Potential Rule Changes

[scpa0305]

http://www.uscho.com/2014/04/28/overtime-visors-among-topics-for-rules-committee-in-naples-meetings/

I sure hope college hockey wakes up and implements the 3/4th visor rule like the rest of the world. Everyone actually IN the game (coaches, players, etc.) are for it.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

http://www.uscho.com...aples-meetings/

I sure hope college hockey wakes up and implements the 3/4th visor rule like the rest of the world. Everyone actually IN the game (coaches, players, etc.) are for it.

Dentists, oral surgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, plastic surgeons, trauma surgeons, and prosthodontists, too! Everybody except for the schools' health plan administrators.

[scpa0305]

Dentists, oral surgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, plastic surgeons, trauma surgeons, and prosthodontists, too! Everybody except for the schools' health plan administrators.

Wouldn't those injuries be covered in their parent's health insurance? These are hockey players...I'm guessing they did not come from lower class families. Also, many people act like these injures are occuring all the time. I have used a half shield for the past 11 years and have one cut on my lip. Many times the players don't end up going to the doc for cuts. Only critical injuries would require you to see a doc....and those injuries are extremely infrequent.

[Goon]

I don't understand why everyone thinks college kids need to wear a full shield and some how they're safer? In junior hockey they can simply wear a 1/2-3/4 shield if they're over 18 years old. Then they have to wear the mask/bird cage once they come to college. Then when they leave college, they can go back to the 1/2-3/4 shield. There's the argument that the mask/bird cage make the game dirtier because the players feel invincible. It's time to make this rule change.

[scpa0305]

I don't understand why everyone thinks college kids need to wear a full shield and some how they're safer? In junior hockey they can simply wear a 1/2-3/4 shield if they're over 18 years old. Then they have to wear the mask/bird cage once they come to college. Then when they leave college, they can go back to the 1/2-3/4 shield. There's the argument that the mask/bird cage make the game dirtier because the players feel invincible. It's time to make this rule change.

Agreed...once you are 18 the mask goes away. Many of these players go on to play (very) low level hockey for at least a few years. In none of these leagues do you wear a mask. In every Int'l competition they take the masks off....it simply makes little sense.

[Speed_Kills]

I played junior hockey and college hockey and I am for the continued use of the full mask. I saw guys on my own team miss weeks-months with fractured orbital bones and jaws that could have been prevented. The college season is too short for guys to miss extended amounts of time for those type of injuries. I honestly wish junior hockey would move to full masks too. Some players may play less reckless without the full mask but to say there won't be players who will use that opening to their advantage (to cause injury) is a little naive. I may be in the minority but that's my two cents...

[werewolfoflondon]

Who thinks Kyle Rau would close his mouth under this rule?

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

I am in favor of maintaining the cage. The safety factor is enough that I could see the NHL going that direction some day even. Look how many facial injuries they have had lately. Also, NHL has or is likely (not sure on the one) going to mandate half shields, eliminating open face helmets, the next step will be cages (like football).

[scpa0305]

I played junior hockey and college hockey and I am for the continued use of the full mask. I saw guys on my own team miss weeks-months with fractured orbital bones and jaws that could have been prevented. The college season is too short for guys to miss extended amounts of time for those type of injuries. I honestly wish junior hockey would move to full masks too. Some players may play less reckless without the full mask but to say there won't be players who will use that opening to their advantage (to cause injury) is a little naive. I may be in the minority but that's my two cents...

You have your opinion, but from the guys I play with you would be in the minority. These injuries simply do not happen as often as people think. I saw way more injuries simply from blocking shots than orbital fractures. However, I honestly do not think this rule will ever pass.

[scpa0305]

I am in favor of maintaining the cage. The safety factor is enough that I could see the NHL going that direction some day even. Look how many facial injuries they have had lately. Also, NHL has or is likely (not sure on the one) going to mandate half shields, eliminating open face helmets, the next step will be cages (like football).

They have already mandated half shields for incoming players. Full masks, given they are designed similar to how they look today, will never be mandated. I could see someone developing something that protects the face while also not limiting a players downward and peripheral vision.

[bigskyvikes]

This argument is kind of funny, especially when these guys in the pro's hurt their face because of no shield, they come out in the next game with a shield on! Until they heal that is. Ironic...

[scpa0305]

It's all related to ones vision.....that is more important than scrapes and bruises

[keikla]

It's all related to ones vision.....that is more important than scrapes and bruises

Assuming those scrapes and bruises don't permanently affect that vision...

[Big A HG]

I see both sides of the argument, so I don't really have a say in which direction I'd prefer it to go. Just from what I've seen across the sports landscape in recent years, I'd be that the NHL would mandate full cages/masks before college dropped them.

There are too many lawsuits involving head injuries these days, and it's only a matter of time before the NHL really gets hit hard like the NFL is going through. There already have been lawsuits in the works involving old head injuries from retired NHL players and I only see it getting worse going forward. As a CYA measure, I can see the NHL implementing them, whether or not it's right or wrong.

[Frozen4sioux]

I feel the college game SHOULD go to the visor ....but won't.

BIGA hit the nail on the head...potential litigation. ....

Plus I do fear a tourney run being derailed by one day our integral player taking a deflection to the mug that shaters a jaw and ends a season in a late season game.

There really is no comparison to playing with a visor compared to a cage it is simply much better for vision ....breathability....sweat management....adjustments you name it.

In my exstensive days as a beer league winger...

Ive tried almost every type of cage/visor/half/shield/nothing/bubble there is and its so much easier see with the visor.

I dread everynight the thought of a deflected clapper or pitchforking kids stick taking out my pearly whites but its just miserable to use a cage for my eyes to focus ......

I tried no mask at all but the its just to much to risk without protecting the eyes....I can get a gold tooth .....dont want a glass eye.

But the bubble... good lord its like trying to excersize with a ziplock bag around your head and the optic distortions can cause motion sickness.

..plus have you ever tried to toss back a PBR between shifts in a cage......yeah its not pretty.

Luckily ive got a face that cant get fuglier from a puck to the bean...in fact a scar might make me look tougher as I give some 60 year old D man the evil eye before i trip over the blue line.

So for now ....until I invent a full bubble with some oxygen infusing tubing....that never fogs or scratches....I go with a quality visor.

The college game I dont believe will do the same.

[werewolfoflondon]

I see both sides of the argument, so I don't really have a say in which direction I'd prefer it to go. Just from what I've seen across the sports landscape in recent years, I'd be that the NHL would mandate full cages/masks before college dropped them.

There are too many lawsuits involving head injuries these days, and it's only a matter of time before the NHL really gets hit hard like the NFL is going through. There already have been lawsuits in the works involving old head injuries from retired NHL players and I only see it getting worse going forward. As a CYA measure, I can see the NHL implementing them, whether or not it's right or wrong.

There is a problem with the NFL lawsuit. You have to die to collect. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/playoffs/2014/04/27/joe-delamielleure-nfl-concussion-lawsuit/8316755/

[BIGSIOUX]

Count me in as against the half shield. The reduction in vision is more mental than acutual, I use to have a study that backed that up, but have lost it.

Also, there is this.....http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/1/27.abstract?sid=374eeb4f-6553-46eb-9e3e-6427e15b6a6a

Seems enough reason to me to mandate the full cage, especially in young developing brains.

I take care of eyes for a living, ive seen the ugly of some of these things, and although I do respect a person's free will, i think organizationally, the NCAA, USHL, etc..has a liability to take care of these players, and ultimately that is why you wont see it change.

[scpa0305]

The higher and higher you move up the quicker you need to think and react. The reduction in vision is defintley real. I wear a half shield to protect my eyes, two nights ago I had to remove it because it was too foggy. I hadn't played hockey without a half shield for a very long time, 10 years or so. I was blown away how much better I was able to see the ice....and that's without a clear half shield. Believe me there is a significant difference when make these adjustments. I say let the players, coaches, etc weigh in on this. Unless you've actually played the game at a reasonably high level, it's a tough subject to speak on.

[werewolfoflondon]

The higher and higher you move up the quicker you need to think and react. The reduction in vision is defintley real. I wear a half shield to protect my eyes, two nights ago I had to remove it because it was too foggy. I hadn't played hockey without a half shield for a very long time, 10 years or so. I was blown away how much better I was able to see the ice....and that's without a clear half shield. Believe me there is a significant difference when make these adjustments. I say let the players, coaches, etc weigh in on this. Unless you've actually played the game at a reasonably high level, it's a tough subject to speak on.

Does this mean beer leagues do not count?

[scpa0305]

Does this mean beer leagues do not count?

Haha....not sure on that one. I was more referring to the current coaches/players speaking out on this issue rather than myself.

Also, some of the men's leagues I play in now have much better players than when I was in high school.

[Frozen4sioux]

Haha....not sure on that one. I was more referring to the current coaches/players speaking out on this issue rather than myself.

Also, some of the men's leagues I play in now have much better players than when I was in high school.

We definitely must not playing in the same men's league.......

But seriously I often wonder for rec leagues if it wouldn't be a good idea (cya) bylaw to require cages or at least half shields.

[MissSioux85]

Not an on-ice rule, but I thought I would throw this in here anyway.

It sounds like there has been some interesting discussion about the "Gentleman's Agreement" in college hockey:

Minnesota coaches, who have stated a preference against the agreement in recent years, asked that the issue be introduced to the agenda, which it was.

According to sources, coaches then voted approixmately 3-to-1 in favor of keeping the agreement.

At that point, sources says, Minnesota and "a number of big schools" told the coaching body that it was no longer going to adhere to the agreement anyway, and only abide by the NCAA's Letter of Intent.

"I think it's gotten out of hand," Minnesota coach Don Lucia said recently about recruiting.

...hopefully we can get back to the point where there's no such thing as a commitment until a kid's a senior in high school. Because what's going on now with ninth and 10th graders — who knows who the coach will be, who knows who your teammates are going to be.

Funny enough, the Gophers just received a commitment from a 1999-born (SSM Bantam)...

[SiouxScore]

Not an on-ice rule, but I thought I would throw this in here anyway.

It sounds like there has been some interesting discussion about the "Gentleman's Agreement" in college hockey:

Funny enough, the Gophers just received a commitment from a 1999-born (SSM Bantam)...

I agree with the Minnesota coaches on this. The only thing that should really matter is the letter of intent and that is the way it is in every other sport. Schools are already not following the "gentleman's agreement' anyway as can be seen by the number of BC recruits who had committed elsewhere first. Schools like Minnesota, BC, UND, and Michigan are gonna be able to get a kid to flip their commitment from a smaller school if they really want them so why wouldn't they be in favor of the only thing mattering being the letter of intent.

[808287]

I'd be in favor of a new rule requiring penalties to be called for high sticks to the face on a consistent basis. Oh, and for holding, interference, tackling, clutching...etc., all to be consistently called. And for the patented "Budish facewash" to be a contact to the head minor. Just saying. If you're going to have rules, call 'em.

[Vegas_Sioux]

I'd be in favor of a new rule requiring penalties to be called for high sticks to the face on a consistent basis. Oh, and for holding, interference, tackling, clutching...etc., all to be consistently called. And for the patented "Budish facewash" to be a contact to the head minor. Just saying. If you're going to have rules, call 'em.

the budish rub is already a 5 and a game: under rule 47 facewashing oh and Gretzky tried the half shield said he couldnt hear and see as well, this is coming a player who could tell if his skates weren't sharpened right.