's simply not safe out there for a Ranger player, especially a defenseman that logs half the game in a shotblocking system to not wear a visor. This is a callout to both Girardi and Staal. I hope the NHL implements a rule like IIHF, non-visors only for over 35 and will be permanently banned in 3-4 years where all players required to wear visors in International Tournaments.
If safety is your biggest concern, visors should just be skipped all together and the NHL should enforce full-cages. That's the only way you're going to completely protect the players faces.

Why isn't anyone that's pro-visors suggesting this?

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:16 AM
  #943
Kreider Typical
flex
 
Kreider Typical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
If safety is your biggest concern, visors should just be skipped all together and the NHL should enforce full-cages. That's the only way you're going to completely protect the players faces.

Why isn't anyone that's pro-visors suggesting this?

Kreider Typical is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:16 AM
  #944
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
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  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:19 AM
  #945
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
If safety is your biggest concern, visors should just be skipped all together and the NHL should enforce full-cages. That's the only way you're going to completely protect the players faces.

Why isn't anyone that's pro-visors suggesting this?
As someone who wants visors mandated, it's because there's a balance that needs to be reached. Like I said in my massive post, where that line is drawn is the debate at hand. Eye injuries are career threatening and potentially life altering. Taking a stick to the jaw will give you a scratch and not much else. Taking a stick to the eye can blind you. I think visors would be a big help, but I think full cages at the NHL level is overkill.

You have to find a balance...weigh the risks and potential consequences, but don't mandate more than you need to. And it's an ever-evolving process. 80 years ago, not many people would have said that helmets were necessary. The game changes, risks change, and regulations should change accordingly.

On the topic of what mschmidt64 said in his post, if we had some way of determining that facial injuries and potential eye injuries were as likely back in the day as they are now, then I'd probably relent a bit and accept that visors can be a player's choice. But from the way I've seen the game evolve in a very short period of time (<20 years), players are faster, stronger, and frankly more reckless. Unless I see some proof saying otherwise, I'm relatively convinced that eye injuries are more likely now than they've ever been.


EDIT: to play devil's advocate, do you think that helmets should be mandatory? Or any protective equipment, for that matter?


Last edited by mrhockey193195: 03-06-2013 at 01:35 AM.
mrhockey193195 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:42 AM
  #946
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
It's kind of difficult to collectively mandate something that is can distract a professionals performance. Even if it's marginal.

The game has changed over the years, but not enough to warrant something that can cause significant discomfort. You force a league to wear something they're not accustomed to, and it'll cause problems.
I agree that mandating an entire league to wear something that they are not accustomed to will cause problems. However, I don't think you can claim that the game has not changed "enough to warrant something that can cause significant discomfort." First, the issue is not whether or not the game has changed, it is whether or not the league wants to implement measures to keep its players safe. Regardless of how much the league has changed over the years.

In addition, the "problems" that will be caused are temporary. The moment the league shifts from grandfathered visors to no players without visors, those temporary, and I would argue, minor problems, disappear. Do you think players today pine away for the days when they could play without helmets? I don't. And should the league make visors mandatory, I would wager that in 15-20 years no one will shed a tear over wearing a visor.

I'm not sure it's difficult to mandate something that can distract a professional's performance. Look at all the equipment required by leagues such as the NFL. Even helmets in the NHL, which can "distract a professional's performance." It's actually pretty easy, IMO.


Last edited by Khelvan: 03-06-2013 at 02:09 AM.
Khelvan is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 01:49 AM
  #947
mrhockey193195
Registered User
 
mrhockey193195's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,318
vCash: 500
It's a valid point that it's tough to get players to wear equipment that they aren't accustomed to, but practically every player in the NHL today has worn a full face shield or a visor all the way through juniors. If you grandfather it in, then that issue is no longer there.

mrhockey193195 is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:00 AM
  #948
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,476
vCash: 500
I'm on the mandatory visor side. Why?

1. "It doesn't happen to me". People cannot evaluate risk/ reward and goes with complacency.
2. A visor isn't restricting your play. After you get used to wearing it, it's not a problem.

While we debate this, Staal might have to end his career now or get used to playing with one eye. I don't think I have to describe to anyone what it would mean to this franchise if we lost Staal permanently.

Chimp is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:16 AM
  #949
NY Lito
Blueshirt Pride
 
NY Lito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
As someone who enjoys playing open hockey with friends visor-less, I still think the NHL needs to make them mandatory. The evolution of the game calls for it, just like it did for helmets years ago. The game is only getting faster, and with more shot-blocking and deflections, injuries like Staals will be more common, albeit still uncommon overall.

Visors were worn primarily to protect the eyes from sticks and as a super precaution for pucks. If I were a NHLer I'd be just as concerned about pucks flying up (as much as sticks) in 2013 and onward.

NY Lito is offline  
Old
03-06-2013, 02:18 AM
  #950
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
If safety is your biggest concern, visors should just be skipped all together and the NHL should enforce full-cages. That's the only way you're going to completely protect the players faces.

Why isn't anyone that's pro-visors suggesting this?
Eyes.

Kershaw is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:51 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.