Face Shields?

[Osorojo]

Re: Face Shields?

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.

UFB: You're right. Supplying hockey players with guns and telling them to stand their ground would be a total butthead move. In my defense, I did not mention the word "gun." I was thinking pepper spray, tazers, or maybe RPG's. "Facetious?" Nah - just taking Rambo wannabe doctrine to its logical conclusion.

Seriously, shouldn't the most effective protection be the deciding factor? I think so. My son lost an eye playing hockey.

 

[JB]

Re: Face Shields?

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.

I don't disagree they should call it, but they don't. So you can yell at the wind or realize the human flaws in the system and work with them. You don't change culture overnight and majors are just not common in the game.

 

[MUnRPI]

Re: Face Shields?

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.

The problem with your argument is you assume that there is "objective reasoning from any source" that claims face shields are safer. You then go on to say that it would not make ANY positive change to the game. But what negative impacts what it have? Should all the players have to wear neck guards as well? Because IMO that is a more of a concern for the "risk management and responsibility that universities bear"

 

[cetihcra]

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.

This isn't an NCAA vs CHL issue, every single feeder league except high school/prep uses 3/4 shields like they're proposing. Nearly all D1 college players have previously used them, in most cases since they were 16. All American and Canadian junior leagues have abandoned full cages (or at least provided shields as an option). Not only does that set a precedent wherein these players have experience playing with the proposed shield, but there is also a massive system of research and insurance policy experience to build off. If liability insurance were cost prohibitive fledgling junior leagues that don't have nearly the revenue stream of most college programs would still be requiring cages.

r

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: Face Shields?

This isn't an NCAA vs CHL issue, every single feeder league except high school/prep uses 3/4 shields like they're proposing. Nearly all D1 college players have previously used them, in most cases since they were 16. All American and Canadian junior leagues have abandoned full cages (or at least provided shields as an option). Not only does that set a precedent wherein these players have experience playing with the proposed shield, but there is also a massive system of research and insurance policy experience to build off. If liability insurance were cost prohibitive fledgling junior leagues that don't have nearly the revenue stream of most college programs would still be requiring cages.

r

Your argument is a complete strawman. Parents are responsible for providing insurance for junior league players.

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Face Shields?

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"

I hate the "there is no reason for the referees to be determining the outcome of the game" statement. Because when a ref swallows his whistle he is determining the outcome of the game, in the other direction.

 

[Vermont Ref]

Re: Face Shields?

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

That wouldn't be a bad idea except it makes it extremely difficult to blow the whistle. Half shields only became mandatory a few short years ago for refs.

I remember when John Leclair first went to the Montreal Canadians at the end of the season of his senior year. He boasted to Don Cherry that he wasn't going to where any shield. That clearly was a macho thing. I know players think they can see better, and maybe so, but is it really worth risking the injury, which could be serious like losing an eye.

Keep the full shields.

 

[cetihcra]

Your argument is a complete strawman. Parents are responsible for providing insurance for junior league players.

Parents dont purchase liability insurance, which is the biggie, the league/club does. Medical insurance is also the responsibility of the athlete/parents in college (in most cases). The school must only ensure that the athletes have adequate health insurance. Some schools insure their athletes themselves, but they're not required to, and the players pay for it anyway.

So what is it that you're really concerned about with regard to insurance?

r