Craig Mactavish thinks otherwise. He was clearly going for "cool" and "tough guy".
I ****ing hate visors, personally. I hate them when I play paintball. I hate them when I test my buddies helmets. And I know for a fact that a lot of hockey players feel the same way. It's a comfort thing.
I sometimes drive without my seatbelt.
I sometimes text and drive to. Regardless, driving with my seatbelt on and my complete attention is still dangerous. Do you propose we all drive tanks that can't exceed 30MPH, because they're safe?
I saw a hockey player knocked out once during a fight. Let's ban hockey.
I also saw a players skate slice human flesh. Let's enforce duller skates.
Relax dude.. **** happens. Hagelin wears a visor. If Staal had an arched visor like Hagelin's, it wouldn't have made any difference. Sticks rise up. Pucks typically do to. Visors do help limit facial injuries, but they don't prevent them completely.
I usually don't bother with posts like this, because we all know that this is going to turn into a flame war, but I'll take the bait with this one.
I understand the notion that you believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions. I really do. But you have to understand that there is gray area when you are dealing with situations that affect other people, beyond just the person involved.
I think it was during hurricane Sandy when Mayor Bloomberg said something that struck a chord with me. I don't know if any towns in NY/NJ actually decided that they would give tickets to people who were caught driving in the storm, but I know the idea was talked about and bounced around on talk shows, etc. And it set off a ****show. People were *****ing and moaning about how it was ridiculous, how they have to right to do whatever they want during the hurricane and if something bad happened to them, they would accept responsibility. They knew the consequences, and they should be allowed to make decisions on their own.
Well, Bloomberg put it well when he said that if you get stuck in the middle of the storm and are in significant danger, you're not just endangering your life, you're endangering the lives of all the people who have to put themselves in harms way to try and rescue you.
Maybe that's a bad example, but I think it kind of pertains to this. Obviously, Marc Staal isn't endangering other people's lives by not wearing a visor. But he is a multi-million dollar investment by James Dolan and the Rangers. By not wearing a visor, he is endangering that investment. So the freedom to say "it's my decision, I'll do what I want" no longer holds in its absolute sense. At the very least, a conversation about mandating or grandfathering visors is warranted, since bother James Dolan and Marc Staal have a vested interest in Marc Staal's health.
I have a similar opinion about neck guards as well, which probably also won't be too popular. Players say "I know the risk, I saw what happened to Malarchuk and Zednik, it's my decision". But at the end of the day, the NHL is a product that brings in billions of dollars in revenue. If a played gruesomely bleeds to death on the ice in front of 20,000 people in the stands and millions of people on TV...even if the player knew the risks and didn't care, that incident reflects badly on the product and the league. Some people would be turned off, some would stop going to games, and that would adversely affect revenue. So to protect the brand, the NHL has a right to have that conversation.
Again, I'm not saying that neck guards and visors should definitely be mandated (though that is my personal opinion). What I am saying is that you cannot be offended by the conversation. It's inherent to the relationship between players, the league, and the customers (the fans).
EDIT: With regards to the bolded part. Again, you understand the risks of what you're doing, so you feel like you can make an educated decision and make your own choice. Sadly for you, my point still holds here.
Sorry to break it to you, but I'm not in favor of a texting-and-driving ban because I'm worried about your health. Frankly, nobody on here cares if you crash into a tree and kill yourself. But what we do care about is that your reckless behavior is endangering other people. So texting-and-driving is not solely your decision to make (in terms of its legality).
And yes, you're right. There are other reckless driving habits that are still legal. So where do we draw the line? Why is texting and driving banned, but eating and driving (in most places) isn't? That's a good question, and one that I don't have an answer to. But my point is that you, personally, cannot decide where to draw that line for yourself. And you cannot be offended when public officials (in this case) decide to have that discussion (which you are a part of). You can disagree with the law, you can use your rights as a (I presume) citizen to try and change the law, but you also can be chastised and punished for breaking the law.
So if a player says "It's my decision, I know the risks, I can do what I want". My response is, no, that's not how it works. There are other entities that have a vested interest in that decision. You are one of those entities, and you can share your opinions in that discussion and try and reach a resolution. But you cannot ignore the other parties involved.
EDIT 2: Again, I don't want you to think I'm preaching some anti-freedom totalitarian doctrine here. I believe in personal freedom. But I also believe that personal freedom has its limits when it comes to areas that affect the greater public. There is a balance. Where that balance is, that's the debate that I'm willing to have. But to categorically say that "I can make my own decisions, I know the consequences" doesn't quite fly.
