Visor/Half Shield vs Cage/Full Shield

[Brownie 68]

Can someone tell me why a US or Canadian player over the age of 18 can use a visor (half shield) in junior and international hockey play, but when they show up to play in the NCAA must wear a full shield or cage?

Seems like the NCAA should at least afford the option to each school as to whether they would allow their players to wear a visor/half shield.

[ericredaxe]

Can someone tell me why a US or Canadian player over the age of 18 can use a visor (half shield) in junior and international hockey play, but when they show up to play in the NCAA must wear a full shield or cage?

Seems like the NCAA should at least afford the option to each school as to whether they would allow their players to wear a visor/half shield.

The NCAA has a lot of rules that don't make sense... dont' let this one surprise you.

[Puck Swami]

The NCAA likely has greater exposure to lawsuits than other governing bodies- hence the cage rule.

If the college coaches had their way, there would be no full cages...

[Haunted]

The NCAA likely has greater exposure to lawsuits than other governing bodies- hence the cage rule.

If the college coaches had their way, there would be no full cages...
Also, consider the fact that in Juniors, they're being paid to play, and can assume any and all liability. Not so in NCAA, where they're not paid (well, officially), and often take out huge insurance policies, in case they get injured and cannot go pro. If I were the insurance company, I sure as hell don't want to have to pay out, so I'd make **** sure they take every conceivable precaution.

[Dirty]

Players in Major Junior also have insurance policies and they wear half shields, so I don't think insurance companies have that great of an influence.

[GB Puck Fan]

All players should wear full visors or shields.

[Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.]

What I don't like about cages or full face masks is the increase in carrying sticks up high. Not that I'm concerned about high sticking, but rather that sticks in the air are less apt to score goals on rebounds, etc.

[aktick]

I'm too young to have noticed it firsthand, but my dad always said he thought there was way more stickwork after full cages came about. :confused:

[Terrier 18]

Pick your poison, players with the feeling of invincibility (full cage) or ring up thousands of dollars more in dental bill (visor). Personally spending any amount of money on teeth is better than one player leaving his feet and going headfirst into a dangerous situation, with the sense of safety a full shield gives him, and ending up paralyzed. But I can understand that some organizations disagree with my philosophy, for monetary or other reasons, and accept it, even if I don't agree with them

[pgb-ohio]

My reply goes to all of the first three posts, but I'll use Puck Swami's as my point of departure.The NCAA likely has greater exposure to lawsuits than other governing bodies- hence the cage rule.Probably true, but this story is larger than just risk management.

If the college coaches had their way, there would be no full cages...Clearly correct. And if creating ideal competitive conditions were only the value at stake, the coaches position would have carried the day long ago.

But there is also the medical factor to consider. Face shields prevent injuries. According to the medical people, the evidence is simply overwhelming. It's like seat belts, motorcycle helmets and the like. People may not like to using these items. Having the choice taken away is even more annoying. But again, the safety benefits are undeniable.

I've heard this subject discussed in a number of settings. One public example is the Town Hall Meeting at the 2004 Boston FF. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm convinced that the powers that be genuinely care about the medical side of this issue. For once, it's not just about the money.

So what you wind up with is a clash of absolutes. Both sides make perfect sense. The problem is that you have to choose one and reject the other. You can't have it both ways.

Making the shields optional isn't a workable compromise. Because the competitive benefits of taking off the shields are so clear, virtually all the shields would come off. For all intents and purposes, the only players using the shields would be those protecting pre-existing injuries. That's not an acceptable result from the medical perspective.

This is a genuinely tough call. At the professional level, I'm inclined to let the players assume the risk. But most college hockey players -- even at the D-1 level -- will never earn a living from the game. Given that, asking them to assume the risk of a permanent facial injury or vision impairment is questionable, at the very least.

[pgb-ohio]

I'm too young to have noticed it firsthand, but my dad always said he thought there was way more stickwork after full cages came about. :confused:Your Dad's right. Maybe sticks were kept down out of respect for the safety of opposing players. Or maybe it was just out of fear of retaliation. But when the shields went on, the sticks came up.

[ZYanksRule]

I think the reason, these players are also students. They have to walk into a classroom 30 hours after a game, it's for their safety, and so they can function in a classroom... just my opinion though.

[huskies_radio]

Growing up playing hockey i always felt short ended when you would get a high sticking call that was not vicious at all, the stick just got up a lil, if there was no shield for sure send me off, but when there is a wall of metal in front of his face, it kinda sucked to get a crappy high sticking call.

i for one support the full shield in college hockey, they are not getting paid to do this, but if it wasnt the rules it would be viewed perhaps as "pansy" for wearing it.

On the flip side, hey these arent kids anymore, most of them are in their twenties and if they dont wont to wear one, why should we make them, its kind of like the argument for helmets for motorcycle riders which goes on in state senates all the time.

All in all I say keep em, whats crap is now requiring nhl rookies to wear the half shield (at least i think I read that somewhere, dont quote me on that yet)

[Brownie 68]

Also, consider the fact that in Juniors, they're being paid to play, and can assume any and all liability.

No I was refering to amateur US/Canadian Juniors players in the USHL, NAHL, Canadian Jr A, USA Hockey Intl play, etc. None of those are paid.

[Haunted]

No I was refering to amateur US/Canadian Juniors players in the USHL, NAHL, Canadian Jr A, USA Hockey Intl play, etc. None of those are paid.
Oh. Then never mind.

[TDukes99]

It is absolutely an insurance issue!

The NCAA and more so, the institution has to protect the players from injuries (in the insurance companies eyes?!?!?). They have to wear certain types of shoulder, elbow, shin pads and helmets as well.

The cage issue is eye and mouth injury prevention. What it makes a player think (invincability) is a non issue, with and insurance company.

[Willie Plett]

It is absolutely an insurance issue!

The NCAA and more so, the institution has to protect the players from injuries (in the insurance companies eyes?!?!?). They have to wear certain types of shoulder, elbow, shin pads and helmets as well.

The cage issue is eye and mouth injury prevention. What it makes a player think (invincability) is a non issue, with and insurance company.

"...They have to wear certain types of shoulder, elbow, shin pads and helmets as well. ..."

Can you be a little more specific. What types of shoulder pads, shin pads, etc. are they supposed to wear? I know where you are coming from here, but there are no real specifics when it comes to protective gear other than goalie equipment, helmets, masks, etc. If they checked every player to make sure they had the correct shoulder pads, etc., I'd bet more than half of them wouldn't be allowed to play. A lot of shoulder, elbow and shin pads wouldn't be considered safe enough to use.

The NHL has a rule in place on elbow pads, and that only a few styles are allowed to be used, with that being soft capped pads versus hard capped elbow pads. This was put into place before the lockout.

[MadDog]

[QUOTE=huskies_radio]
i for one support the full shield in college hockey, they are not getting paid to do this, but if it wasnt the rules it would be viewed perhaps as "pansy" for wearing it.
QUOTE]

I agree. Not only are these guys not getting paid for it, they are still a little on the young side to take the responsibility. Coach tells you to go plant yourself in front of the net and block the goalie or he will bench you, the crowd is screaming for blood, you go down there and end up getting a stick in your eye--career over!

Put a few more years on your carcass, have a coach who is more professionaly minded than some college jamoke, know that you are a player with a player's union and that you have to have the team win WHILE balancing watching out for #1--THEN you can make a reasoned decision about none/half/full face shields. Until the player is at that point of maturity, NCAA should decide for him.

[webby]

When a hockey player reaches the NCAA he is at his full point of maturity. Figure if you are playing NCAA DI, you have been playing for at least 15 years.

Half sheilds would help college hockey. If they wore the Jr. Cut (3/4) like the canadian college hockey teams do. I watched two exhibition games this year CCHA vs. Canadian University. The canadians all wore the same half shield. It seemed as if the CCHA players repected them more than the usual elbow up hits. good clean games.

[Brownie 68]

When a hockey player reaches the NCAA he is at his full point of maturity. Figure if you are playing NCAA DI, you have been playing for at least 15 years.

Half sheilds would help college hockey. If they wore the Jr. Cut (3/4) like the canadian college hockey teams do. I watched two exhibition games this year CCHA vs. Canadian University. The canadians all wore the same half shield. It seemed as if the CCHA players repected them more than the usual elbow up hits. good clean games.

To me it just makes no sense that if you are over 18 and play in the USHL you can wear a 3/4 or half shield and if you play for the US National Junior team you don't wear a full shield either but have to put one back on for college.

If you asked the players I'm sure they would all prefer not to wear cages/full shields. I'm sure the coaches feel the same way. So who is driving the policy? The ADs? Maybe it's time for a push to change this.

For those talking about safety the 3/4 shield provides eye and nose protection. Just not the mouth area. I say enforce the mouth guard wearing which is more important from a concussion standpoint.

Also for those who want to push the safety issue, what about neckguards? It's the piece of safety equipment players hate but does save lives. So why isn't the NCAA mandating wearing those in addition to full shields and cages, and while we're at it ear pieces?

As usual the NCAA is inconsistant in its policies. Next thing you'll see is banning one piece sticks, not for safety but because of cost.

It ain't youth hockey anymore.