Every hockey league in the world makes visors mandatory, with the exception of the NHL. Every player that comes into the NHL these days has always worn a visor, and more than 65 percent of the players wear them today. If the older players don't want them to be mandatory, fine, grandfather them in.
Every arguement that's used against mandatory visors today were used against helmets and even goalie masks back in the day. The game has changed, and continues to change. If goalies played without masks today, you'd have dead goalies. If Steve Stamkos hadn't been wearing a visor last spring, the Lightning players would be wearing black armbands this season. The visor took a chunk out of his nose; a Boychuk slapshot between the eyes could very easily have killed him.
Cages are a different story. Most players wear mouthguards to protect their teeth, but even if they suffer broken teeth or noses, that's not the type of injury that's going to disable or kill them, the way a shot to the eyes would. We joke that Kelly was a better player with the cage, but he himself said he couldn't wait to get it off (and he wears a visor, so there is a difference to the players).
Mouthguards aren't made to protect teeth. They are made to help reduce concussions which is why pretty much all contact sports wear them, especially in football even though they have a cage.
The ability of mouthguards to protect against head and
spinal injuries in sport falls into the realm of “neuromythology”
rather than hard science. Reading the original
studies cited as evidence for this effect reveals anecdotal
claims that can best be described as bizarre rather than
reflecting established medical principles. It is unlikely that
a mouthguard would offer effective protection against
brain or spinal cord injury, and the limited published data
are not compelling in this regard nor does it accord with the
known pathophysiology of such injuries.
At this stage, there is no convincing evidence to support
a protective effect against any type of sporting injury. This
is largely because studies with sufficient power have not yet
been performed. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
It is critical that a randomised controlled trial of sufficient
power is performed to answer this question so that sports
clinicians can accurately advise athletes of safety issues and
the best means of preventing injury.
Paille was wearing a visor, and his face still got crushed.
I figure based on this it might have really ****ed him up bad if he hadn't been wearing a visor:
Paille is currently listed as day-to-day with a broken nose and facial lacerations that resulted from the incident. The Steve Staios shot that hit Paille made contact with his visor first before cutting his face and nose.
That's because a visor doesn't cover a player's nose. Your eyes need protection a hell of a lot more than your nose. If that puck had been an inch or two higher, and Paille did NOT have a visor, he could have been blinded or even killed. When Boychuk got hit with a shot that broke his orbital bone, the doctor told him a fraction of an inch difference and he would have lost his eye. Which is why he now wears a visor.
Visors aren't perfect. They aren't going to spare a player every injury. They're like seat belts. Wearing a seat belt isn't going to make you immune if you're in a car crash, but they certainly can save your life.
I understand what a visor does, I play the game, I've worn one, I've worn a cage, and i understand what could have happened had he not been wearing one...Bryan Berard is a perfect example...
NaokoFunayama Naoko Funayama
Ference is day-to-day. No timetable yet on his return to game action. Paille had stents taken out of nose, breathing easier.
Also, a great commentary on visors:
On November 7th, Paille accidentally blocked a Steve Staios shot with his face, with predictably gruesome results. The puck struck his visor, and the outcome were some lacerations and a nose broken so badly that it required surgery. So did the lower edge of the visor cause the lacerations? Maybe. Did it save his eyesight? Probably. Players in visors actually tend to incur more severe lacerations to the upper half of the face (says this study done in the ECHL). Now before you go running off to make a BAN VISORS NOW poster for your next trip to an NHL game, consider the following: Players who wear visors suffer fewer eye and non-concussion head injuries than those who don’t (says this study done in the NHL). So overall fewer injuries, a free ticket out of permanent vision loss, and in exchange when you DO get a laceration, it’s a little more severe. That’s a solid deal. I’d take it.