NHL helmet rule

[HabsandSmokies]

Since the early 80's I think the NHL has required players to wear a helmet. Reason is player safety I would assume. Yet sometimes a player will lose his helmet during play but can continue playing. Why isn't he required to go straight
to the bench and be replaced by another player like they do in junior hockey? Seems a little strange to me.

Click to read more...

 

[StoneHands]

Since the early 80's I think the NHL has required players to wear a helmet. Reason is player safety I would assume. Yet sometimes a player will lose his helmet during play but can continue playing. Why isn't he required to go straight
to the bench and be replaced by another player like they do in junior hockey? Seems a little strange to me.

Easy answer? Nobody has been seriously hurt as a result of it (that I can think of). The day that a star player loses his lid and suffers a severe injury while playing without it will be the day that the NHL changes the rule. It's horrible to say but the truth is, rules like that rarely change without pressure put on them to change it.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

There's probably PA opposition to it, too. Nobody wants to play shorthanded for 10 seconds while a change is made, and until players use chinstraps properly, they fly off so easily that there's a risk that it could be used as a tactic by the opponent - knock someone's helmet off and get a free ten-second "power play".

Also, rabble rabble manliness.

 

[Realgud]

Easy answer? Nobody has been seriously hut as a result of it (that I can think of). The day that a star player loses his lid and suffers a severe injury while playing without it will be the day that the NHL changes the rule. It's horrible to say but the truth is, rules like that rarely change without pressure put on them to change it.

There is no better answer.

That's human nature for you, never change until the worst happens.

 

[Anglesmith]

Since the early 80's I think the NHL has required players to wear a helmet. Reason is player safety I would assume. Yet sometimes a player will lose his helmet during play but can continue playing. Why isn't he required to go straight
to the bench and be replaced by another player like they do in junior hockey? Seems a little strange to me.

It was probably just a compromise made at the time helmets were brought into the league. There was already a lot of tension about how helmets would affect the product on the ice ("fans won't recognize the players anymore!"), so actually having helmets fundamentally change the game would have really tipped the public favour against bringing them in. As the post above me posits, I wouldn't be surprised to see this policy change as soon as the NHL is given a solid reason to, and that could happen any day.

 

[Oan]

I think NHL and AHL are actually the only leagues that do allow the player to stay on ice in case he loses his helmet. All the other leagues & international tournaments have the rule in effect.