HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Visor Debate '04

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2004, 09:40 PM
  #26
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
What is your feeling on that, I think it is OK if you take them off to fight because those visors will lead to more hand injuries wont they.
Not near as much as you would think.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 09:43 PM
  #27
Canadian Chris
Registered User
 
Canadian Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,185
vCash: 748
I find the helmet leads to more hand injuries than the actual visor does...

And not sure when that rule came in through Hockey Canada Van, but anytime in Junior B when I dropped the gloves off the face off or something, it was backup, gloves, then helmet...the go at it....soo...dunno

I'm all for grandfathering them in

Canadian Chris is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 09:47 PM
  #28
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Chris
And not sure when that rule came in through Hockey Canada Van, but anytime in Junior B when I dropped the gloves off the face off or something, it was backup, gloves, then helmet...the go at it....soo...dunno
It's been in Hockey Canada's rulebook forever. I think it used to be in the Junior Supplement that players could remove their helmets to fight, but it's not there now, so referees have to call the Gross.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 10:04 PM
  #29
Daryl Shilling
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 145
vCash: 500
This seems akin to the rather lengthy debates that took part across the country when different provinces enacted seatbelt laws. You heard people say things like: "I can't sit comfortably, and it makes it tougher for me to drive well", which is alot like "I can't see well with a visor".

The difference is, that in regular society, the idea of grandfathering-in a seat belt would never really have been considered; where an old man could drive without a seatbelt, but a 16 year old kid is required to wear one. With laws and governments, etc, you have a law or don't, generally speaking.

If the NHL has shown us anything, it's that it isn't quite the real world, and I actually picture the union getting rather militant about the whole thing if it was forced on the players unilaterally.

In the end, we're allowed to do alot of things every day that aren't very safe for us to do. We're allowed to drive vehicles, climb mountains, ride bicycles, eat too much fried food, go golfing in stormy weather while wearing spikes.

If the NHL players are required to wear visors, then why not all recreational players as well? Why not issue liscences for how many kilos of french fries we can eat every month? It seems the players accept their risks knowing what can happen to them, and don't ask to be cried for if something does.

I can accept that.

Daryl

Daryl Shilling is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 10:43 PM
  #30
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Chris
I find the helmet leads to more hand injuries than the actual visor does...

And not sure when that rule came in through Hockey Canada Van, but anytime in Junior B when I dropped the gloves off the face off or something, it was backup, gloves, then helmet...the go at it....soo...dunno

I'm all for grandfathering them in
Yeah I remember that too in some junior fights that i saw they would remove the helmets and visors also. I was unaware that they made a rule that penalised you for removing the helmet and visor.

If they do grandfather inthe visors I hope they allow the scrappers in the NHL to avoid penalties for removing them before a scrap.

c-carp is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 10:58 PM
  #31
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
Yeah I remember that too in some junior fights that i saw they would remove the helmets and visors also. I was unaware that they made a rule that penalised you for removing the helmet and visor.
Be aware of the categories of Junior hockey we're talking about.

In the CHL, which has nothing to do with Hockey Canada, players can remove helmets to fight. It is in Jr.A and below, who follow Hockey Canada's rulebook, who cannot remove helmets to fight.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:02 PM
  #32
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Be aware of the categories of Junior hockey we're talking about.

In the CHL, which has nothing to do with Hockey Canada, players can remove helmets to fight. It is in Jr.A and below, who follow Hockey Canada's rulebook, who cannot remove helmets to fight.
I am confused on which groups Hockey canada governs, When I think of major junior I think of the OHL, WHL and Quebec Junior league. Can they remove their helmets and visors without penalty in these leagues? Sorry if it seems like a stupid question.

Thanks

c-carp is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:05 PM
  #33
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
I am confused on which groups Hockey canada governs, When I think of major junior I think of the OHL, WHL and Quebec Junior league. Can they remove their helmets and visors without penalty in these leagues? Sorry if it seems like a stupid question.

Thanks
WHL, OHL and QMJHL are the CHL. They don't fall under Hockey Canada. Each of the three leagues has its own rulebook.

Hockey Canada governs the CJAHL (visit the board here at HF to find the leagues governed here) and all Junior B leagues and below.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:10 PM
  #34
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
WHL, OHL and QMJHL are the CHL. They don't fall under Hockey Canada. Each of the three leagues has its own rulebook.

Hockey Canada governs the CJAHL (visit the board here at HF to find the leagues governed here) and all Junior B leagues and below.
Thanks Van

c-carp is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:11 PM
  #35
Toonces
The beer kitty
 
Toonces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl Shilling
If the NHL players are required to wear visors, then why not all recreational players as well? Why not issue liscences for how many kilos of french fries we can eat every month? It seems the players accept their risks knowing what can happen to them, and don't ask to be cried for if something does.
I'm sure this same argument was made when they began to require helmets. There however is a big difference between the two issues.

Let the players (or teams) decide.

Toonces is offline  
Old
01-06-2004, 11:35 PM
  #36
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehc73
Anyone heard of any other arguments that haven't been dispelled in this thread? Because as of right now, the only one I know of is player choice, but they grandfathered helmets. Is there a difference?
I'd be for it to be mandatory if it was clearly demonstrated that they'll protect the players much more and not cause other potential problems. I am not a statistician or a scientist or engineer. I've heard of problems where blades could potentially cause more damage if a player does wear a visor.

If it is clear that it is not the case, I think they could be made mandatory with grandfather clause. If it isn't so clear, I think the players deserve to make a choice themselves.

The best way to reduce the danger has nothing to do with visors anyway. It has to do with the NHL's dumbass mentality and their retarded referees who have helped create an uncontrolled climate where players use their stick like a weapon, irresponsibly. I don't know how those morons in charge of implementing rules haven't figured out that giving two minutes for highsticking, something that can potentially result in the loss of vision, like you would give 2 minutes for freaking diving or hooking is just plain idiotic.

It makes no sense.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 01:40 AM
  #37
VirginiaMtlExpat
All ice is home ice.
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,861
vCash: 500
We keep having this discussion everytime that a player gets an eye injury. I've maintained in other threads that the NHL and NHLPA have shirked their responsibility to the players.

Why do young players who grew up with visors take them off? Because there is a code among players, particularly North Americans, that "tough" players don't wear them. A kid coming to the league will often be confronted with older teammates (mentors) who abide by this code. The league knows it, but doesn't have the cojones to take the issue head-on, and provide what the NFL provides its players: facial protection which is appropriate for the nature of the sport. So that code is never counter-balanced by coherent league policy.

Why won't the league and NHLPA face this issue? Because that would mean taking on the issue of fighting, which they won't tackle head-on: it doesn't want to ban fighting, or do anything that in effect eliminates it, because there is an element in the game that endorses it: some believe that it helps sell the game, which obviously doesn't agree with the NFL view of a contact sport (fighting is not seen as inevitable in football, nor is it tolerated); some believe that it prevents liberties from being taken against star players, and so on. On the other hand, if the league mandates a removeable visor, then it admits to endorsing fighting, which is not in the league's interest either, politically or economically (the league doesn't want to appear as an on-ice version of Rollerball, and it wants to retain a veneer of family entertainment). So a don't see-don't tell approach to fighting entails further waffling on visors, with the ironic result that many very good players suffer career-ending or -diminishing facial trauma: not just eye injuries, but facially induced concussions.

If the NFL thought the same way, we'd still have the flimsy leather helmets with the little chinstraps, and many more football careers ended by concussions than have actually occurred. What a difference a commissioner with vision, who actually cared about the game and its players, would make.


Last edited by VirginiaMtlExpat: 01-07-2004 at 02:51 AM.
VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 02:01 AM
  #38
VirginiaMtlExpat
All ice is home ice.
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,861
vCash: 500
I also agree that tweaking the rulebook and actually enforcing it would also be a positive development. Further, I wonder why fairplay can be endorsed officially by the likes of FIFA, and equally evident in other professional sports, including the NFL (how often do you see adversaries helping each other up after a play?), while intimidation and cheap shots thrive in the NHL. Why hasn't the league dealt with that as well?

Running hockey may not part of my background, but as someone with a critical mind and a lifelong love of the game, both of which Bettman lacks, I bet that I would make a better commissioner than him (in all humility ). Edit: actually, I probably echo a sentiment that is very common on this board...


Last edited by VirginiaMtlExpat: 01-07-2004 at 02:47 AM.
VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 02:30 AM
  #39
Frozen North
Healthy Scratch
 
Frozen North's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: OK
Country: United States
Posts: 1,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanMontrealExpat

and provide what the NFL provides its players: facial protection which is appropriate for the nature of the sport.


I agree with your post, but seeing the above statement, I can't help but think about last weekend. I saw that Gary Anderson is still wearing that tiny little 1-bar facemask. Now obviously, kickers don't get hit in the face/head very often, but I almost lost my lunch last year when the Redskins punter (name?) chased down that muffed snap and had his face rearranged by the turf.

Frozen North is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 03:49 AM
  #40
sveiglar
Registered User
 
sveiglar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
The best way to reduce the danger has nothing to do with visors anyway. It has to do with the NHL's dumbass mentality and their retarded referees who have helped create an uncontrolled climate where players use their stick like a weapon, irresponsibly. I don't know how those morons in charge of implementing rules haven't figured out that giving two minutes for highsticking, something that can potentially result in the loss of vision, like you would give 2 minutes for freaking diving or hooking is just plain idiotic.

It makes no sense.
Yep, make all high-sticking infractions five minute penalties and watch the eye injury rates plummet.

"It's not rocket science"

sveiglar is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 04:07 AM
  #41
A.J.
Registered User
 
A.J. 's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vaughan, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 552
vCash: 500
Is everyone forgetting that visors can crack?

If visors are made mandetory, u'll see more eye/facial injuries.

Example: U have lets say Eric Cairns lining up Steve Sullivan for a big hit along the boards, and since Cairns is like a foot taller than Sullivan, when he goes in for the hit, he ends up smacking him right in the head, and splitting Sullivan's viso in half, and the sharp edge slices Sullivan's eye right open, then what? The NHL will have no choice but to go with non-contact hockey. Who in the blue hell would watch that type of hockey?

A.J.  is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 07:45 AM
  #42
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMC
Is everyone forgetting that visors can crack?
Ive never seen a visor crack at all but I see facial cuts from sticks every other game.

Id take the minimal risk of a visor cracking than losing an eye through a high stick. When youve had your eyelid sliced open and eyeball scratched, youd think differently about your eyes.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:03 AM
  #43
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,452
vCash: 500
leave it optional.

if anything, players and goaltenders have TOO much equipment. Players have no respect for each other b/c they know the opposing player has the same coat of armour they have on.

did we see all the eye, high sticking, concussions, back in the 70's and 80's???? technology advances have helped determine concussions, but that doesn't explain all the other injuries that have occurred in the past decade with advances in equipment.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:26 AM
  #44
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,318
vCash: 500
I listened to one of the main player insurance agents last night on FAN590. He stated that the amount of career ending eye injuries is miniscule. The number he used was "Under 5 in 25 years."

I understand that Nolan has quite a scare, Al MacInnis has quite a scare, and I don't feel strongly on this issue either way, but let's not talk about the visor eliminating an epidemic.

Although I would find it difficult to mandate 5 minutes for all high sticks. Blake got a double minor last night versus Columbus for going for the poke check on Zherdev and his stick slid up Zherdev's stick and caught him on the cheek. Does that warrant a double minor? What about 5 minutes? If that was a five minute penalty with 10 minutes to go in a 2-1 game....OUCH.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 08:41 AM
  #45
blueblood1617
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-carp
I am confused on which groups Hockey canada governs, When I think of major junior I think of the OHL, WHL and Quebec Junior league. Can they remove their helmets and visors without penalty in these leagues? Sorry if it seems like a stupid question.

Thanks

I know for a Fact that you can't remove your helmet in the Q... because Nathan Saunders did a few weeks ago and was given a misconduct. I didn't realize that was a penalty at the time, but it was. I have noticed that everytime someone in the Q loses their helmet they seem to skate off of the ice immediately, whether there is a rule that says that they can't play at all without a helmet, or maybe they are just groomed to do this, I don't know for sure.


Edit: Not a gross misconduct, not even a game misconduct... just a 10 minute break. Thought I should be more clear.

blueblood1617 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:14 AM
  #46
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: kissing Hagmans rear
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 23,803
vCash: 500
I think this can all be solved by making players wear safety goggles.

Troy McClure is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:36 AM
  #47
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
What about 5 minutes? If that was a five minute penalty with 10 minutes to go in a 2-1 game....OUCH.
Thats the point, that player will make damn sure he wont do it again.

Players obviously dont have the respect to keep their sticks down so punish them so they could well lose a game because of a highstick, the coach, fans and teammates will all be unhappy with him.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 09:41 AM
  #48
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
Thats the point, that player will make damn sure he wont do it again.

Players obviously dont have the respect to keep their sticks down so punish them so they could well lose a game because of a highstick, the coach, fans and teammates will all be unhappy with him.
That is the point. In this game things happen without intention, without carelessness.

The reason that they call every high stick is because you have to be in control of the stick.(It used to be that they didn't call accidental high sticks.)

In this case, Blake wasn't careless, wasn't intentional, so what do you do. Keep it at a 2 minute minor.

All I am saying is that he didn't even deserve 4 minutes, let alone 5 as one poster suggested.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 11:07 AM
  #49
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
That is the point. In this game things happen without intention, without carelessness.

The reason that they call every high stick is because you have to be in control of the stick.(It used to be that they didn't call accidental high sticks.)

In this case, Blake wasn't careless, wasn't intentional, so what do you do. Keep it at a 2 minute minor.

All I am saying is that he didn't even deserve 4 minutes, let alone 5 as one poster suggested.
He was careless, he tried to lift a stick by using a lot of upward force knowing that if he missed, his stick would come up. Players will learn not to do that if the result of missing the stick is a major, therefor the objective of stopping highsticks will be acheived.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
01-07-2004, 02:50 PM
  #50
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueblood1617
I know for a Fact that you can't remove your helmet in the Q... because Nathan Saunders did a few weeks ago and was given a misconduct. I didn't realize that was a penalty at the time, but it was. I have noticed that everytime someone in the Q loses their helmet they seem to skate off of the ice immediately, whether there is a rule that says that they can't play at all without a helmet, or maybe they are just groomed to do this, I don't know for sure.


Edit: Not a gross misconduct, not even a game misconduct... just a 10 minute break. Thought I should be more clear.
The QMJHL seems to be a lot more concerned for safety than the WHL and OHL. Quebec league players still have to wear neck guards.

Also, in all three CHL leagues, as soon as you lose your helmet, you have two choices...put it back on or get off the ice. As soon as you get involved in the play without a helmet, you get a minor penalty for Playing Without A Helmet...at least that's the WHL rule...I know Hockey Canada gives 10 minutes for it, and I'm not 100% sure on what the OHL and QMJHL give for it.

BCCHL inactive 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 03:50 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.