scpa0305 Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 You're getting upset, because you have no argument. Why don't you stick to your story about how players can't see if they wear a full cage. Which makes sooo much sense because goalies have full cages and they don't need to be able to see what's going on , right? What does a goalies cage that a skater's doesn't? Well bigger eye slits of coarse....also a goalie is looking straight ahead at the puck coming at him 98% of the time where a skater need more of a peripheral view of oncoming traffic. Players are coming to hit you from all directions...even if you are skating straight ahead. Goalies do not worry about getting hit. That is my only arguement....having a half shield lets me have my peripheral vision and my vision straight down whereas a full mask you have very little peripheral vision and absolutely no vision straight down. But you must have played a bunch so you know all this already. You are simply worried about getting a baby cut on your lip every once in awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 I respect the hell out of them, but just watch, they will turn their heads, or they will hold up in the corners. When your face, the window to your soul, is out in the open with pucks and elbows and sticks flying around, you are going to instinctively try to protect it. You guys have said it before, when you have a full cage you play more recklessly (with high sticks), so you will agree with that, right? So, all the refs would have to do is call the high sticks when they happen, and the players will adjust the high sticks, but they will still play with that recklessness that you play with when you wear a full cage, and the game will be way more intense. Have at it, guys. I'd love to hear how gay I am and how little I know about hockey. As for turning your head....you do that with or without a full cage. As for holding up in the corners....you are crazy, that has nothing to do with their cages. Oh by the way....when have you even seen Ovi hold up into the corner? Kane maybe, not Ovi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 As for turning your head....you do that with or without a full cage. As for holding up in the corners....you are crazy, that has nothing to do with their cages. Oh by the way....when have you even seen Ovi hold up into the corner? Kane maybe, not Ovi. Hell, for past couple of days I've just been trying to get my head around the premise that putting shields/cages on players will make them more reckless which should also make them "safer" ... Let alone actually expecting refs to blow the whistle on a more consistent basis. Next he'll tell us that Shanahan really doesn't have a dart board in his office with various suspension lengths on it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGSIOUX Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I tend to not get into pissing matches here, because quite frankly, its stupid... but i tend to agree that full cages are a safer bet. So does actual scientific research..... http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/1/27.abstract?sid=374eeb4f-6553-46eb-9e3e-6427e15b6a6a Im an optometrist, there is a study that shows vision to not be significantly affected by full cages vs visors, though i can't find a link right now. By mandating half shields in youth hockey in Canada, 10Mil per year was saved in healthcare costs in the early 90's. I tend to let science help me make decisions, but hey maybe im just a 'pussy'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'm trying to get my head around the premise that taking seatbelts out of cars will make people drive more cautiously which should also make them "safer". As crazy as that sounds, it is the same exact argument that is being made by those of you who are against the full shield/cage. Crazy? No so sure. If they made the driver's side seat a bench with two little holes in it for my balls to hang through, I would drive slower, which would make me safer. Nervous, but safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'm trying to get my head around the premise that taking seatbelts out of cars will make people drive more cautiously which should also make them "safer". As crazy as that sounds, it is the same exact argument that is being made by those of you who are against the full shield/cage. Well Dave if you want to drive around with no seat belts, in the middle of the night on a dark winding road, I encourage you to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 You obviously missed the point, but that shouldn't surprise me based on your history here. Let me dumb it down for you... I don't want to drive without a deatbelt any more than I want to play hockey without a full shield or cage. No, I think you missed his point. His point was that if you would ever decide to make that decision, he would support it and hope that you would follow through. There are others on the board that would also support that decision if you decided to follow through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I don't want to drive without a deatbelt any more than I want to play hockey without a full shield or cage. But you've never played the game, so you have no point of reference beyond your own squishy opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yzerman19 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I tend to not get into pissing matches here, because quite frankly, its stupid... but i tend to agree that full cages are a safer bet. So does actual scientific research..... http://bjsm.bmj.com/...3e-6427e15b6a6a Im an optometrist, there is a study that shows vision to not be significantly affected by full cages vs visors, though i can't find a link right now. By mandating half shields in youth hockey in Canada, 10Mil per year was saved in healthcare costs in the early 90's. I tend to let science help me make decisions, but hey maybe im just a 'pussy'. The study is interesting, I only read the abstract, but I wonder if they somehow adjusted for a very important variable in the concussion- the type of collision that led to it. You can't assume that the impacts were all the same, thus the chance for concussion being equal. I'd also be curious if the amount of ice time was equal among those wearing half-shields vs those wearing cages. I haven't been commenting on the vision aspect, but as someone who's worn both, I prefer the half shield... I also prefer riding a bike- motorized and pedal without a helmet and prefer a few other activities without all the "safety" equipment Sometimes it just feels better, and you accept the risks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 You don't have to play the game to comprehend the fact that you're safer with your face protected than you are with your face left wide open and vulnerable to sticks/pucks/etc... Common sense, try using it for a change. I'm one of the slow ones who doesn't quite appreciate your point, Dave. As long as this discussion relates to adults and not kids under 18, it seems to me that this involves two competing considerations: personal safety and personal comfort/convenience. If you say there are no competing considerations--that it is only a matter of personal safety--and you have never played the game, then you can't blame some people for thinking you are just a little bit full of shatt. If you acknowledge that there are competing considerations but insist that the personal safety factor easily outweighs the comfort/convenience factor and you have never played the game, then you can't blame some of us who care a little less about what you have to say. I personally have no problem with college hockey requiring players to wear cages or full shields, but I completely understand those who think players should be able to go half-shield if they want. Pros? Let em go with no shield if they want and deal with the risk by contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
as15 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 So then, based on your logic here, should we make seatbelts optional for adults and mandatory only for kids under 18? If that's your opinion, so be it. You're entitled to it. But if not, I think you're being inconsistent with your logic. I don't think using seat belts as an example is a good comparison. Seat belts are proven to save lives and limit the amount of serious injuries that occur in car wrecks. That is why wearing them is the law. For the most part, the injuries that will occur from using a half-shield instead of wearing a full cage are going to be relatively minor for a hockey injury (cuts to the face, knocked out teeth etc). There will be circumstances where a player has a major eye injury, but those seem to be pretty rare in hockey (only several a year in the NHL). If someone can find me a stat or a study that shows wearing a half-shield over a full cage has a direct correlation with career-threatening injuries, then I am all for making them keep the full cage, if not I say let them choose, they all know the risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 To each his own. I prefer the full facial protection because I don't like to see bloody facial injuries. I can handle seeing a torn ACL but I get really squeamish at the sight of a rearranged face. And that's a valid reason, but I doubt the player who has to wear the equipment cares how you or I react to his knee or face injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yzerman19 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Here is where the seatbelt analogy breaks from this argument: Money Seatbelt laws are not about preserving the safety of drivers, they are about preventing potentially huge medical expenses from having to be absorbed by insurance companies- usually auto, but also medical. The likely medical expenses from a hockey injury are dwarfed when compared to the likely expenses of a major auto accident. Also, junior, college, and pro players are all covered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 You don't have to play the game to comprehend the fact that you're safer with your face protected than you are with your face left wide open and vulnerable to sticks/pucks/etc... Common sense, try using it for a change. If they want to be perfectly safe they could just sit on the couch with you. Think of it: No fighting, no pucks bouncing off your face, no sticks in your ribs ... just risk-free "bliss". I'd trot out the concept of "assumption of risk" to you, but you can't even handle the rudiments of logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Seat belt law? Naw, not similar enough. The State of North Dakota only mandates that motorcycle riders wear a helmet if they are under 18 years of age. You ever had a dragonfly bounce off your cheek bone at a hundred and ... , er, ... uh, ... at the legally posted speed limit? So the comparison: Speed. Check. Force. Check. Risk of eye or facial damage. Check. Post impact concussion. Check. Having your head open up spilling your grey matter after you slide on the surface ... uh, not seeing that in hockey so much .. Seems to me motorcycling is more dangerous but that doesn't mandate a helmet, much less facial protections, if you are 18 years or older. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Why play sports if you don't want to get injured? No one would get hurt playing hockey of no one played hockey. That would solve everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Why play sports if you don't want to get injured? Why do pros wear a cup? What are they scared? They should just quit hockey if they're scared like that, don't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 So you mean to tell me those idiots I sometimes see riding a motorcycle helmetless are not breaking the law? Wow... just, wow!!! I honestly had no idea. That amazes me that in this day and age where a person can't even smoke in a bar anymore that people are still allowed to do something so dangerous. What a messed up world we live in. This is the reason why so many things we used to do which were fun are now to unsafe to do in today's world! Because of people and the lame azz thinking "oh I'm going to protect you from yourself" just like Dave! Just because some people get hurt or killed, doesn't mean everyone will! I personally think the seat belt law is a joke! Just like telling an adult professional hockey player what shield or cage they can or cannot use! Pathetic!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Just like telling an adult professional hockey player what shield or cage they can or cannot use! Pathetic!! I thought we were talking about college hockey rules changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 This is what the NHL should use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I thought we were talking about college hockey rules changes. You need to read back if your confused! What do seat belts have to do with college hockey than? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 You need to read back if your confused! What do seat belts have to do with college hockey than? I don't know. I haven't said anything about seat belts. This thread is about college hockey rules changes. If you support college hockey going away from the full cage mandate, why don't you defend your opinion? You're the one that wants to change the status quo, not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I don't know. I haven't said anything about seat belts. This thread is about college hockey rules changes. If you support college hockey going away from the full cage mandate, why don't you defend your opinion? You're the one that wants to change the status quo, not me. Are you serious? These arguments have been going on for days, I say one thing and it's the comment you want to say has changed the topic! Good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passit_offthegoalie Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Are you serious? These arguments have been going on for days, I say one thing and it's the comment you want to say has changed the topic! Good one. You were whining about some imaginary people telling professional players what safety equipment to wear, when nobody is actually telling pros what to do. At the same time, you are advocating rules changes that are real and are being considered, as we speak, so I think it's on you and those who share your view to explain to everyone why this change is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 You were whining about some imaginary people telling professional players what safety equipment to wear, when nobody is actually telling pros what to do. At the same time, you are advocating rules changes that are real and are being considered, as we speak, so I think it's on you and those who share your view to explain to everyone why this change is necessary. Blah blah blah blah blah, you must be bored, tool. I made an opinion on what Dave was saying, I know I need to explain this to you, I disagreed with Dave and his analogies of the change he is condoning! I said nothing to you, didn't ask you anything, you see I quoted Dave's remark? Not yours! You can babble on now, I'm sure you have this set to tell you when I reply, but sorry, not going to reply to you anymore. Anyway I think safety is important, but let's let the experienced and the people with the power to make the decisions on which gear is or is not required. 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.