Page 1 of 1
Mandatory visors?
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:14 pm
by jchockey
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=2184036
interesting article. nominating sean avery as the nhl moron of the year deserves bonus points.
when i play hockey, i'm required to wear a full steel cage or a half-cage, half-visor mask. i love it when i don't have to play without it, or the neck guard. they're both pain in the asses really, but it protects me, so i don't really mind.
i don't think a visor impairs vision, but it's just the fact that it's "there" annoys the hell out of people. feels restricting, even though it's not.
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:48 pm
by Jyrki21
I think the rationale against visors -- "Players will get their sticks up more" -- is both factually incorrect and stupid logic. (If everyone is better protected, it won't matter that much, will it?! But that won't happen anyway... players aren't going to change their game because of what other players are wearing).
I think they should absolutely be mandatory. I don't enjoy watching eye injuries.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:53 pm
by magnum44
I'm surprised no players wear raquetball type goggles. I remember Kenny Linesman wore them in the oldtimers outdoor game in Edmonton and I thought that they would probably be the perfect compromise for players. Might be able to even get an endoresment contract from oakley or rayban. I'm surprised the insurance underwriters don't demand the players whose contracts they insure against injury to wear the visors, especially since they are proven safety equipment.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:18 am
by Cookie La Rue
I have nothing against visors but everybody should choose by himself and it shouldn't be mandatory. It's everbody's own risk.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:41 am
by Jyrki21
Cookie La Rue wrote:I have nothing against visors but everybody should choose by himself and it shouldn't be mandatory. It's everbody's own risk.
Do you feel the same way about seatbelts? Construction helmets? Flak jackets? Football helmets?
I'm not trying to be cheeky, I've just always found there to be a double-standard when it came to hockey.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:24 am
by Arny
Absolutely mandatory, and they will be soon too. They have a grandfather clause on them I'm sure.
The players wil get over it eventually, just like when helmuts became mandatory.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:51 am
by the Cunning Linguist
Mandatory. Helmets helped everyone and there hasn't been an increase head injuries as a result of them, so I'm with Jyrki21 on that one...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:50 pm
by Mozy
maqndatory, then you wouldnt have your top players being forced out of the game due to an injury...we all saw what happened to yzerman last year...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:02 pm
by Grizzly
It makes sense for them to wear them all the time ... but they are adults and therefore the question arise ... should they be able to make decisions for themselves ???
... I like the comment they said on HNIC though ... "fans pay good money to see the stars play ... when they get hurt and miss games because they aren't wearing the visors ... the fans still have to shell out the bucks ... is that fair to the fans ??"
Grizz
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:54 am
by Cookie La Rue
Jyrki21 wrote:Cookie La Rue wrote:I have nothing against visors but everybody should choose by himself and it shouldn't be mandatory. It's everbody's own risk.
Do you feel the same way about seatbelts? Construction helmets? Flak jackets? Football helmets?
Principally yes but it's just my opinion. I don't care if it becomes mandatory.
I'm not trying to be cheeky, I've just always found there to be a double-standard when it came to hockey.
What's wrong with that ?
