Visors

[pepperbrooks]

I admire Paul Kelly's effort to get visors into the college hockey game, but some of his ideas are very far-fetched and he's going about introducing them the wrong way. No way will you ever have less injuries to the face if you allow visors, that's just ludacris to think removing headgear would then elicit a lower possibility of injury. He goes on to say that players in college play more reckless and can't adjust when they get to the pro's or some garbage like that. The NCAA does not care about how kids adjust to pro hockey, since most of these athletes will not play in one game of pro. My take is this and quite simple. If you are 18 and an adult in this country, then you should be able to make the choice to have additional face protection or not. It really is that simple. USA Hockey allows mostly every junior league that option. How is it that college kids, most of whom have played juniors and are older and more experienced cannot be allowed this right? To me that is unconstitutional. Mr. Kelly, stop with the unrealistic hooplah fantasies and get back to the basics. College hockey has a long way to go if you want to expand to California. One step at a time.

 

[reggiedunlop]

Re: Visors

How can removing facial protection decrease injuries to the face? Pucks still fly in the air, sticks still get raised off the ice and the boards are still unforgiving. To rationalize and say that players will be more cautious and aware of their teammates and opponents fails to face facts, having a mask yields nearly zero facial and oral injuries, having a half-shield yields limitless facial and oral injuries. Can D III schools afford the insurance premiums that are sure to rise after the first year of now new injuries?

 

[Ozz]

Re: Visors

Let's give goalies the option to wear no mask at all like they did in the old days too..

 

[mdmadison]

Re: Visors

How can removing facial protection decrease injuries to the face? Pucks still fly in the air, sticks still get raised off the ice and the boards are still unforgiving. To rationalize and say that players will be more cautious and aware of their teammates and opponents fails to face facts, having a mask yields nearly zero facial and oral injuries, having a half-shield yields limitless facial and oral injuries. Can D III schools afford the insurance premiums that are sure to rise after the first year of now new injuries?

Good point Reg but who actually pays for the hospital bills, the school or the insurance carrier students are required to have while attending? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the students insurance carrier is primary and the school's or NCAA is secondary.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Visors

To me that is unconstitutional.

How in God's earth is that unconstitutional?

What school did you learn about Constitutional law?

Good grief!

 

[3rdLiner]

Re: Visors

Visors will protect against concussions more, and this way more important that stitches and teeth.

 

[mdmadison]

Re: Visors

Visors will protect against concussions more, and this way more important that stitches and teeth.

How does that protect against concussions? In what way does the visor protect the jaw or the head? I was always under the impression that a mouthpiece along with a good helmet were good protection against concussion.

 

[joeyc3402]

Re: Visors

How does that protect against concussions? In what way does the visor protect the jaw or the head? I was always under the impression that a mouthpiece along with a good helmet were good protection against concussion.

If you take a blow to the face with a cage on, the blow goes directly to the jaw... and in concentrated form.

So by not directing any and all force away from the face and to the brain via a concentrated blow to the jaw, visors actually DO protect the head in a counter-intuitive way.

 

[mdmadison]

Re: Visors

If you take a blow to the face with a cage on, the blow goes directly to the jaw... and in concentrated form.

So by not directing any and all force away from the face and to the brain via a concentrated blow to the jaw, visors actually DO protect the head in a counter-intuitive way.

But if you are taking a blow to the face, with a cage on, that would produce a concussion; without the cage and with the visor on you would receive a greater impact because the cage is not there to deflect or lesson some of the force. Is there any scientific evidence that a cage increases the probability of a concussion or is this some lunch table conjecture? Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some sort of facial protection and I think it should be up to the player to decide what he should wear. If USA Hockey allows partial facial protection then why not the NCAA? I just doubt the argument that half shields lessen concussions. I am also a big advocate of a good mouthpiece absorbing a lot of the force.

 

[MW4Bucky&SNC]

Re: Visors

I know the theory here, but put me down as a No.

 

[joeyc3402]

Re: Visors

But if you are taking a blow to the face, with a cage on, that would produce a concussion; without the cage and with the visor on you would receive a greater impact because the cage is not there to deflect or lesson some of the force. Is there any scientific evidence that a cage increases the probability of a concussion or is this some lunch table conjecture? Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some sort of facial protection and I think it should be up to the player to decide what he should wear. If USA Hockey allows partial facial protection then why not the NCAA? I just doubt the argument that half shields lessen concussions. I am also a big advocate of a good mouthpiece absorbing a lot of the force.

The human skull is actually quite capable of handling a head-on collision. It's when you add the side-to-side component, the vertical component, or impact from the back of the head that it's VERY vulnerable.

And I can't show you any scientific evidence. I can only pass on what I've experienced personally with my own head injuries, as well as the advice that my neurologist, physician, and athletic trainer have told me at one point or another.

 

[joeyc3402]

Re: Visors

...and yes - a good mouthpiece will absolutely absorb the force.

But good luck with trying to get players to all 1) get good mouthpieces; 2) not hack up said mouthpieces; and 3) wear said mouthpieces.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Re: Visors

...and yes - a good mouthpiece will absolutely absorb the force.

But good luck with trying to get players to all 1) get good mouthpieces; 2) not hack up said mouthpieces; and 3) wear said mouthpieces.

The NCAA rules are pretty specific on the latter. Without a mouthpiece, a minor penalty can be assessed. I've seen players sent back to the bench before a face off because they didn't have a mouthpiece.

 

[joeyc3402]

Re: Visors

The NCAA rules are pretty specific on the latter. Without a mouthpiece, a minor penalty can be assessed. I've seen players sent back to the bench before a face off because they didn't have a mouthpiece.

Yes, they are very specific. Are they 100% followed?

I've seen guys just stick a strap from a mouth guard onto their cages and put the end of that strap into their mouth to make it look like they had one in.... or only have the mouth guard cover the front 4 teeth, thereby completely negating any benefit of wearing a mouthpiece (as far as head injuries go).

 

[Matthew Webb]

Re: Visors

The NCAA rules are pretty specific on the latter. Without a mouthpiece, a minor penalty can be assessed. I've seen players sent back to the bench before a face off because they didn't have a mouthpiece.

I've only seen this enforced a handful of times and only once that I specifically remember (Kyle Jones just prior to the start of a Peters Cup final or NCAA quarterfinal game).

 

[NUProf]

Re: Visors

Yes, they are very specific. Are they 100% followed?

I've seen guys just stick a strap from a mouth guard onto their cages and put the end of that strap into their mouth to make it look like they had one in.... or only have the mouth guard cover the front 4 teeth, thereby completely negating any benefit of wearing a mouthpiece (as far as head injuries go).

You can't legislate intelligence. As long as the players choose to do such stupid things to avoid the rule, they have opted against their own safety, just like devices that people have used to make it look like they are wearing seatbelts. Stupid, but you can't totally eliminate stupid.

 

[hockeyfan77]

Re: Visors

I've only seen this enforced a handful of times and only once that I specifically remember (Kyle Jones just prior to the start of a Peters Cup final or NCAA quarterfinal game).

I have seen on numerous occasions a player get a 10 minute misconduct for not having a mouth piece in...

 

[joeyc3402]

Re: Visors

You can't legislate intelligence.

Well that appears to be what they're trying to do here.

 

[GoBucky36]

Re: Visors

IMO, they should mandate that every player either has to wear a full cage or a full clear faceshield, even in the NHL.

 

[reggiedunlop]

Re: Visors

Without a cage, the jaw is exposed, to think that players will have less of a chance to get hit in the face with a half-visor is ludicrous. Players will have more injuries in scrums in front of the net and along the boards, let alone when exposed more chances to catch a puck or stick to the face. A cage dissipates the energy to the helmet, without the cage that energy is transmitted to the jaw and yes, that does lead to traumatic brain injury, i.e. concussions. Mouthpieces are clearly a necessary aid to reduce dental injury and concusions. There will be a significant number of injuries to the soft tissue, face and teeth, that are nearly absent now, in addition to an increase in TBI, which are additive over a lifetime. It is important to look at the science here and not emotions. As an Emergency Physician, ex-Military, our voices from the crowd has to urge caution, study and then institute change only if it is for the better of the players, some of whom are not from Juniors and have worn a cage their entire hockey career.