Visors

[Henry]

Re: Visors

I fail to see the logic. If removing cages prevents concussions why are there so many in the NHL? You can get some pretty bad injuries from taking a puck in the mouth or jaw. I think Roenick was hit in the jaw with a slapshot a few years ago. I think his jaw was badly broken and he had a concussion. Macho stupidity will always result in some guys not wearing their equipment properly. I guess it's human nature. Look at seatbelts in automobiles people didn't wear them until a law was passed. Seems silly to not wear a seatbelt today but 40 years ago no one would wear one.

 

[Transplanted Tiger Fan]

Liability Responsibility

Liability Responsibility

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.

I cannot answer the question of who actually pays, the school or the insurance carrier, but in a society as litigious as ours has become, I can almost guarantee litigation against the school should the need for someone to pay arise. It is highly likely that schools already carry a significant amount of liability insurance to ‘protect’ against potential litigation, so I cannot imagine the schools experiencing any major financial penalties as a result of the use of visors/half-shields.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Liability Responsibility

Re: Liability Responsibility

I cannot answer the question of who actually pays, the school or the insurance carrier, but in a society as litigious as ours has become, I can almost guarantee litigation against the school should the need for someone to pay arise. It is highly likely that schools already carry a significant amount of liability insurance to ‘protect’ against potential litigation, so I cannot imagine the schools experiencing any major financial penalties as a result of the use of visors/half-shields.

Even if the school is covered, you should realize that if insurance companies perceive that an increased risk of liability, they will do one of three things. Drop coverage altogether, raise rates, or reduce the amount of coverage. Ultimately, the costs associated will blow right back on the schools.

 

[Henry]

Re: Visors

Definitely once the risk of injury increases so will the rates. Look what happens when you add junior to the car insurance.

 

[ohlnut]

Re: Visors

All for visors. Once you wear a visor you most likely (unless you have to pay for some teeth) never want to go back. You can see a ton better and breathe much better.

Also, watch how a player that played canadian junior plays in the college game. His stick is usually never up high. This is because they HAVE to wear a visor unless they are called up from midgets or they have an injury. For the most part the kids that come up from high school and midget don't know how to control their stick. I actually say if they bring in visors to allow for fighting. This will decrease in the high school kids joining the college ranks and if they do they won't run their mouth in fear of getting beat up. The amount of gutless displays in college hockey is getting ridiculous.

If you want to elevate the college game, do the right thing and allow the college game to be more like the NHL and Canadian Junior leagues such as the BCHL, AJHL, and OJHL.

The NHL going to full cages or full shields is ridiculous. The only time a person is granted to wear a full cage is with an injury and even then the player usually wears it for awhile and goes back to the visor or nothing.

Don't knock it until you try it. I am guessing a lot of college players would love to go to visors.

As for insurance, the players insurance is the primary and the schools is the secondary.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Liability Responsibility

Re: Liability Responsibility

Even if the school is covered, you should realize that if insurance companies perceive that an increased risk of liability, they will do one of three things. Drop coverage altogether, raise rates, or reduce the amount of coverage. Ultimately, the costs associated will blow right back on the schools.

IMO, the likely action of the insurance companies would be to issue a "exclusion clause". Given that hockey risk is likely only a small component of the underwriting considerations, I find it extremely unlikely that companies willing to underwrite collegiate insurance plans would stop offering the coverage, nor would I anticipate a significant increase in cost.

Note everyone has an inalienable right to recover damages from personal injury resulting from negligence – all parties contributing to the “negligence” would be parties to the “negligence litigation”. Though not explicitly written on US case law, a good article on this in the area of sports is here.

Here is an example of a common exclusion found on homeowners policies covering a piece of "athletic" equipment.

 

[NUProf]

Re: Liability Responsibility

Re: Liability Responsibility

IMO, the likely action of the insurance companies would be to issue a "exclusion clause". Given that hockey risk is likely only a small component of the underwriting considerations, I find it extremely unlikely that companies willing to underwrite collegiate insurance plans would stop offering the coverage, nor would I anticipate a significant increase in cost.

Basically (in simple terms) they would drop coverage for hockey while retaining the rest of their blanket package, thus forcing the schools to assume the risk or seek special coverage for hockey.

I don't really understand the logic that this would lead to fewer injuries - it is kind of like saying if we took away face masks in football, we would reduce head/face injuries because players would be more conscious of injuries to others. I don't think there is anybody who would buy that argument in football, so why should we buy it in hockey?

 

[norm1909]

Re: Liability Responsibility

Re: Liability Responsibility

Basically (in simple terms) they would drop coverage for hockey while retaining the rest of their blanket package, thus forcing the schools to assume the risk or seek special coverage for hockey.

I don't really understand the logic that this would lead to fewer injuries - it is kind of like saying if we took away face masks in football, we would reduce head/face injuries because players would be more conscious of injuries to others. I don't think there is anybody who would buy that argument in football, so why should we buy it in hockey?

More simply, they would continue to offer hockey coverage, but, may based upon their experience (underwriters), decide to exclude claims from injuries resulting from not wearing a face mask (much like DWI exclusions). Note, that the insurance industry is probably the best ones to consult on this, as the use of visors exists among a sufficient amount of players (leagues), that the variation (types and extent) of injuries should be easily extractable from the total.

 

[norm1909]

Re: Visors

Some Research:

Changing the Face of Hockey: A Study of the Half-Visor's Ability to Reduce the Severity of Facial Injuries of the Upper-Half of the Face among East Coast Hockey League Players.

Objective: The purpose of the study was to identify the effectiveness of half-visors by qualitatively comparing the severity, location, and mechanism of facial injuries involving the upper-half of the face among an equal number of East Coast Hockey League (ECHL) players with and without half-visors. Full visors were not included in the study because ECHL players do not wear full visors. Design: A stratified sample was retrospectively collected from 5 seasons of ECHL players who suffered facial injuries to the upper-half of the face with and without half-visors. The upper-half of the face is the region purported to be protected by the half-visor. A total of 186 injuries were identified to the upper-half of the face (93 wore half-visors and 93 wore no protection). Setting: Johnstown Cambria County War Memorial Arena, Johnstown, PA. Results: High-sticking was the most common mechanism of injury. Injury severity scores for lacerations with standard deviations by injury location (ie, forehead, cheek) were statistically significant in the half-visor group when compared with the no-visor group. The injury severity scores for contusions due to collisions were statistically higher in the no-visor group compared with the half-visor group. Conclusions: Most injury mechanisms occur from an upward trajectory, which could easily slip under the half-visor and strike the upper-half of the face and eye region. The half-visor may not adequately protect the upper-half of the face from common injury mechanisms. Keywords: facial protection in hockey; half-visor; hockey facial injuries; facial injury mechanisms.

ICE HOCKEY INJURIES

Half visor vs. full face shield:
• No blinding eye injury has been recorded for a player wearing a CSA full face protector
• However, studies have reported that 8 blinded eyes have occurred with a half visor

I Can't Believe It's Science

University of Calgary - CONCLUSIONS: The use of a full face shield compared with half face shield by intercollegiate ice hockey players significantly reduced the playing time lost because of concussion, suggesting that concussion severity may be reduced by the use of a full face shield.

 

[altazo]

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).

The other team pointed it out to the refs before the start of the game to try and get in Kyle's head, no doubt.

During one of my better games in goal the other team pointed out to the refs that I did not have a mouthguard in. I was sent to the bench to retrieve mine, only I didn't have one because I had NEVER used one, and couldn't communicate with the defensemen, etc. etc. with one in. I had to use our backup goalie's mouthguard for about 14 minutes of the second period . Between periods our trainer was able to mold a new one for me, which I used for the third period and then never again (however I always had one on the bench from that point forward.)

 

[KnightsOfTheRound]

Re: Visors

To me that is unconstitutional.

No. It isn't.

norm1909's research post puts the issue to rest, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of what the pros and juniors do, I do think it is the role of the NCAA to prevent avoidable tragedy.