Facesheilds in the NHL

[bigmrg74]

After looking at some of the pictures of Steve Yzerman's eye after he took that puck to the eye, it was suggested in another thread by Goon that he should wear a face shield next year. My question is this, Should the NHL, in the interest of safety, start requiring players to wear face shields on their head gear?

[CVCL]

If anything the NHL should take away some of the invincability of the players by reducing equipment or regulating it more. Players take their safety for granted. This is because the technology improvements in equipment have allowed people to run and gun unabashedly. This directly effects the tempo of the game. If people want more scoring and faster tempo games. Reduce the invincability of the players. The officiating should also have more of an impact on player injury.

[MafiaMan]

CVCL,

Decent point, but I do not agree. Take a look at the size of players today in any sport. Players are bigger, faster, and stronger, yet they play on the same size rink as they did in the 1940's. If Gary Bettman wasn't such a moron, he'd have required all "new" arenas being built to have Olympic size ice sheets to open up the flow of the game. Look at how silly baseball is? Is there any wonder why home runs are up when instead of playing in cavernous parks like the days of old, bigger, faster, and stronger players now play in baseball fields the size of my local softball diamond. Big man, Sammy, and big man, Barry, hitting home runs over a 300 foot fence. I'm not impressed. Same with hockey...bigger ice sheet, more room to maneuver.

On another note, Steve Yzerman has already said he will be wearing a face shield next season. If pee wees on up wear them, why dump them in the pros? It's a safety issue, folks, we're talking about someone's sight!

I'm still a fan of the NHL, but what a disaster. The Flyers/Lightning series has evolved into slashing and fights at the end of every game...not exactly what the NHL is trying to promote.

MafiaMan

[Diggler]

Just grandfather them in. The NHL is the only league where you don't have to wear at least a half-shield so it won't be a change for young players coming into the league to wear one. Then again the NHL and NHLPA can't market themselves worth a tuna sandwich, so it wouldn't be suprising if they didn't do this.

[CoteauRinkRat]

Just grandfather them in. The NHL is the only league where you don't have to wear at least a half-shield so it won't be a change for young players coming into the league to wear one. Then again the NHL and NHLPA can't market themselves worth a tuna sandwich, so it wouldn't be suprising if they didn't do this.

I definitely agree. The same types of arguments were being made when deciding on whether they should make players wear helmets. The Grandfather clause would be the best thing to do I think.

[#1siouxfan22]

Are you talking about the visors or the full masks?

[CoteauRinkRat]

The visor.

A full face mask would never go over.

[ScottM]

I agree with the "grandfather" provision. I think the league owes it to those overpaid players to ensure they don't get injured and diminish the returns to the NHL. Better yet, institute the rule "cold turkey" and if anybody loses an eye, they get a 10 minute major for being stupid.

[skateshattrick]

CVCL,

Decent point, but I do not agree. Take a look at the size of players today in any sport. Players are bigger, faster, and stronger, yet they play on the same size rink as they did in the 1940's. If Gary Bettman wasn't such a moron, he'd have required all "new" arenas being built to have Olympic size ice sheets to open up the flow of the game. Look at how silly baseball is? Is there any wonder why home runs are up when instead of playing in cavernous parks like the days of old, bigger, faster, and stronger players now play in baseball fields the size of my local softball diamond. Big man, Sammy, and big man, Barry, hitting home runs over a 300 foot fence. I'm not impressed. Same with hockey...bigger ice sheet, more room to maneuver.

On another note, Steve Yzerman has already said he will be wearing a face shield next season. If pee wees on up wear them, why dump them in the pros? It's a safety issue, folks, we're talking about someone's sight!

I'm still a fan of the NHL, but what a disaster. The Flyers/Lightning series has evolved into slashing and fights at the end of every game...not exactly what the NHL is trying to promote.

MafiaMan

I could not have said it better myself, so I won't try to. Another argument against visors and face shields is that it has caused the sticks to come up. Phil Sykes used to make that argument. That may be true, but wouldn't you rather have protection when it does happen? It is similar to the argument that the hands to the face increased when football required face masks. So what? It least now you have protection. I have seen inadvertent and non-intentional plays in hockey that have resulted in Steve Yzerman losing teeth and nearly losing an eye; Brendan Shanahan losing teeth; Jeremy Roenick breaking his jaw, etc. These would have been avoided with a face shield.

I agree that the players will never agree to a face shield, but it preferable to a visor. If a stick gets caught underneath the visor, it may actually cause more damage.

[Goon]

After looking at some of the pictures of Steve Yzerman's eye after he took that puck to the eye, it was suggested in another thread by Goon that he should wear a face shield next year. My question is this, Should the NHL, in the interest of safety, start requiring players to wear face shields on their head gear?

Apparently the NHL Players Union is against the mandatory face sheild rule.

I think its all about taking personal preference away from them.

[Goon]

Are you talking about the visors or the full masks?

I think he is talking about half shields. The argument has been for this for some time.

[bigmrg74]

Yeah, the Visors are what I was refering too. I think the NHL would be able to "Grandfather" that idea in better.

[CVCL]

thanks mafia and ss,

although i see you're point, the analogies and reasoning behind your position are flawed.

1. bigger, faster.... my point exactly, why have a bunch of stick weilding lumberjacks out there. make everyone a bit more accountable

2. I do fullheartedly agree with the olympic size arena mandate, but with the baseball analogy comes a problem. Yes there are hitters parks and 'some' players are oversized for the game, but the big ball has done a lot for viewership. Bigger parks then and smaller now. Yeah, right. I suppose you could make up a lot of arguments that 'things were better in the old days'. That argument is tired. Sports have evolved for a lot of reasons. Start by giving good solutions, not by pointing out insignificant problems.

3. I guarantee that pee wee's all the way up aren't taught to single out players for malicious action like the NHL's "Get him" tactics. They're a business and will do whatever it takes. Vancouver getting fined and the instigation rule are good examples of how to combat that idiocy.

4. My point with the 'invincible' nature of players now. I say let those big goons take off the armor protecting their hands, forearms, and sides and see how many rub, slash, and hook.

5. Football and other sports with body protection, hold no water in this argument, period. They aren't played with the same speed or volatility of hockey.

6. how many eye injuries are there really? a couple of them this year but going back to Suter's can you remember any as publicized as Yzerman's? By the way, a eye injury is the only thing that half sheilds are going to address. The rest of the injuries you mentioned all still happen and at the same frequency

Lastly, I've always agreed with Sykes. And to add, as long as sticks come up, eye injuries will still happen. Half sheild or not.

There's no way that they should be mandatory! Players should choose.

[Superman0099]

The players understand the risks of not wearing one, and it should be their decision.

[defensivend]

Shields are mandatory in the echl and the players aren't gripping to much. There are always pro's and con's to this Tim O'Connell got a broken orbital bone (goes around the eye) with and elbow if he had worn a shield he wouldn't have had that. The next year he also got a puck in the eye which also fractured his other eye (orbital bone )with a shield he wouldn't have happened. This happened while playing in the ahl wear it isn't mandatory. So what price does your eye have to you? Remember when Commadore got the puck in the eye. Sticks will get up under the half shields but may not be as devasting as with out . Sometimes players don't always make the best choice for themselves and being mandatory takes that choice out of your hands. O'Connell didn't wear a shield the following year and that is how he got the second eye injury but if it had been mandatory might not have gotten the injury. We tend to do what everyone else does and it may cost you in the end.

[Goon]

Shields are mandatory in the echl and the players aren't gripping to much. There are always pro's and con's to this Tim O'Connell got a broken orbital bone (goes around the eye) with and elbow if he had worn a shield he wouldn't have had that. The next year he also got a puck in the eye which also fractured his other eye (orbital bone )with a shield he wouldn't have happened. This happened while playing in the ahl wear it isn't mandatory. So what price does your eye have to you? Remember when Commadore got the puck in the eye. Sticks will get up under the half shields but may not be as devasting as with out . Sometimes players don't always make the best choice for themselves and being mandatory takes that choice out of your hands. O'Connell didn't wear a shield the following year and that is how he got the second eye injury but if it had been mandatory might not have gotten the injury. We tend to do what everyone else does and it may cost you in the end.

The other argument out there is: fighters are not going to want to wear shields (the Tie Domi and Chris Simons of the NHL). This can be sholved by taking the helment off before engaging in the fight with your opponent (ala Prpich and Peluso). There is also a NHL rule that if you start a fight and your wearing you will recieve an extra 2 minute penalty.

One other point, is some of the players in the NHL consider players that wear shields less tough than guys that don't wear shields. Just two lines of thought. Don Cherry has also eluded to this fact on the coaches corner. In fact I neither agree or disagree with these lines of thinking (I am not even sure where I stand on this issue), however, I do see the liability if one is not worn.

[defensivend]

In the echl those that fight take them off when they are going to fight and the real problem doesn't come from fighting it's the pucks in the eye and the elbows and sticks. Shields can help eliminate some of it and there is that good old boys club if you wear a shield your a whoose so that is some of the reason they don't look at Jermey Ronick who missed quite a bit of the end of the season because of a puck in the face and he almost geave up his career and I think when I was watching the game the other noght I don't think he had a face shield on. Why not because we don't do that but you'd think your face and eyes were worth it. If mandatory then everyone would have to and the comments wouldn't be made and I do think it would cut down on a lot of the injuries. If they aren't mandatory then they aren't going to do it

[Ruffian]

I could never understand why guys who grew up playing with shields gave them up when playing in the toughest league. They have to get over the idea that tough players, real men, don't wear them. Their eyesight is more important than image. I think shields should be grandfathered in just as helmets were.

I doubt a half shield would have helped in JR's case. The puck his jaw below where I think the shield would have reached.

[pimpinainteasy]

faceshields are bad they obstruct your vision, for some of these guys they havent had a shield or mask on for 15 years, it's too big of an adjustment

[Ruffian]

faceshields are bad they obstruct your vision, for some of these guys they havent had a shield or mask on for 15 years, it's too big of an adjustment

Which is why you grandfather them in. Incoming players are already used to wearing them.

[bigmrg74]

Which is why you grandfather them in. Incoming players are already used to wearing them.

Exactly!! The young bloods have all grown up wearing a sheild on their lids. So it would be the easy for the league to grandfather them in, starting oh say the 2005-06 season. Any new player that season it would be mandatory for them to wear one, while it will the player's personal choice if they started in the NHL before then. It also might help to be a bit of leverage for the league with the collective bargaining agreement thats coming up as well. There could be a lot of young guys that really need to play next year so they stand a chance to be the last grandfather in the league.

[#1siouxfan22]

faceshields are bad they obstruct your vision, for some of these guys they havent had a shield or mask on for 15 years, it's too big of an adjustment

the pros are stronger and have better shots which can hurt a player more. if j.r. had a full shield his jaw wouldnt have a metal plate in it.

[pimpinainteasy]

the pros are stronger and have better shots which can hurt a player more. if j.r. had a full shield his jaw wouldnt have a metal plate in it.

WOW! Enlightening as always. To bring up the Roenick argument is just stupid, if i didnt have toilet paper i'd have a wet a**hole too. The point i make is much better then yours, sounds like ur just an ignorant wannabe who has no experience without a mask on. Your terrible!