PDA

View Full Version : Face Shields?



Pages : [1] 2

joecct
10-06-2012, 08:38 PM
Might be getting closer -- memo from the NCAA ... http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/playing+rules+administration/ncaa+rules+sports/ice+hockey/playing+rules/visor+update

Vermont Ref
11-30-2012, 11:36 AM
Might be getting closer -- memo from the NCAA ... http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/playing+rules+administration/ncaa+rules+sports/ice+hockey/playing+rules/visor+update

I think this is stupid. As a ref with a half shield I still occassionally got hit in the mouth. Why allow that opportunity for the players to get injured. Is it a macho thing? Keep the full face mask.

giwan
11-30-2012, 11:47 AM
In a game this past weekend a defense men tried to lift the stick of an opposing player and missed. The blade went up and caught the opposing player on the chin. I believe if it were not for a full mask that blade could have easily caused my damage.

If one of the reasons to go to a half shield is because colleges are losing prospects to the juniors, then my comment would be in regard to the prospects reasoning of a half shield being the deciding factor. Please do not state better visibility, as our eyes routinely perceive images with out the full picture. More then likely you could block more of the puck and players and still have good results.

4four4
11-30-2012, 11:51 AM
I think this is stupid. As a ref with a half shield I still occassionally got hit in the mouth. Why allow that opportunity for the players to get injured. Is it a macho thing? Keep the full face mask.

Interesting. Maybe refs should also have the full cage on rink.

4four4
11-30-2012, 11:54 AM
In a game this past weekend a defense men tried to lift the stick of an opposing player and missed. The blade went up and caught the opposing player on the chin. I believe if it were not for a full mask that blade could have easily caused my damage.

If one of the reasons to go to a half shield is because colleges are losing prospects to the juniors, then my comment would be in regard to the prospects reasoning of a half shield being the deciding factor. Please do not state better visibility, as our eyes routinely perceive images with out the full picture. More then likely you could block more of the puck and players and still have good results.

From what I have heard going to the half shield reduces concussions. If true the likelihood of staying with the full cage might make a lawsuit just around the corner.

ScoobyDoo
11-30-2012, 12:11 PM
From what I have heard going to the half shield reduces concussions. If true the likelihood of staying with the full cage might make a lawsuit just around the corner.

The reason it's true is only because of the "fear" factor. If you're only wearing a half shield the kamikaze effect goes away from the player. The "no tolerance" on head hits should of had the same effect but for some reason the refs are already breaking the "no tolerance" rule over and over again by not automatically giving a 5 fiver for any contact to the head.

It never ceases to amaze me how many less issues we would have if the refs would just call the damm rulebook.

Lakerblue
11-30-2012, 12:32 PM
Scotty Bowman said once, "Too many college players check with their face."

The point being -- too many college players lead with their face. I don't see that as 100% true, by any stretch. But there is a fearlessness that can attach itself to the reality of wearing more thorough protection.

Personally, in my opinion, the real key to stopping all these head injuries is two fold:

1. Call the rule book. Call players who leave their feet for a check, and call players who lead with their elbows.
2. Make a fundemental change in the equipment.

Instead of going to half-shields -- which seems to be inviting more injuries rather than reducing injuries -- take away the armor-plated hard plastic shoulder and elbow pads. The modern shoulder pads are akin to football pads. The elbow pads are even worse, with large knobby plastic-coated elbow extensions. Is the face mask causing the concussion? No.

JB
11-30-2012, 01:03 PM
The think it is the fearless part but also players coming out of college tend to carry the stick higher hence arms too. So it isn't just the hits and concussions it is also getting the stick lower, moving the contact down.

The problem with the contact to head 5-minute penalty is they went too far. Nobody wants to call majors unless it is an extremely dangerous play. That is the hockey culture on majors. The rule should be a double minor rule (adding an additional 2-minutes), enough teeth to curb the behavior but not so much that the refs cringe at calling the rule.

SanTropez
11-30-2012, 01:18 PM
I think it's a great idea, take the shields away and the high sticks elbows etc.. will go down.

ScoobyDoo
11-30-2012, 01:35 PM
The think it is the fearless part but also players coming out of college tend to carry the stick higher hence arms too. So it isn't just the hits and concussions it is also getting the stick lower, moving the contact down.

The problem with the contact to head 5-minute penalty is they went too far. Nobody wants to call majors unless it is an extremely dangerous play. That is the hockey culture on majors. The rule should be a double minor rule (adding an additional 2-minutes), enough teeth to curb the behavior but not so much that the refs cringe at calling the rule.

Waaah, on the culture. It didn't go too far at all. You want it out of the game you have to call it. They're not back to inviting kids to nail someone in the head or in the back if they want to because there's a chance it'll slip by. That's wrong.

FlagDUDE08
11-30-2012, 02:38 PM
The think it is the fearless part but also players coming out of college tend to carry the stick higher hence arms too. So it isn't just the hits and concussions it is also getting the stick lower, moving the contact down.

The problem with the contact to head 5-minute penalty is they went too far. Nobody wants to call majors unless it is an extremely dangerous play. That is the hockey culture on majors. The rule should be a double minor rule (adding an additional 2-minutes), enough teeth to curb the behavior but not so much that the refs cringe at calling the rule.

So IIHF is absolutely insane? It's an automatic match penalty for CTH.

JohnsonsJerseys
11-30-2012, 03:13 PM
I think it's a great idea, take the shields away and the high sticks elbows etc.. will go down.

So based on this theory, we would never see high sticking, checking from behind, boarding, blows to the head and elbowing in the juniors and other pro leagues right?
I haven't seen an NHL game in a while, but I'm pretty sure all that stuff went on... As other posters have pointed out, the real issues are the equipment is to protective and players lack a real respect for each other. At least in pro hockey if you take someone hard into the boards, the other team takes your number and your time will come to pay the piper. Maybe not next shift or next period or even the next game, but you're going to get what you have coming to you make no mistake. Not wanting to have to answer the bell is what prevents most dumb plays at the pro level.

Ryan J

ScoobyDoo
11-30-2012, 03:15 PM
So based on this theory, we would never see high sticking, checking from behind, boarding, blows to the head and elbowing in the juniors and other pro leagues right?
I haven't seen an NHL game in a while, but I'm pretty sure all that stuff went on... As other posters have pointed out, the real issues are the equipment is to protective and players lack a real respect for each other. At least in pro hockey if you take someone hard into the boards, the other team takes your number and your time will come to pay the piper. Maybe not next shift or next period or even the next game, but you're going to get what you have coming to you make no mistake. Not wanting to have to answer the bell is what prevents most dumb plays at the pro level.

Ryan J

What a stupid way to enforce things when we have rules and people there to make sure the rules are followed.

uaafanblog
11-30-2012, 03:42 PM
This ridiculous idea that somehow fighting keeps players honest is what is wrong with the game at every level other than IIHF and NCAA.

The NCAA should keep the masks for one simple reason. Insurance. Less facial lacerations, dental work and eye injuries = lower cost insurance. These universitites are responsible for the injuries of players. When a staggeringly high percentage of college players DONT go on to play in the NHL why should higher level institutions of education be graduating people to the rest of their life with some lifelong injury.

I don't care what coaches and players think about the issue. They're straight up wrong. And what they want has nothing to do with the equation.

MUnRPI
11-30-2012, 04:53 PM
I don't care what coaches and players think about the issue. They're straight up wrong. And what they want has nothing to do with the equation.

I'm not totally for eliminating the shields but that statement is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

uaafanblog
11-30-2012, 05:53 PM
.... the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Actually your hyperbole of saying it's the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard is exponentially more ridiculous than me indicating that the desires of coaches and players is irrelevant to the larger question of risk management and responsibility that the universities bear in relation to student/athlete safety.

To expand that notion for you edification; NCAA member schools are mandated to provide for the safety and well-being of all athletes. Making a change which lessens the safety and opens themselves up to litigation is against every tenet of risk management. If you've followed the reasoning (and I doubt you have) which raised this issue you'd understand that it has been wholly driven by the coaches (who it can be assumed used feedback from their players) either through the competition committee or as part of their annual convention, I don't recall which.

In any case, there is zero objective reasoning from any source to indicate that removing the face shields in favor of half-shields such as CHL uses would make ANY positive change to the game. The only rationale they attempted to put forward was that it would put the league on par with the CHL's status quo. The CHL and NCAA have two entirely different aims. The CHL is there to get players into the professional ranks. The NCAA exists to provide an education to athletes who might not otherwise have an opportunity. Because the CHL does things a certain way is meaningless. Who cares what they do. Only the coaches. They don't matter in this equation. This choice is the business of the NCAA and like any other large institution they should be making decisions based on the principles of business in the realm of higher education.

But I'm sure all that ranks right up there in terms of "ridiculous things" for you. I'd suggest you get out of the house more. There's lots more ridiculous stuff out there in the world that you've apparently missed.

Osorojo
11-30-2012, 05:54 PM
Legislation [written by the NRA] adopted by Florida + 20 or 30 other states supposes carrying deadly weapons and refusing to step aside will reduce violence and injury. It follows that instead of improving protective gear hockey players should have more potent offensive weapons. THAT'S the most ridiculous idea I have heard.

burd
11-30-2012, 05:58 PM
Legislation [written by the NRA] adopted by Florida + 20 or 30 other states supposes carrying deadly weapons and refusing to step aside will reduce violence and injury. It follows that instead of improving protective gear hockey players should have more potent offensive weapons.

Pretty soon everyone would be carrying a Rocco.

uaafanblog
11-30-2012, 05:58 PM
Legislation [written by the NRA] adopted by Florida + 20 or 30 other states supposes carrying deadly weapons and refusing to step aside will reduce violence and injury. It follows that instead of improving protective gear hockey players should have more potent offensive weapons.

You know ... I've given you positive reputation in the past simply to counter the mass of populist drivel directed against you for some of the stupidity you've said here. As facetious as you might be trying to be here, there simply is no sense in advocating that universities supply students with guns in the context of this whole conversation. Don't be a total butthead.

KnowItAll
11-30-2012, 06:25 PM
The reason it's true is only because of the "fear" factor. If you're only wearing a half shield the kamikaze effect goes away from the player. The "no tolerance" on head hits should of had the same effect but for some reason the refs are already breaking the "no tolerance" rule over and over again by not automatically giving a 5 fiver for any contact to the head.

It never ceases to amaze me how many less issues we would have if the refs would just call the damm rulebook.

you and I agree on the calling of the rulebook... but i am pretty sure everyone else in the world says "let them play" and "there is no reason for the referees to be determining the outcome of the game"