] Como os dias capacete-opcionais do yore, muitos jogadores escolhem renunciar a segurança no favor de uma vantagem do competidor ligeira - though com os jogadores do alto-entalhe como viseiras desgastando de Alex Ovechkin e de Sidney Crosby, se pôde compreensìvel querer saber se a “vantagem” fosse mais percepção do que a realidade. Regardless, a majority of current NHL players still go visor-free–a situation that sounds remarkably similar to the 1970s’ helmet debate.

The half-shield issue rears its head each time a player is injured in a way that a visor could have prevented . . . and it’s a surprisingly long injury list, including Saku Koivu, Dany Heatley, Owen Nolan, Bryan Berard, and Steve Yzerman to name a few prominent examples.

Even the great Stevie Y, a tough-as-nails player by any reckoning, had a change of heart after his injury:

Yzerman, when talking to reporters days after his injury in the 2004 playoffs, had changed his opinion on visors.

“Sitting in the hospital that night, I really wished I’d been wearing a visor,” Yzerman said. “I played 21 years and never had an eye injury. My cheekbone didn’t really hurt at the time. The first thing that went through my mind was, ‘I don’t want to lose my eyesight.’ I really believe guys should be wearing them. I didn’t say that (a week before the injury occurred).”

Yzerman said that he would support the idea of mandatory visors. He added that he had no trouble adjusting to the visor. [2]

Unfortunately it is human nature to have difficulty embracing lessons learned by others. It took a personally-sustained injury for Yzerman and many others to realize that the return-on-investment of wearing a visor makes it a smart investment indeed.

Mats Sundin Injury - Dave Sandford/Getty ImagesSpeaking of investment, visors protect more than the players who wear them. Owners pay millions of dollars to bring the right players to a team; coaches and GMs spend countless hours on plans based around those players; fans invest hard-earned money to see those players, not to mention fans’ emotional connection to their team’s success. Donning a half-shield seems a small inconvenience with a potentially huge payoff that benefits more than just the player.

Now I am a fan of hockey pugilism–proper fighting (not cowardly hits from behind, elbows, and the like) has a place in the game. Regardless of where one stands on the fighting debate, visors need not impact fighting at all; when two players drop the gloves, they can simply drop the helmet as well. Not only would it make the moment as two players square off even more dramatic, but it would also reduce hand injuries from punching an opponent’s helmet. And if a player is unwilling to remove his helmet for a fight, well, perhaps he should just turtle and not be fighting in the first place.

Companies like ITECH and Oakley now boast optically-correct visors that are practically bulletproof, thus significantly reducing the one player complaint that seemed to hold up to scrutiny: that visors made it more difficult to see. Clearly NHL teams would provide their players with the best visors available; thus players would be less likely to deal with the fogging/distortion issues plaguing pickup hockey players’ shields. Still, any fractional vision impediment caused by visors would be irrelevant if everyone wore them–and Yzerman, by his own admission, easily adjusted to playing with a half-shield after 21 years without one.

So the debate comes back to Surowiecki’s point in the New Yorker article: when individuals are incapable or unwilling to make smart decisions (whether due to a perceived or real competitive disadvantage, or just plain machismo) shouldn’t the relevant governing body to help protect the individual as well as the investment of others? Or, to put it in socio-economic terms, when the parties in a given market cease to operate as rational actors, shouldn’t the powers-that-be step in to correct the problem?

Whether it’s the automotive industry’s seat belts and safety glass, or the NHL’s helmets and visors, the answer is a resounding “Yes.”

  • BallHype - Hype It Up!
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Google
  • Facebook
  • Pownce
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Wikio
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!


Print This Post Print This Post
Posted at 12:42 am. Filed under Alexander Ovechkin, Fighting, Hockey, Media, Print.
Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
« Fan Files
OFB to the Airwaves »

19 Comments

  1. TG wrote:

    I think so too. I never understood the argument about helmets either. Especially given that a larger number of players are used to having some type of face protection due to their playing in college, as opposed to just Canadian juniors, I don’t think it would be much of an adjustment for everyone. And as long as it doesn’t become an excuse for the refs to let high sticking penalties slide, what’s the downside?

    However, part of me thinks that the league, before tackling this one, should go after the players who wear the flimsiest helmet they can find and then don’t even bother tightening the chin strap so it stays on their head.

    One other point to think about. If the leage does mandate visors, how much longer until, due to fears/concerns about concussions, the league starts to mandate mouthpieces? Does that become too regimented? Take away too much personal freedom? Or does it fall under the safety concerns of helmets and visors?

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 9:16 am | Permalink
  2. The Forechecker wrote:

    About ten years ago I interviewed Brendan Morrison when he was still at the University of Michigan, and asked him whether he’d wear facial protection at the NHL level, since full cages are required in college.

    His reply was that no, there’s so much more respect at the professional level that he didn’t think it was neccesary. After only a couple years, however, I saw him wearing the visor which I believe he still uses to this day. Experience is often the best teacher…

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 9:29 am | Permalink
  3. pepper wrote:

    About fighting with a visored helmet: I would imagine a potential combatant would have to keep that chin strap loose. It would be a ridiculous sight to see two tough guys square off, and then individually be struggling with popping open their chin straps to get their helmets off.

    The mouthpiece / concussion issue I’d think is just as, if not more important, than visors, if indeed they significantly reduce the risk of concussions. I don’t wear a mouth piece - I wondered if it is harder to communicate on the ice with one in your mouth. Maybe that’s a silly question, but thought I’d ask.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 11:56 am | Permalink
  4. PB wrote:

    When the Coyotes’ Keith Ballard gets into an altercation, the very first thing he does is to ditch the visor. He unstraps it, drops the gloves and the bout is on - takes an extra .53 seconds, but the visor doesn’t get in the way of the altercation, if there is to be one, it’s just another piece of equipment that gets dropped.

    David Backes of the St. Louis Blues did the same thing. It’ll just be part of the gladiator ritual and I think visors are a good thing for safety.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
  5. pucksandbooks wrote:

    The prominent counterpart within this debate is a remarkable irony: the more hockey has equipped and armored its competitors the dirtier the game has gotten. Sticks, not coincidentally, are carried the highest in the caged NCAA. Commonly you hear the Old Guard lament today the glaring absence of respect players have for one another out on the ice. To be sure there was remarkably dirty hockey played in hockey’s Golden Age, but it tended to be with elbows and fists moreso than stick blades and attacks on heads. An attack like Steve Downie’s was virtually inconceivable then. To some extent the instigator penalty plays a role here as well.

    The most harrowing development in this matter for hockey is the prevalence today of spinal chord injuries. This is a matter Ken Dryden has detailed in his book ‘Home Game,’ I believe. They were virtually non-existent in hockey a generation ago; now HockeyCanada is chronicling dozens of them each year, from pee wee through Juniors. The data that Dryden presents will steal your breath.

    In what may not be irrelevant to this discussion, I’ve heard some transportation officials hypothesize that the prevalence of SUV accidents is related to some extent to drivers’ deluded sense of invulnerability while operating them.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the safest hockey on the planet is that which is played out on ponds, streams, and troughs in winter, where the only defense for head is a touque.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
  6. Paul Nicholson wrote:

    I totally agree.

    But before they require shields, how about they enforce the rules about the chin strap on those helmets. Many head injuries still happen every year just because the players don’t tie down correctly.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
  7. capitalgoodie wrote:

    I’ve come around to thinking the league needs to eventually mandate the visor, grandfathered in the same way helmets were.

    However, if were talking about serious injuries, mainly head injuries/concussions; the mouthpiece issue is so far below the most important issue for me it’s not even on the radar.

    Check out the elbow pads and shoulder pads players wear these days. They essentially have hard-as-steel shells over them, rather than padding. It’s just lunacy that they make this gear. Every player in the league has a weapon on their elbows, not protection. Try smaking your fist against your leg, then try smaking an elbow against your leg - does it make any sense that the ‘protection’ actually hurts more?

    It’s akin to boxing deciding to go for brass knuckles, instead of gloves. It just makes no sense why the elbow pads and shoulder pads aren’t mandated to have at least a thin layer of cushion over their tank like armour shields that do so much damage on contact.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
  8. OrderedChaos wrote:

    Good points all, thanks for participating in the discussion.

    This same logic absolutely applies to mouthguards as well — I don’t have the detailed stats handy, but at least half the concussions in the league could be avoided with a properly-fitted (and actually worn) mouthguard. The jaw slamming into the rest of the skull is often the cause of said concussion… something a mouthguard would greatly protect against.

    Standard mouthguards do make communicating more difficult. But, as with the visors, teams would (and some already do) provide the best mouthguards available — custom-molded ones that are barely noticable when compared to standard ones you can buy at your local sporting goods store.

    At the same time, reducing the armor-like qualities of things like elbow pads is also a good idea. In the meantime, mouth guards, visors, and properly-attached chin straps are minor things that can be changed to immediately benefit players, fans, and all those involved in the sport.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
  9. Caps Nut wrote:

    Football players have worn mouthpieces for years and are able to communicate effectively with them in their mouths.

    As for the distraction with the shoulder/elbow pads, it is the best protection available for the players on the ice. As I’ve said before and this post properly points out as well, at the NHL level it is in the best interests of not only the players (who can maximize their earnings) but for the owners (who can maximize “profits” off of their superstars) as well for the players to be protected with the best stuff possible.

    Players are bigger, faster, stronger, and are in better shape than they were back in the “glory days.” We’re going to sit here and say that we need to rid the instigator rule, madate more head and face proection, but then lose players to shoulder and elbow injuries as we reduce the protection there?

    Doesn’t add up gang. You can’t call for the return of the gladiator/warrior days by mandating the revoking of the instigator rule and softening of the elbow and shoulder pads but mandate increased head and face protection. You either want gladiator hockey or you don’t.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
  10. Thunderweenie wrote:

    Here’s what I don’t understand: every other major professional and junior league in North America requires visors. That means that these guys who come up through the Canadian major-junior system have been wearing visors from day one. But suddenly, when they get to the NHL, they can’t possibly use them? All of a sudden visors restrain their performance when they quite clearly didn’t do so at the lower levels?

    Horse poop. Its machismo, nothing else. Make it mandatory, and within five years no one will remember what any of the fuss was about.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
  11. Thunderweenie wrote:

    Sorry, CapsNut, but I don’t entirely buy your argument.

    I don’t think that it is at all inconsistent to soften elbow and shoulder pads while calling for mandatory mouthguards and visors. You can’t use a mouthguard or a visor as a weapon (unless you’re extremely creative and are planning to gross out your opponent by chasing him around the ice with a dripping mouthguard).

    On the other hand, Chris Pronger showed twice in last year’s playoffs just how deadly these elbow pads can be. Chris Neil and several others have done the same for shoulder pads.

    No one is saying that players should play without shoulder or elbow pads–just try to find that happy middle ground between defensive protection and offensive weapon.

    Visors and mouthguards are a completely different issue. They are entirely defensive in nature, and are about ensuring that players don’t go blind and/or get their brains scrambled by a wayward puck or by a collision with the boards or the ice.

    Making this about “calling for a return to the gladiator days” confuses the issue.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
  12. Paul Nicholson wrote:

    Yeah, visors, mouthguards, chinstraps…

    Softening pads, especially on elbows and shoulders doesn’t make sense though

    I agree with Caps Nut: i watch the ‘old days’ and it’s slow and soft compared to modern hockey. padding is needed, protection is needed, but don’t do anything to slow down the game

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
  13. sk84fun_dc wrote:

    During a recent interview on XM204 with someone from the NHL offices, IIRC it was Colin Campbell, there was discussion about the NHL offices having sample elbow pads with the added padding from several of the manufactuers. They were waiting on the NHLPA to take a look and the rest was a little NHL vs NHLPA but that is not the point, the point is it sounded like the manufacturers and the NHL are ready to modify the elbow pads. And it is a recognized issue as it relates to eliminating injuries. This isn’t about eliminating protection, it is about protection for the player wearing the equipment and for the opponent.

    The AHL implemented a mandatory visor rule last season, with no grandfather clause; I assume that the NHLPA will get a grandfather clause, but it is only a matter of time before the visors are mandatory. Some eye injuries will still happen even with the visors, but many will be prevented or lessened. And as has been pointed out, many of these players have worn shields or cages prior to reaching the NHL.

    sidebar: Someone should tell Matt Bradley that chewing on one’s mouthguard hanging out of his mouth during a shift isn’t offering any protection :)

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
  14. capitalgoodie wrote:

    Caps Nut: you misunderstood what I said. No one said less protection.

    The point is that the outer covering of all protective gear - that makes contact with head/upper body - has no reason to be rock hard armour that actually increases the damage inflicted during contact. Amateur hockey associations across Canada began looking at the issue years ago, and had absolutely no luck getting the manufacturers to address the issue. Physicians have been calling attention to that gear as well - I loosely recall the former team Doc of the Leafs writing the league about it - and Don Cherry in his annual rant about the dangerous elbow pads (which he’s done about 10 years running now) has gone so far to trot out physicians on the issue.

    It’s finally getting talked about at the NHL level (as Sk8 elaborated on). Don Cherry has been going nuts on the issue for years and he’s the creator or Rock’em sock’em, concussion-fest-filled videos. I’ve heard Brian Burke, Steve Thomas, Nick Kypreos, and many others all weigh in on the issue. These are not guys who like softer hockey, these are people who lead the charge in the preservation of hard hitting hockey who see it threatened by the irresponsible, weapon like gear the manufacturers have been producing since the mid/early 90’s.

    It’s long overdue that the league is finally listening.

    Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
  15. Thunderweenie wrote:

    Some interesting discussion on here. This is why I love OFB–not only the blog itself, but there are evidently a lot of thoughtful hockey fans who read it. Great stuff.

    Three additional points that I hope add something to the discussion:

    1) It isn’t “most players” that have played with visors prior to the NHL. I’d venture to say that the vast majority of them have, which is why the arugment about how they can’t play with visors at the NHL level is utterly bogus.

    2) In fairness to poor old Don Cherry, those Rock-em-Sock-em videos aren’t wall-to-wall fights. They’re basically highlight reels, full of all sorts of beatiful saves, goals, and hard checks, in addition to a few good scraps. So Cherry’s position on things like this equipment issue is actually quite consistent with his overall view: he loves the game as a whole. He likes a rough, hard-hitting game (as do I), but he has no time or patience for equipment that can be used as offensive weaponry.

    3) Its not just the NHL that needs to listen on equipment changes. Its the NHLPA.

    I’ve been a member of five different unions in my working lifetime, and to their credit, they all took on-the-job safety and health EXTREMELY seriously. The NHLPA, meanwhile, gets all outraged over Mark Bell’s suspension (even without an official leader, they still found the time and the ability to send a letter on that subject), but they stay completely silent when the players lose eyes or get their brains wiped out with head-shots. What a joke.

    Hey Chelios–if you REALLY wanna be the players’ big saviour-man, I’ve got a topic for discussion at your next union meeting!

    Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  16. exwhaler wrote:

    >>>”Football players have worn mouthpieces for years and are able to communicate effectively with them in their mouths.

    It should be pointed out that the mouthpieces in football are not the same as in boxing–they actually hang from the gear so that players can communicate with one another, and then the player shoves it back in before the play actually starts. That can’t work in hockey.

    Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 10:31 am | Permalink
  17. rob wrote:

    If I were an owner I would require players to wear visors during practice since any negative impact in their play would not affect the outcome of a game or the season and it would reduce the number of eye injuries players suffer in practice. Kozlov suffered an eye injury this year in training camp and I am sure there are other examples that I can’t remember off the top of my head. Does anyone know if any owners have contemplated such a policy? Am I overlooking a downside to this policy?

    Sunday, October 14, 2007 at 12:54 am | Permalink
  18. OrderedChaos wrote:

    Rob, I’m sure the owners and GMs would love such a policy. In my opinion, as you see in the article, there *is* no downside. It’s just that the NHLPA will resist it on behalf of the players. It’s a short-sighted (pun intended) approach, and one that does not serve the best interests of their members.

    Monday, October 15, 2007 at 1:34 am | Permalink
  19. Thunderweenie wrote:

    I think, though, that its important to recognize that injury is a risk in any sport. No piece of equipment will totally eliminate the possibility of getting hurt, especially in a rough, contact sport like hockey. Visors do not offer 100% protection.

    Case in point: Saku Koivu, who was actually wearing a visor that fateful night in 2006 when Justin Williams’ stick nearly blinded him. The stick came up under the visor. There may be ways of addressing that by adjusting the equipment, but I think its important to recognize that no piece of protective equipment is foolproof. Injuries happen.

    What we’re talking about here is mitigation of risk. No, you can’t eliminate the risk, but can you take dramatically decrease it? Yes, you can, and you don’t have to put players in giant HAZMAT suits to do it. We’re talking about a piece of plastic in front of the eyes that fits onto another piece of equipment (the helmet) that is already mandatory.

    Come on, NHL and NHLPA. Suck it up and make visors mandatory already. The next generation of players will thank you.

    Monday, October 15, 2007 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*

*



By clicking "Submit" you agree that you have read and will abide by the Comment Policy.