Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tony

Facial Protection Mandatory In Ahl

Recommended Posts

Why? It's a stupid rule not giving the players the choice. The shield didn't help Saku out too much. Since more and more players now wear shields incidents of hi-sticking has also went up.

If you want to decrease hi sticking get rid of the instigator rule, let the players police themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? It's a stupid rule not giving the players the choice. The shield didn't help Saku out too much. Since more and more players now wear shields incidents of hi-sticking has also went up.

If you want to decrease hi sticking get rid of the instigator rule, let the players police themselves.

Saku's shield was too small. If it had been a proper shield it would have been ok.

The reason sticks are coming up isn't only because of shields. They are also a LOT lighter, and players have a problem controlling them (those old wooden sticks weighed a ton).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the sticks may be lighter, but there is no consequence for high sticking. No penalty in Saku's case. If you high stick someone and have the tough guy pound you, you will be less likely to do that in the future.

No offense but i also find it hard to beleive world class players can't control their stick becuase it's light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great start. I suppose they'll be grandfathering the visors in, which is really the only way it will ever actually get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? It's a stupid rule not giving the players the choice. The shield didn't help Saku out too much. Since more and more players now wear shields incidents of hi-sticking has also went up.

If you want to decrease hi sticking get rid of the instigator rule, let the players police themselves.

Don Cherry? Is that you?

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its got to be the lighter sticks. When I used to play pick up hockey in the nieghbourhood I'd always get those light sticks and people would have to keep telling me to keep the stick down. I didn't realise I had my stick up considering I was two feet taller then the hockey players in the neighbourhood who were all 5'3 and I am 6'8. But I then I started to use a real wood stick and man were those heavy.

Still would like to see full face masks. If they can make anti glare sunglasses, anti glare swimming googles, and anti gare motorcycle helmet shields they can make anti gare masks.

And goalies should wear those shields that Roy wore under the masks to protect pucks from killing you by hitting neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? It's a stupid rule not giving the players the choice. The shield didn't help Saku out too much. Since more and more players now wear shields incidents of hi-sticking has also went up.

If you want to decrease hi sticking get rid of the instigator rule, let the players police themselves.

It's not a stupid rule - the problem lies with the fact that players themselves refuse to fasten their helmets and face shields properly. Watch the chin straps very closely and you will see how loose players are wearing their helmets. This is a factor in concussions, as the helmet is not seated properly in order to deflect the blow as it is designed to do so. The same applies for sheilds, and it starts in Junior. Players loosen the chin straps of their helmet and allow the shield to ride up as far as possible in order to prevent it from obscuring their vision.

As a result it is no longer effective in preventing sticks to penetrate the area around the eye.

Time and time again they are reminded of the fact their equipment is not effective if not worn properly, but the league does nothing to enforce proper use of the equipment under the rules.

And there are new partial visors designed to reduce the potential of sticks riding up under them, but they have to be worn properly in order for them to work.

Koivu unfortunately is like most of these players - his chin strap is too loose for it to secure the helmet and visor properly. As usual the age old 'macho codes' keep getting in the way of safety.....

The second aspect of the rule is that probably automatic contact with the head should be called as a penalty, as that is the only true way to solve this issue. Sounds harsh, but it is in effect in lower levels of the game, and has certainly reduced the stick work/head violations. But it goes out the window once they graduate from the minor system. Enforcing zero tolerance on these offences would soon clean that up as players would finally get the message to be more careful with the lumber, as well as other related contact.

But were talking about the NHL here - and since when has their administration had a spine(unless it includes the word cap in the sentence?)

Edited by beliveau1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same argument as when they were debating whether to make helmets mandatory. Eventually, it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? It's a stupid rule not giving the players the choice. The shield didn't help Saku out too much. Since more and more players now wear shields incidents of hi-sticking has also went up.

I'm sure if Jordan Smith could do it all over again he'd wear the protection. He'd still be playing hockey if he had worn a facial shield.

You don't seem to get the point. A facial shield isn't a guarantee solution that will prevent an eye injury. By wearing the protection, the risk of occuring an eye injury greatly decreases. It's like wearing googles, safety shoes, gloves and a head set to cover your ears. Can a piece of metal go right throw the googles and blind an eye? Yes, it can. Will your toes break if a one ton object falls on your foot even by wearing safety shoes? Yes, it can. Can a finger cut off even by wearing gloves? Yes, it can. Can I lose hearing if a really loud noise occurs even by wearing a head set to cover my ears? Yes, it can.

All these equipment don't guarantee your safety. They greatly decrease the risk of injury in case an accident occurs.

Sure, there's a case like Saku Koivu. Williams' stick was accidental. Accidents happen. Good thing Saku was even wearing the shield because without a shield Williams could have poked his eye out and blinded him on the spot.

Sad part is everyone neglects all this stuff until shit happens to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is a little misleading, the TSN article says it may make it mandatory. To be blunt, in a sport where players are encouraged to hit each other, and carry around sticks that can obviously be used as weapons, shields/faceguards of some point should be mandatory. Team owners and the NHL as a product shouldn't have to worry about potential injury because the players are too macho/stubborn to use a shield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In international hockey, any hit deemed to be direct to the head is an automatic major and game misconduct. The NHL would probably be smart to at least adopt the major penalty, and add a 10-minute misconduct instead of the gamer.

If the AHL is going to adopt a shield rule, then it better agree quickly on what the standard is going to be. There are shields that curve over the nose, shields that are convex and curve outward from the forehead to the nose, shields that stop at the nose, shields that end above the nose, etc. Then there's the hard plastic vs the soft plastic, tinted vs clear. And as has been pointed out, there's the length of the chinstrap.

Back in 94, there was some talk that the league wanted to reform some of the equipment rules, and the fear was that some companies would merely buy their competitors out of the league. The PA didn't want one or two companies basically monopolizing the league, and as a result, the endorsement potential of its membership. It was a pretty smart idea then, but if you look at the league now, there may be a few brands, but there's still not as many companies as there used to be.

But at that time, when the issue of this first arose, no one that I remember ever suggested that equipment be independently evaluated and asssessed. The Canadian Safety Association approves all kinds of sports and recreational equipment already. In fact, Hockey Canada does not permit players at any level to use equipment that is not CSA-approved. Universal Laboratories does product testing for safety as well in the US. Surely it would be in everyone's best interests if they really are concerned with the players safety, at all levels, that some kind of standard is developed, approved, and enforced. It's a pretty simple concept. If your helmet isn't CSA-rated or UL-rated, you can't wear it. The NHL doesn't have to set the standard, it just has to agree to it, as would the PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The topic is a little misleading, the TSN article says it may make it mandatory. To be blunt, in a sport where players are encouraged to hit each other, and carry around sticks that can obviously be used as weapons, shields/faceguards of some point should be mandatory. Team owners and the NHL as a product shouldn't have to worry about potential injury because the players are too macho/stubborn to use a shield.

If you invest time and money into any product are you interested in seeing it unnecessarily damaged, possibly beyond recovery if you operate in the business world - obviously not!

Team owners are concerned given the capital they have invested. The topic is not misleading as it indicates the AHL are almost sure to carry this motion given the support it has already. It is actually probably the best way to gradually move it into place in the NHL, as it will weaken the current arguement that players always put forth in a feeble attempt to cover the real reason - that visors make it to hard to see the puck? Doing so is a part of the process it will take to grandfather this rule into place at the NHL level. It is probably coming, but later than sooner......

Unfortunately has taken a serious injury, as usual, to get this going in the right direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The topic is a little misleading, the TSN article says it may make it mandatory. To be blunt, in a sport where players are encouraged to hit each other, and carry around sticks that can obviously be used as weapons, shields/faceguards of some point should be mandatory. Team owners and the NHL as a product shouldn't have to worry about potential injury because the players are too macho/stubborn to use a shield.

I think Huzer nails it.

If I'm giving 3 or 4 millions to a player every year, I dont want to lose his services in the playoffs when I need him because he was more worried about proving his machismo than protect his eyes.

As for that instigator rule, it's an archaic idea to let players assault and punch each other as a "self-policing" device. I'm not saying some times it wouldn't be well-deserved, but if the NHL wants to be taken seriously it can't let players just jump each other whenever they feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...