Potential Rule Changes

[jjensen]

http://host.madison.com/sports/college/hockey/andy-baggot-uw-men-s-hockey-coach-mike-eaves-taking/article_d5c235b4-1d50-5b3c-8232-b2f47eff79d3.html

Looks like minny isn't the only big 10 school not following the gentleman's agreement

[siouxrunner]

Seriously? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the full shield will prevent gory facial injuries. Tonight's Penguins/Rangers game provided us with a great example of why it is stupid to play hockey without full facial protection. I can't find a clip posted yet but those of you who watched the game know what I'm referring to. Late in the 1st period one of the Rangers took an inadvertent stick to the mouth, which made for profuse bleeding from the mouth. With a cage or full shield there is no injury at all on that play.

Yes, seriously. Mandate full face protection for players under 18, and mandate a minimum of 1/2 or 3/4 face shield for 18 and older. Leave full face protection as an option for anyone who wants it.

You are correct, full face shields or cages will prevent gory facial injuries (although I don't know why it matters if they are gory or not). However, once the players turn 18 we consider them to be adults. Having played hockey for their entire lives, often in leagues where half shields are allowed, I'm sure they can make an informed choice about what type of face protection is right for them. If you give the option either way, I don't see any issue with allowing 1/2 (or 3/4) shields.

[MissSioux85]

Re: Gentleman's Agreement, these schools said they WILL honor it

Miami

Notre Dame

Quinnipiac

Bowling Green

It will be interesting to see how this divide in college hockey plays out.

[brianvf]

Re: Gentleman's Agreement, these schools said they WILL honor it

Miami

Notre Dame

Quinnipiac

Bowling Green

It will be interesting to see how this divide in college hockey plays out.

Hakstol has been quoted as being in favor of the gentleman's agreement as well.

Lucia, Eaves, and York have all been quoted as not being in favor.

[SiouxScore]

Hakstol has been quoted as being in favor of the gentleman's agreement as well.

Lucia, Eaves, and York have all been quoted as not being in favor.

Has Hak? I thought he basically said he hasn't recruited other commits in the past but he really didn't speak out in favor of the agreement just more that he has followed it in the past since that had been the agreement.

[cberkas]

Has Hak? I thought he basically said he hasn't recruited other commits in the past but he really didn't speak out in favor of the agreement just more that he has followed it in the past since that had been the agreement.

He did try to bring in a commited player last year.

[brianvf]

Has Hak? I thought he basically said he hasn't recruited other commits in the past but he really didn't speak out in favor of the agreement just more that he has followed it in the past since that had been the agreement.

I just read it a couple days ago in an article...let me try to find it...

[scpa0305]

I'm sure Lucia and York dislike the agreement, they both live in the two hockey hot beds in the us.

[Mariucci]

There is no benefit to leaving your face vulnerable. What it comes down to is macho stupidity and the mentality of appearing to be "tough". It is the same concept as to why players were reluctant to wear helmets before they were made mandatory. There is a fine line between macho and stupid, and unfortunately way too many hockey players tend to trip right over that line. If I had my way, full facial protection would be mandatory for all players of all ages at every level. It makes sense for the same reason that seat belt laws make sense. If you think otherwise you clearly have a blatant disregard for safety.

What you suggest is on par with making seat belts mandatory for all drivers and passengers under 18 but then once they turn 18 and become adults give them the option to stop using them if they want to (which would be absolute lunacy). I'm sorry, but anybody who scoffs at the concept of making full facial protection mandatory almost deserves to take a slap shot to the face just so that they finally get a clue.

I happen to be against the seat belt law. I wear it every time Im in the car as should everyone but there shouldn't be a law for it. Don't protect people from themselves. It's about personal choice, personal freedom.

[Big A HG]

I guess the way I see it, if some idiot chooses to not protect himself then somebody else is potentially going to be stuck with the messy job of scraping what's left of him off the highway. Therefore, I am in favor of protecting people from themselves. But that's just my opinion.

I agree with you and disagree with you. I agree that masks are probably for the better. Is it weird that the NCAA is seemingly the only league other than youth hockey to mandate full cages? Yes. However, I do think they do more good than not. I honestly don't believe it's out of the realm of possibility that with enough lawsuits against the NHL that they'd ultimately mandate it, which would trickle down to all leagues. And those lawsuits are a matter of when, not if. Where I disagree with you Dave is enforcing rules like this. I agree with Mariucci using the seat belt example. I'd prefer everyone to wear one, but, I don't believe anyone should be forced to wear one.

Gretzky may not have liked any sort of facial protection because it limited his vision and hearing, just like some would argue that seat belts are more restricting and can even do more damage in an accident. It's all perception of each individual which is why there's sometimes no right or wrong answer, which is why nothing should be enforced, only encouraged.

Just my $.02

[runaroundsioux]

I have been an volunteer EMT for 25 years. I have been to more motor vehicle accidents than I can count. The only injuries I have seen from wearing seat belts are bruised collar bones or ribs. I have seen countless fatalities from not wearing a seat belt, mainly from being ejected from the vehicle. Please,whether you believe it should be mandated by law or not, wear your seat belt. It doesn't effect just you.

[scpa0305]

There is no benefit to leaving your face vulnerable. What it comes down to is macho stupidity and the mentality of appearing to be "tough". It is the same concept as to why players were reluctant to wear helmets before they were made mandatory. There is a fine line between macho and stupid, and unfortunately way too many hockey players tend to trip right over that line. If I had my way, full facial protection would be mandatory for all players of all ages at every level. It makes sense for the same reason that seat belt laws make sense. If you think otherwise you clearly have a blatant disregard for safety.

What you suggest is on par with making seat belts mandatory for all drivers and passengers under 18 but then once they turn 18 and become adults give them the option to stop using them if they want to (which would be absolute lunacy). I'm sorry, but anybody who scoffs at the concept of making full facial protection mandatory almost deserves to take a slap shot to the face just so that they finally get a clue.

Dave, you have never played hockey.

[Goon]

Dave, you have never played hockey?

Boom!

[Frozen4sioux]

Dave, you have never played hockey.

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM!!!!!

[Big A HG]

I have been an volunteer EMT for 25 years. I have been to more motor vehicle accidents than I can count. The only injuries I have seen from wearing seat belts are bruised collar bones or ribs. I have seen countless fatalities from not wearing a seat belt, mainly from being ejected from the vehicle. Please,whether you believe it should be mandated by law or not, wear your seat belt. It doesn't effect just you.

This is a great example. It shows that much of the issue deals with perception opposed to fact. Many can believe what they want and there's no way to change their mind until something happens that changes their perception. I still believe in personal choice, but if it were me, I'd lean towards more facial protection opposed to less, just like I'd still wear my seat belt even if there was no law saying I have to.

With enough common sense and teaching, people will do the right thing whether or not a rule is in place. Those who don't should only be punished with whatever additional injury takes place because of it.

[scpa0305]

This is a great example. It shows that much of the issue deals with perception opposed to fact. Many can believe what they want and there's no way to change their mind until something happens that changes their perception. I still believe in personal choice, but if it were me, I'd lean towards more facial protection opposed to less, just like I'd still wear my seat belt even if there was no law saying I have to.

With enough common sense and teaching, people will do the right thing whether or not a rule is in place. Those who don't should only be punished with whatever additional injury takes place because of it.

Why is everyone so focused on the face. Many of you are imagining that type of (infrequent) injury happening to themselves I think. These guys don't show up to a normal 8-5 job. They are hockey players. Why not focus on cut resistant jerseys to protect critical ligaments. Maybe they should ban skate blades? Maybe they should mandate a new helmet that all players have to wear that better protects for concussions, it seems that is the injury causing the long term damage.

[Frozen4sioux]

I think the argument about vision is an interesting one. To make another analogy to driving, you could say that removing your windshield would give you better vision while behind the wheel. However, the risks of driving without a windshield would greatly outweigh any possible advantages of having slightly improved visibility. Same goes for removing the cage or shield from your hockey helmet, the risks and potential hazards greatly outweigh the benefit of slightly improved visibility.

So we are actually comparing a car windshield to a hockey visor.

A is to apple

B is to squirrel

You're out of your element Donnie!

[Blackheart]

So we are actually comparing a car windshield to a hockey visor.

A is to apple

B is to squirrel

You're out of your element Donnie!

So you're saying if the windshield in your car breaks, a hockey helmet with a full visor will provide adequate protection...

[Goon]

ECAC Director of Officials proposed an awesome rule change.

[MafiaMan]

ECAC Director of Officials proposed an awesome rule change.

Certainly a step in the right direction, Goon. Stop the flop!

[Goon]

Certainly a step in the right direction, Goon. Stop the flop!

I agree, I am sick and tired of the diving.

[siouxrunner]

DaveK, how do you know the "risks and hazards greatly outweigh the benefit of slightly improved visibility."? You cannot prove to me that more face protection equals a much safer game. You have to consider risk compensation*, which is a players' natural tolerance for risk when playing with or without a face shield. With full face protection, a player may feel less susceptible to injury and act in a riskier manner than he would have with less face protection. Without a full face shield, that same player may play a more cautious game in areas where face injuries would typically occur. Then again they might not. I would argue that we don't yet know for sure.

If the hazards of no face protection are so great, why do we not see players in any of the professional or semi-pro leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL, WHL, CHL, etc.) wearing a full cage? The only time I see anything close is when someone already has a broken jaw or face-bone. One would think that if the risks of playing without a full cage were so great, at least one player would wear full face protection. And don't try to tell me it is a macho, peer-pressure thing. I can believe that for some players, maybe even the majority of players, but not every professional or semi-pro player. The conclusion that I draw from that is that there may be risks to wearing a half-shield, but the rewards to the player (better sensory perception on the ice) are enough to outweigh those risks.

Full cages for under 18, and half shields with optional full shields at 18 and up is the way to go. It's what the players and coaches want, and they understand the risks better than anyone.

*Risk compensation is widely accepted theory in behavioral science, although the degree to which it affects behavior is difficult to measure objectively due to the number of variables to take into consideration. DaveK, here's a little light reading for you to help you drop the level of hyperbole in your call for full face protection.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00057886

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/buckle-up-your-seatbelt-and-behave-117182619/?page=1

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

[scpa0305]

DaveK, how do you know the "risks and hazards greatly outweigh the benefit of slightly improved visibility."? You cannot prove to me that more face protection equals a much safer game. You have to consider risk compensation*, which is a players' natural tolerance for risk when playing with or without a face shield. With full face protection, a player may feel less susceptible to injury and act in a riskier manner than he would have with less face protection. Without a full face shield, that same player may play a more cautious game in areas where face injuries would typically occur. Then again they might not. I would argue that we don't yet know for sure.

If the hazards of no face protection are so great, why do we not see players in any of the professional or semi-pro leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL, WHL, CHL, etc.) wearing a full cage? The only time I see anything close is when someone already has a broken jaw or face-bone. One would think that if the risks of playing without a full cage were so great, at least one player would wear full face protection. And don't try to tell me it is a macho, peer-pressure thing. I can believe that for some players, maybe even the majority of players, but not every professional or semi-pro player. The conclusion that I draw from that is that there may be risks to wearing a half-shield, but the rewards to the player (better sensory perception on the ice) are enough to outweigh those risks.

Full cages for under 18, and half shields with optional full shields at 18 and up is the way to go. It's what the players and coaches want, and they understand the risks better than anyone.

*Risk compensation is widely accepted theory in behavioral science, although the degree to which it affects behavior is difficult to measure objectively due to the number of variables to take into consideration. DaveK, here's a little light reading for you to help you drop the level of hyperbole in your call for full face protection.

http://injuryprevent...ent/7/2/89.full

http://link.springer...1007/BF00057886

http://en.wikipedia....sk_compensation

http://www.smithsoni...7182619/?page=1

http://content.time....1564465,00.html

Everything you wrote I agree with. FYI, full cages are not allowed in the NHL unless you have medical clearance. But to your point, if the players themselves wanted more protection the outcry would eventually be strong enough to wear they would push a rule change through.

[Siouxman]

What is the #1 most widely recognized characteristic of professional hockey players? It is missing teeth. Very few players have all of their teeth. Yet why don't they all wear full shields? It is because hockey is a competitive game. And if they believe, true or not, that they cannot see or hear as well with full protection then they will go without. There is always someone willing to go without that protection because if it gives them a competitive edge they will take it. Until it is mandatory for all, none will do it. Unless, of course, they already have a facial injury such as a broken jaw. Which is stupid to me. You're willing to take a risk without the injury, but not with the injury? Why is that? Because opponents will target the injury. So why not prevent the injury in the first place to the extent possible?

There is the macho thing as well and associated taunting. Failure to recognize that taunting from teammates and opponents is simply turning a blind eye to the fact. Until there is a uniform rule that all must wear full face protection, none will unless they are already injured. Those of us who have been around long enough to remember when helmets came into the NHL witnessed that event. Only players after a certain deadline had to wear helmets. Some exempted NHLers chose not to wear helmets for the rest of their career. Simply because of macho.

The NHL has gone step by step. First they added helmets, to reduce head and brain injuries. Then they added the partial shield. Why? To reduce eye injuries. Did players suddenly start targeting the eye area because everyone wore partial shields? The next logical step is to reduce facial injuries not involving the eyes.

It is a different NHL world today than it historically was. In the olden days much more was let go before a penalty was called. Today high sticks are called more frequently. But, there are still numerous accidental sticks to the face. When teams finally begin to realize that losing their star players for a few games due to broken jaws, pucks to the face, etc. is a real detriment to their team success and bottom line, they will be lining up to go to full shields to prevent injuries.

I took a puck off the facemask once that deflected off my stick and came straight up parallel with my arm. I never saw it from the point it left my stick, but I would have had ugly injuries without the full facemask.

I am interested in the integrity of the game of hockey, to see guys play. I am not interested in guys getting injured, losing teeth. and being carried from the ice. A full shield will not prevent all facial injuries, but it will drastically reduce them.

[The Sicatoka]

It'd be interesting to ask the Duck (Getzloff?) and Ranger (Stepan?) who used modified full masks during the post-season to discuss if/how it affected their play.