Wilbur Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 If there isn't a visibility difference, why aren't on-ice officials wearing bird cage masks. If they did J.P. Parise might have landed a slash in 1972... 1 Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I honestly don't get the visors or no-cage thing. There is a frozen puck flying around in excess of 100 mph at times, not to mention sticks flying around and bodies colliding. Players still end up turning their head or covering themselves when their face is in danger, why not just let the cage do the work? I think the players can play harder and the game can be more intense when people aren't constantly trying to protect their face. The players always say it helps them to have less. I'm sure they said the same thing when helmets became mandatory. I think the NHL and the junior leagues should go to the full cage, not the other way around. 2 Quote
Wilbur Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 This is a great discussion topic. Its kind of like, "I can drive my vehicle better without this, even though it means I may get injured a bit more if I get into an accident". The NFL is having kind of a similar situation. They are requiring their players to wear more protection in an attempt to prevent injuries, and the players are all up in arms because the extra padding will hinder the way they play the game. I'll agree with the previous post. I have so much respect for players who get in front of 100 mph slapshots with nothing protecting their faces. The guys who lay out with the possibility that they'll get one somewhere in the noggin. There will still be players out there that play the game recklessly if the game goes to half shields. I just don't want to see blood on the ice at the Ralph and a college kid with 8 stitches above his right eye. I wonder what Nick Fuher would say about the topic? I know the incident in his situation was a fluke thing....but his life changed quite a bit. 1 Quote
burd Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Can you conceive of the day when NHL goalies without any kind of face protection whatsoever were bent over looking around screens so they could see incoming slappers?!! 1 Quote
ScottM Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 So, based on your logic, not wearing a seatbelt is going to make you drive safer. Great!!! PS - The only time I'm even going to care whether or not a stick/elbow is in my face is when I don't have the full shield/cage. Says the guys who's never laced up hockey skates in his life. The logic is that if you might suffer the same type of stick action or elbows to the face without the protection of a full shield you are probably more likely to keep your own stick and elbows down. But it does increase the odds of a face wash. However, to your credit, you could probably play the game without a cup. Quote
BigGreyAnt41 Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Why don't we make cars safer by removing a bunch of the glass windows and just having solid metal sides and rear? After all, you still have the windshield to look out of to see where you're going, right? Quote
hrkac Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 I think the NHL and the junior leagues should go to the full cage, not the other way around. That will never happen. If the NCAA wants to keep getting top end players they need to have rules like their competitors..the CHL. Quote
burd Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 As long as everybody has a full shield/cage, we don't have to worry so much about players keeping their sticks down. It becomes a moot point when the faces are all protected. The theory that making players vulnerable to gory facial injuries by taking away the full shield/cage will make the game safer is like saying you could make the roads safer by taking away everybody's seatbelts. It is, to put it bluntly, a stupid argument. Anybody who subscribes to that theory just doesn't get it. It isn't 1930 anymore, time for the game to evolve. Safety is safety, people. Get a clue. Every once in a while, people are pursuaded more by the merit of an idea than by the force of an insult. 1 Quote
burd Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 As in... The theory that making players vulnerable to gory facial injuries by taking away the full shield/cage will make the game safer is like saying you could make the roads safer by taking away everybody's seatbelts. Not quite there yet, Dave, (the eye-roll) but we can see you're trying. Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Why don't we make cars safer by removing a bunch of the glass windows and just having solid metal sides and rear? After all, you still have the windshield to look out of to see where you're going, right? Bad analogy in so many ways. A car's windshield and a hockey player's facial protection perform totally different functions and in totally different environments. Are you saying that college and youth hockey players(and all goalies) have trouble seeing what's happening on the ice? They have a gray(ice-colored) cage like half an inch from their face, and it disappears when you pull the cage down. That's how I remember them, anyway. Quote
ScottM Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 As long as everybody has a full shield/cage, we don't have to worry so much about players keeping their sticks down. It becomes a moot point when the faces are all protected. The theory that making players vulnerable to gory facial injuries by taking away the full shield/cage will make the game safer is like saying you could make the roads safer by taking away everybody's seatbelts. It is, to put it bluntly, a stupid argument. Anybody who subscribes to that theory just doesn't get it. It isn't 1930 anymore, time for the game to evolve. Safety is safety, people. Get a clue. Funny. Visors have been the norm for junior and MJ, and Euro teams for years. Parise went from cage to a visor in the pros, and the Olympics, and his biggest injury, so far has been a torn mensicus. Wonder why the NHL doesn't mandate shields/cages for its prized assets? Probably because everybody knows if their sticks or elbows go up, they can get the same medicine. Then again, you think the players should be bubble wrapped and they use a foam puck. "Get a clue". Pretty funny shiat from a spectator. Quote
BigGreyAnt41 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Bad analogy in so many ways. A car's windshield and a hockey player's facial protection perform totally different functions and in totally different environments. Are you saying that college and youth hockey players(and all goalies) have trouble seeing what's happening on the ice? They have a gray(ice-colored) cage like half an inch from their face, and it disappears when you pull the cage down. That's how I remember them, anyway. I've heard a lot of comments about limited peripheral vision and that one reason for the 3/4 or 1/2 shield is for increased visibility. So with that in mind, it was a perfect analogy. Quote
siouxkid12 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 As long as everybody has a full shield/cage, we don't have to worry so much about players keeping their sticks down. It becomes a moot point when the faces are all protected. The theory that making players vulnerable to gory facial injuries by taking away the full shield/cage will make the game safer is like saying you could make the roads safer by taking away everybody's seatbelts. It is, to put it bluntly, a stupid argument. Anybody who subscribes to that theory just doesn't get it. It isn't 1930 anymore, time for the game to evolve. Safety is safety, people. Get a clue. I like how you say that this isn't 1930 anymore but yet you still argue that keeping the nickname wont harm the university! 1 Quote
scpa0305 Posted June 11, 2012 Author Posted June 11, 2012 Funny. Visors have been the norm for junior and MJ, and Euro teams for years. Parise went from cage to a visor in the pros, and the Olympics, and his biggest injury, so far has been a torn mensicus. Wonder why the NHL doesn't mandate shields/cages for its prized assets? Probably because everybody knows if their sticks or elbows go up, they can get the same medicine. Then again, you think the players should be bubble wrapped and they use a foam puck. "Get a clue". Pretty funny shiat from a spectator. haha I like it. I'm pretty sure many of these guys never played a hockey game past pewee C's but even the players would like the option to use half shields (83% I believe voted that way). Quote
burd Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 One of the most horrific hockey injuries is the blade cut, which can and does happen to players with cages, neck guards, gloves and everything else. It just gives me the vapors to see it. Why they don't have the sense to go to rollerblades is beyond me. Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 One of the most horrific hockey injuries is the blade cut, which can and does happen to players with cages, neck guards, gloves and everything else. It just gives me the vapors to see it. Why they don't have the sense to go to rollerblades is beyond me. funny, but you can play hockey with a full cage, you can't play ice hockey on rollerblades. another bad analogy. 1 Quote
burd Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 funny, but you can play hockey with a full cage, you can't play ice hockey on rollerblades. another bad analogy. Guess I should have added the part about how you melt the ice first. Quote
yzerman19 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Growing up on the outdoor, you wore a stocking cap...that's it. Played hours and hours and hours of hockey...way more than any of us spent on indoor ice- probably until bantam. Never did I see anyone get a horrific injury. The pros have played without facial protection for years and years, and I have never seen a horrific injury that could've been avoided with a cage. Concussions- the cage might help a little, but not much. I agree with the poster who was talking about the danger of the 4 razors that guys have on their feet. That is the only real risk out there of something more than anything a couple stitches and beer couldn't take care of. The guys are bigger and stronger and faster, but the equipment IS better. You ever see one of those old Jofa helmets? Today's helmets offer way more protection. Hockey is a collision sport, the fastest of collision sports- there are risks when you play. Let the guys make their own decisions and live with the consequences. It is not up to anyone to nanny-state the game. 1 Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Oh, we are just supposed to let the player's make all the decisions? Why have GMs and owners and referees and fans, then? I know the pros aren't going to go to full cages, because there is a stigma associated with it, and because hockey players are so traditional and afraid to look "weak". It's too bad, because I think the game is more entertaining when players are fully protected. 2 Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 It's always funny when you see an NHLer turn their body or their head to protect their face, instead of using the small. almost invisible, piece of equipment that was specifically made to protect the face. And for what? To not look like a wuss? You look like more of a wuss turning away from the play every time you go to block a shot. It's all just useless tradition and peer pressure that are stopping players from wearing the right equipment. Quote
yzerman19 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 I think the game is most entertaining when the players are making plays. I really can't comprehend this desire to madate certain equipment. I really don't care all that much- I don't know why others do either...it is the nany state approach. Same people who yell at me for riding my bike without a helmet. Same people who supported prohibition- better to take it away from the 90% of people who can handle it responsibly than to have 10% of the people have issues. You can't manage life like that. If it were me, given the choice, I would wear a half shield. I've worn both. I prefer the half shield. I would guess that 99% of players agree with me. Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Guess I should have added the part about how you melt the ice first. So going from ice hockey with visors to ice hockey with a full cage will change the sport as much as actually changing ice hockey to a different sport? I didn't know visors were that important. Quote
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Why mandate helmets then? Did you quit watching the NHL to protest the nanny state taking over when helmets were mandated? Why do you watch college hockey when, according to you, players can't make plays while wearing a full cage? I have so many questions. Anyway, I get where people who disagree are coming from. I don't care that much either way, I think visors look badass, but I just hate when the conventional wisdom is so accepted, without anyone ever questioning it. 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 You ever see one of those old Jofa helmets? Those were helmets? I thought Gretzky and Kurri were Jewish and were wearing yarmulkes. Now that I think about it, a yarmulke would have probably given better protection. Quote
SiouxTupa Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Funny. Visors have been the norm for junior and MJ, and Euro teams for years. Parise went from cage to a visor in the pros, and the Olympics, and his biggest injury, so far has been a torn mensicus. Wonder why the NHL doesn't mandate shields/cages for its prized assets? Probably because everybody knows if their sticks or elbows go up, they can get the same medicine. Then again, you think the players should be bubble wrapped and they use a foam puck. "Get a clue". Pretty funny shiat from a spectator. Interesting you bring up Parise... http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32453828/ns/sports-nhl/ Considering the teeth he lost were fake, I'd wager that he's been hit in the face more than once. Quote
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.