College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

[REDaero91]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

It sounds to me like the plan (if put into place) is to move everyone to 3/4 shields and have players (probably) be able to opt into a full shield/cage if they want. I wonder if they're considering introducing it as a choice: simply making 3/4 shields available, not standard. Kind of like neck guards now. I realize the safety issues with the different equipment/lack thereof are different, but it seems to me players would be more likely to stick with the full shield if it was simply presented as a choice between the two instead of being out of the norm. I know RPI's coach is in favor of the players being able to make the choice with neck guards and the like; I wonder what his stance on this was.

2¢

[burd]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Face shields. Sigh. This game really took a turn for the worse when goalies started wearing masks. Heck, most Sioux players can remember when they didn't have to wear helmets.

[MavsFan]

It sounds to me like the plan (if put into place) is to move everyone to 3/4 shields and have players (probably) be able to opt into a full shield/cage if they want.

Do you guys read the linked article?

If the full shields mandate is eliminated, McLaughlin said there is a belief that everyone must go to three-quarter visors instead. If it's optional to still use full shields, then it defeats the purpose of reining in reckless behavior.

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

I love this quote:
"Kelly, a practicing attorney, believes the NCAA has the liability issue backwards. I told the committee that, since every other organized league in the world has gone to half visors for players over 18," Kelly said, "if you're the only league that refuses to, and then you have a guy who crashes into the boards and suffers catastrophic injury, you can bet 100 to 1 you will have a lawsuit brought against the NCAA and maybe the conference for failure to take actions when your own coaching body and medical community is telling you it will make the game safer (without them)."

Yeah, don't sue the player who can't follow the rules and checked someone from behind (he won't have any money) go after the leauge or the conference. Typical lawyer. And I guess if all the other leagues have their players jumping off bridges to show how tough they are, the NCAA should do the same thing. This issue is a joke and if the NCAA doesn't give the player the right to choose (I could at least agree with player CHOICE), the first time a player has their teeth on the ice the headlines will read "NCAA Not Protecting its Student-Athletes..."

What other NCAA sports have made moves to DECREASE player protection? Baseball players told not to wear cups? Football players told not to wear facemasks? What you wear on your head has NOTHING to do with your chance of getting injured along the boards. It has EVERYTHING to do with the idiots who don't follow the rules. And I totally agree with the other posters who states if facial protection is the reason people play dirty, then lose them all together and see how that works out for the players.

Ryan J

[joecct]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

It seems a half shield and a three-quarter shield is the same thing, oddly enough.

This, I think, is a 3/4 shield...
*****http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/gallery/000153/000305934.jpg******

The nose is entirely covered. I think 1/2 shields cover only part of the nose.

[Dirty]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Maybe this was the announcement NCHC was going to make. Way to upstage them CHN!

[3W]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

So, are they going to cut Steve's feet off at the knees or just take a limb off?

[REDaero91]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Do you guys read the linked article?

No, sorry. Missed it. Thanks.

[sbkbghockey]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Is there data that suggests full face shields lead to more concussions and/or spinal injuries? For those who suggest that they do, what is the mechanism that causes the increase in these injuries? Is it simply increased recklessness on the part of the players, or does it have to do with a full face shield dispersing the energy from a hit to the head differently than a half shield? I have never heard it alleged that a full face shield is more dangerous so I am curious what the reason is for a half shield being safer than a full shield.

I think the NCAA should do whatever is safest for the student athletes, regardless of what the other leagues do. If it means losing some recruits to other leagues, so be it.

Most studies show a slight decrease in concussions for players wearing full facial protection (cages); some have no conclusive data that one is better than the other for concussions. There's no difference in neck or spinal injuries. All of the studies I've read show that full facial protection does significantly reduce the amount of injury time per season of players studied and significantly reduces the severity and number of facial, dental and optical injuries.

As said early, it's more "keeping up with the Jones" (i.e. the CHL) rather than any BS about reducing reckless plays. Sticks are high because they are so light and can be harder to control, they also bounce a bit more so if you go to stick check another player's stick it can end up glancing of his stick and flying up into his face. With players being more conditioned and stronger than ever before and pucks being shot faster, I fear going to shields is a bad idea. Also the top prospects are STILL going to go to the CHL for many reasons. Stipends, Canadian hockey culture and traditions, 60+ game pro-style schedule, pro-style facilities, more media exposure (although college hockey is closing that gap), etc... shields vs. cages is probably very low on the list of a prospect or a non-factor completely. Going to shields is going to cost schools more in terms of medical and dental insurance and treatment and it may become another reason why schools decide to drop DI hockey or not enter the sport.

[Flashy Man]

As said early, it's more "keeping up with the Jones" (i.e. the CHL) rather than any BS about reducing reckless plays. Sticks are high because they are so light and can be harder to control, they also bounce a bit more so if you go to stick check another player's stick it can end up glancing of his stick and flying up into his face. With players being more conditioned and stronger than ever before and pucks being shot faster, I fear going to shields is a bad idea. Also the top prospects are STILL going to go to the CHL for many reasons. Stipends, Canadian hockey culture and traditions, 60+ game pro-style schedule, pro-style facilities, more media exposure (although college hockey is closing that gap), etc... shields vs. cages is probably very low on the list of a prospect or a non-factor completely. Going to shields is going to cost schools more in terms of medical and dental insurance and treatment and it may become another reason why schools decide to drop DI hockey or not enter the sport.

As long as full masks would still be an option, coaches and athletic departments could mandate them if they do desire.

[KnightsOfTheRound]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

My biggest problem with "player choice" is that it would probably just be an illusion. The reality is, some coaches and some programs would likely require their players to wear one or the other and then there isn't any player choice at all. Or players will peer pressure their teammates to wear the 3/4 shield and before you know it everybody is wearing the 3/4 shield, safe or not. Rather than giving players a "choice" I think the NCAA should just require the safest equipment available. If a kid decides to go to the CHL because of the facemasks they wear in the NCAA, then he probably wasn't a good college recruit to begin with.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Would they have an age requirement for the 3/4 shields, similar to the IIHF U-20 tournament (if you're under 18 years of age, you must wear either the full face shield or the cage)? Also, neck guards at RPI started to appear due to a traumatic experience for one of the players (think Richard Zednik), and I'm sure coaches would be willing to make different (yet perfectly legal) forms of equipment available.

[MavHockey14]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Would shields help with high sacking penalties and shots to the head, as players are more aware?

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Or players will peer pressure their teammates to wear the 3/4 shield and before you know it everybody is wearing the 3/4 shield, safe or not. Rather than giving players a "choice" I think the NCAA should just require the safest equipment available.

The peer pressure factor is real, as I learned first hand after college. I played a few years in a USA Hockey over-18 full check league. I was the only player on my team, and one of the few in the league that wore a full cage. It was up to the player to choose and there was certainly a "cool" vibe in the league to play with a visor or even nothing at all as many players did. I took a fair amount of grief from both teamates and opposing players who told me to "grow-up..." and "lose the birdcage" and plenty of other references which will only come out as ***** here on this board. But in the end, many of my teamates took their "new" teeth out before games to avoid damaging their expensive dental implants while mine are still all original. So I had to put up with a bunch of crap when I played. Big deal. If a 20-something hockey player isn't grown up enough to make decisions about what is best for their personal health, that's their choice. People do dumb stuff all the time when it comes to their personal health (smoking, drunk driving, etc.) As long as the players have the option to take care of themselves I think making something less protective optional is fine.

I'm sure the CHL is shaking in their skates knowing that US colleges will now get all the best players in their new "visor league"...
Ryan J

[DaveStPaul]

Re: College Hockey Potentially going to 3/4 Sheilds?

Where are people seeing that this is because of competition with the other leagues? I've never seen that.

I have seen plenty of discussion by coaches and former players, in hockey and in football, on how current players hit harder, in part (they feel) because you're protected by so much equipment you're unlikely to be injured. Which means when you *do* get injured it'll be catastrophic. Similarly they say they observed less recklessness in the past, in part because you risked knocking your own teeth out if you were out of control.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that people won't get injured in their faces with less protection. I think everyone knows that would be true. It's the overall effect of having to think a little bit more when you're playing that would show the benefits.

Anyway, there's plenty I've seen on this, especially recently. That's not news. What was news to me was the suggestion that this was all done to compete with other leagues. Where's that come from?