scpa0305 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 How do people feel about the new rule changes proposed for the future. I for one, am definitely for the 3/4 (or half) visors and would also like to see either 4x4 or shootouts incorporated into the games. Old time hockey fans may not like to see shootouts in the games, however, I have actually grown to (somewhat) enjoy them. I also think college hockey should transition their rules more to the pro style of game to encourage more top recruits, from not only the US, but from Canada and Europe as well. One issue I currently have with how college hockey (more specifically the WCHA) is the number of penalties called each game. I watch a good amount of both WCHA and NHL hockey and I can't believe the total special teams time WCHA games have, it has climbed for a while but now it is out of control. I read an article in the Herald a few year's back which noted they were going to start calling more penalties in the WCHA, boy did they ever. Just some thoughts of mine. Anyone else hope for any changes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Not a fan of the shoot out...to me it's like having a free throw shooting contest at the end of a basketball game...ugh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 Not a fan of the shoot out...to me it's like having a free throw shooting contest at the end of a basketball game...ugh... Yeah, after I posted I thought about it a little longer and due to the WCHA having far less games I really do not like it as much as I initially did; an individual game is more important in college than in the NHL (for that reason). 4x4 OT's might get the games over quicker though. I just would like to get rid of ties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The half shield should be approved, but it won't they will fall on the player safety sword even though the high sticks will go down, I'm surprised that they don't require ear guards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux rube Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The half shield should be approved, but it won't they will fall on the player safety sword even though the high sticks will go down, I'm surprised that they don't require ear guards. Or neck guards. I would love to see a 10 minute ot with 4 on 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 Or neck guards. I would love to see a 10 minute ot with 4 on 4. I agree. Not too sure about neck guards....I feel they should be optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 Keep the full shield or cage mandatory. Going to the half-shield would be a huge step backwards in the evolution of the game. I see way too many gory facial injuries in the NHL, we don't need to see college kids suffer these kind of devastating injuries too. I would also like to see neck guards mandatory for all hockey players at every level. Anybody who wants to know why I feel that way only has to do a search for "Clint Malarchuk" on youtube. As for shootouts, I think they're a great way to break a tie in the regular season. Cuts are apart of the game...yes they may cause scars but any hockey player will take that risk. Both full shields and cages not only block a portion of vision, it has been proven players react slower with these full face masks thus not being able to see oncoming hits. Also, from my own experience, when everyone has on full shields, players are more likely to follow through high on their hits. With half shields there seems to be an understanding and respect to keep your hands lower. I am fine with the little scar I have, but I have a buddy who has concussion effects to this day and he blames it on the hits he took in college. You are simply missing your peripheral vision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 While I certainly respect your right to an opinion, I have to take issue with what you said about impaired vision. The way I see it, you'd think that players would be used to the cage or full shield after wearing them for 10+ years at the youth level. Every incoming freshman for UND next year played in a league that allows partial shields. Most of these players played in those leagues for 2+ years. They may have grown up with full shields or cages but there is a reason many players wear half shields in the ushl, ojhl, mjhl, bchl and sjhl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 Every incoming freshman for UND next year played in a league that allows partial shields. Most of these players played in those leagues for 2+ years. They may have grown up with full shields or cages but there is a reason many players wear half shields in the ushl, ojhl, mjhl, bchl and sjhl. Agreed, you play with cages until high school; after that you wear half shields for 2+ years and then have to go to a college setting where the game has become much faster than when you were in high school. It's not only faster but you are being hit much harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 There is a reason. It's the same reason why a lot of players used to not wear helmets in the NHL before they were made mandatory. There is a foolish perception among hockey players that you're tougher if you wear less protection. I'm sure the NHL players who chose to wear the helmets back in the '70s were probably called wimps by some of the helmetless players. There's a fine line between macho and stupid, and some hockey players have often times tripped over that line in my opinion. Make it mandatory and nobody has to get labeled a wimp for being smart. Like I said in my previous post, think of how stupid it would be for anybody to advocate driving without a seatbelt. This is essentially the same thing. You must not have played hockey....with regards to not wearing helmets, maybe. As for full face shields it is so you can react faster and have more visability. Yes, kids wear face masks through high school....but what happens in high school and after. Players get bigger, stronger and faster; you must be able to watch your back at all times or you can get blown up and possibly cause some brain damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 No, I didn't play hockey but I think that is beside the point. I've known that you're safer with a seatbelt on since long before I ever actually drove a car myself. Some things are just common sense, and I think this is one of them. What you said about "bigger/stronger/faster" is actually one of the main reasons why I think it is time to make full facial protection mandatory at all levels of hockey. It isn't 1930 anymore. A full wind-up slap shot to the face could leave a guy permamently disfigured and maybe even dead, who knows? BECAUSE athletes in the modern era are bigger, stronger, and faster than ever before is the reason why we need to give these guys every piece of protective equipment available to make the game as safe as possible. Back in the 1930's they could get away with minimal protection but not anymore. Athletes now are way too big, strong, and fast. I guess we'll agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 You must not have played hockey....with regards to not wearing helmets, maybe. As for full face shields it is so you can react faster and have more visability. Yes, kids wear face masks through high school....but what happens in high school and after. Players get bigger, stronger and faster; you must be able to watch your back at all times or you can get blown up and possibly cause some brain damage. I tend to agree. While not perfect, I think players using visors tend to keep their sticks and elbows out of each other's faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Would Jessie Martin have had better vision of the puck without putting his head down so much had he been using a visor? A lot of it is pure speculation, but I would think that puck vision with visors would be a little better than with the full face shields. How much that goes in offsetting some of the advantages of full face shields is a matter of opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakin face Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The face shield argument is a laughable and completely forgoes any logic. My car has a lot more blind spots then a motorcycle would have and I'm sure i'd be twice as careful on a motorcycle however that doesn't stop the drunk texting and driving person from hitting me and causing me far more serious harm because I'm with far less protection and at more risk for serious injury. One aspect of this argument that is often forgotten is how the facemask allows the helmets to be on tighter as the chin guard is to cup the face. Half shields do not have this mechanism thus allowing them to wear their chin strap around their belly button for comfort leaving their helmet unsecured. When you take the check the helmet moves and leaves you that much more susceptible to brain trauma off the ice/boards/glass This is strictly a short-term machismo move initiated by coaches to get rid of one perceived advantage the CHL claims to have. Recruitment is super-seeding player safety which is really too bad. The only reason this exists is because the NHL has to market it's players, in my honest opinion that is the only real reason they didn't go to full blown cages years ago. And yes I have played/coached hockey for over 25 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 The face shield argument is a laughable and completely forgoes any logic. My car has a lot more blind spots then a motorcycle would have and I'm sure i'd be twice as careful on a motorcycle however that doesn't stop the drunk texting and driving person from hitting me and causing me far more serious harm because I'm with far less protection and at more risk for serious injury. One aspect of this argument that is often forgotten is how the facemask allows the helmets to be on tighter as the chin guard is to cup the face. Half shields do not have this mechanism thus allowing them to wear their chin strap around their belly button for comfort leaving their helmet unsecured. When you take the check the helmet moves and leaves you that much more susceptible to brain trauma off the ice/boards/glass This is strictly a short-term machismo move initiated by coaches to get rid of one perceived advantage the CHL claims to have. Recruitment is super-seeding player safety which is really too bad. The only reason this exists is because the NHL has to market it's players, in my honest opinion that is the only real reason they didn't go to full blown cages years ago. And yes I have played/coached hockey for over 25 years. Nice long arguement....but you are incorrect on almost everything you just posted. Except, I guess, the drunken motorcycle thing. You have had to have played the game I guess. Wasn't Chay Genoway a spokesman for trying to get the 3/4 shields implemented after his consussion? http://ndgoon.blogsp... (Goon's World) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morley Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Nice long arguement....but you are incorrect on almost everything you just posted. Except, I guess, the drunken motorcycle thing. You have had to have played the game I guess, at a higher level than squirts. Wasn't Chay Genoway a spokesman for trying to get the 3/4 shields implemented after his consussion? http://ndgoon.blogsp... (Goon's World) I know I have read about a study that showed full mask helmets are more prone to concussions than those with partial shields. I will admit a partial shield won't protect the face as well from a stick or puck. I stil think it should be up to the players, assuming they are 18 or older. Wish I could find the link to that study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxkid12 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 If players want the option to wear a half facemask, I say let them. If the players believe that they can see better without a cage, so be it. Players know the risks of playing a sport, they don't need someone to tell them what they can and can't wear. By the way, a NO vote on June 12th will kill UND athletics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Only rule change I wasn't fond of was the hand pass rule. Any time a team needs a whistle in their own end after a broken stick, or long shift...boom, hand pass. I'm sure they won't let the guilty team have a line change, but still will lead to more stoppages in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speez Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 If players want the option to wear a half facemask, I say let them. If the players believe that they can see better without a cage, so be it. Players know the risks of playing a sport, they don't need someone to tell them what they can and can't wear. By the way, a NO vote on June 12th will kill UND athletics. Is that why there is going to be a class action suit against the NFL by the retired football players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Both players and referees say they see better without either the cage or half shield but I think going to the full cage optional half shield is a good start the NCAA isn't going to go to no face protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxkid12 Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Is that why there is going to be a class action suit against the NFL by the retired football players? The same ones that made pennies compared to todays NFL stars? They know the NFL is a billion dollar difference so they sue the pants off of them because they can. You can't sit there and tell me these athletes don't know the consequences of taking a hit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Will they have the 4 minute penalty for high sticking if they go to the half shield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Will they have the 4 minute penalty for high sticking if they go to the half shield. I've wondered this as well. If you have half shields obviously you'll have high sticks that cause a bloody nose or two. What will the penalty be for a high stick that cuts an opponent or draws blood? I'm all for the safety of the game and players not taking liberties with overaggressive play, but at the same time I think the one thing that kind of set college hockey apart was the full cages. Seems like Toews, Oshie, Stafford, and Parise didn't have any issues with vision or scoring with the full cage. It doesn't matter to me either way, but I guess I wouldn't mind it if things stayed status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 If there isn't a visibility difference, why aren't on-ice officials wearing bird cage masks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 If there isn't a visibility difference, why aren't on-ice officials wearing bird cage masks. The whistle, you'd have to have he cage right on the face. Think umpire minus the padding or a whistle that is about 5 inches long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.