NHL To Grandfather In Visors

[bruinsfan46]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 51m
Visors will be grandfathered in. Hybrid icing tested in NHL preseason. Shallower nets to be used next season. All subject to board approval

Click to read more...

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

Crappy.

Ok.

And wha?

 

[Dellstrom]

Really happy about the visors, not having one is a freak accident waiting to happen.

 

[trenton1]

It's a tough call on the visors but with the majority now wearing them, there doesn't seem to be the level of caution or respect there once was. Or the speed is just too great. Or both.

Either way, I'm not as sour on it as i would have been a few years ago. I just hope it doesn't further reduce fighting. But it probably will.

 

[missingchicklet]

I'm cool with the visors. Figured mandatory visors would eventually happen.

 

[SerenityRick]

Honestly I thought the shallower nets were already being used haha.

Dumb on hybrid icing... just more discretion left up to the refs. I have seen notoriously slow defensman look like they could easily get back to an icing before another team's forward only to have said forward blow by said defensman.. but on first blush that's probably something a ref would blow down as icing... That is going to lead to a LOT of *****ing from fans. Don't like it.

Players should have the freedom of wearing a visor or not. I'm never in favor of having stuff like that forced on someone. They are big boys. they can make that decision for themselves.

 

[pucky]

It's a tough call on the visors but with the majority now wearing them, there doesn't seem to be the level of caution or respect there once was. Or the speed is just too great. Or both.

Either way, I'm not as sour on it as i would have been a few years ago. I just hope it doesn't further reduce fighting. But it probably will.

I would say there's a push to curb or even end fighting already ongoing....

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130604/sports/706049966/

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...t-says-end-fighting-in-the-nhl-207330661.html

http://itsnotpartofthegame.blogspot.ca/2013/05/donald-fehr-and-nhlpa-seek-to-curb.html

....whether one likes it or not. I think the argument about money deciding it is a feasible one. It seems many leagues are looking at outlawing it of those which still have it.

Honestly I thought the shallower nets were already being used haha.

Dumb on hybrid icing... just more discretion left up to the refs. I have seen notoriously slow defensman look like they could easily get back to an icing before another team's forward only to have said forward blow by said defensman.. but on first blush that's probably something a ref would blow down as icing... That is going to lead to a LOT of *****ing from fans. Don't like it.

Players should have the freedom of wearing a visor or not. I'm never in favor of having stuff like that forced on someone. They are big boys. they can make that decision for themselves.

I disagree. It's already apparent that the players sometimes go over the line or act childish or outrageous at time. Sometimes, you need to enforce something and if it's visors, big deal. OMG, we're going to protect the players' faces/eyes even if they're too stupid not to. Well, I understand the freedom argument but the NHL does insure these guys and their health is probably important considering all the money that is at stake. A player being gone because he got a puck in the face might be a big deal if it's a star or there's already injuries. Why risk it when there are some steps you can take to at least, improve the chances the player won't be seriously injured?

 

[SerenityRick]

I disagree. It's already apparent that the players sometimes go over the line or act childish or outrageous at time. Sometimes, you need to enforce something and if it's visors, big deal. OMG, we're going to protect the players' faces/eyes even if they're too stupid not to. Well, I understand the freedom argument but the NHL does insure these guys and their health is probably important considering all the money that is at stake. A player being gone because he got a puck in the face might be a big deal if it's a star or there's already injuries. Why risk it when there are some steps you can take to at least, improve the chances the player won't be seriously injured?

Meh. I just disagree/loathe the whole "we know what's best for you" crap.

On the other hand.. I understand as it's the league trying to protect it's assets. I'd certainly be a lot more irked if this was some sort of governmental regulation as opposed to an institution's wishes.

 

[Neely08]

It's a tough call on the visors but with the majority now wearing them, there doesn't seem to be the level of caution or respect there once was. Or the speed is just too great. Or both.

Either way, I'm not as sour on it as i would have been a few years ago. I just hope it doesn't further reduce fighting. But it probably will.

Guys are going to have to square off more and dump the helmets.

At least when guys like Thornton and Lucic are gone.

 

[bruinswincup]

I don't see the down side really.

 

[Yeti34]

I hate the visor rule. If you don't want to wear one you shouldn't have to. Our new crop of fighters and tough guys will be wearing visors yuck.

 

[patty59]

Players should have a choice whether or not they want to wear a visor and the hybrid icings rule is pretty dumb.

 

[pucky]

Meh. I just disagree/loathe the whole "we know what's best for you" crap.

On the other hand.. I understand as it's the league trying to protect it's assets. I'd certainly be a lot more irked if this was some sort of governmental regulation as opposed to an institution's wishes.

Hey, I got a reply! I'm a Bruins fan all the way now!

Yeah, imho, the League is deciding and I totally agree with you. I'm also glad that the Gov't isn't stepping in. The League has the right, imho, to implement such rules at their discretion. I think it makes sense (to protect their assets as you put it).

It's just the same as players losing their cool and cross-checking or inflicting cheap shots on each other. The players are 'grown men', you say? ;-) Yes, BUT.... I don't think enforcing visors on the players is a major violation on their freedoms. If there's a restriction or annoyance on vision or it fogs up or whatever, then invest in R&D or whatever it takes. But, I don't buy the 'should have the right not to' argument. It's their (the NHL's) League.

 

[pucky]

Players should have a choice whether or not they want to wear a visor and the hybrid icings rule is pretty dumb.

So, the NHL doesn't have a say at all? So, when a player's career is cut short by a puck or stick in the face/eye, the NHL still has the player insured and the team then doesn't have that player anymore.

I understand the principle but the NHL has the right to protect their assets if they think adding standard equipment can do that.

 

[patty59]

So, the NHL doesn't have a say at all? So, when a player's career is cut short by a puck or stick in the face/eye, the NHL still has the player insured and the team then doesn't have that player anymore.

I understand the principle but the NHL has the right to protect their assets if they think adding standard equipment can do that.

I'm guessing that most players would prefer to have a choice on this matter. Which is why they grandfathered it because it would likely never fly otherwise. This vote was for players that aren't even in the league yet, I'm actually pretty surprised the union went for it to be honest.

You can dress your argument up any way you like, but I still think the players should have a choice and a lot of players would agree. I would also guess that a player that doesn't wear a visor is more expensive to insure.

 

[Artemis]

I hate the visor rule. If you don't want to wear one you shouldn't have to. Our new crop of fighters and tough guys will be wearing visors yuck.

Every professional or developmental league in the world other than the NHL (AHL, ECHL, junior leagues, colleges, high schools, European leagues, etc.) requires visors. Every single player now coming into the NHL has worn face protection. It's not a big deal for them to simply keep doing so.

And fighting has nothing to do with wearing visors. People made the same argument about helmets. Fighters can take them off.

What it HAS to do with is protecting players' eyes, and even their lives. A slapshot or a wayward stick doesn't give a damn how tough you are.

As Jo Innes points out at Backhand Shelf, a visor probably saved the eyesight and the career of our own Danny Paille:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/11/16/the-quiet-room-visors-yes-visors/

 

[patty59]

Every professional or developmental league in the world other than the NHL (AHL, ECHL, junior leagues, colleges, high schools, European leagues, etc.) requires visors. Every single player now coming into the NHL has worn face protection. It's not a big deal for them to simply keep doing so.

And fighting has nothing to do with wearing visors. People made the same argument about helmets. Fighters can take them off.

What it HAS to do with is protecting players' eyes, and even their lives. A slapshot or a wayward stick doesn't give a damn how tough you are.

As Jo Innes points out at Backhand Shelf, a visor probably saved the eyesight and the career of our own Danny Paille:

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/11/16/the-quiet-room-visors-yes-visors/

that's great and all, but these are adults and should have the choice on whether or not they wear them or not.

It's easy for them to grandfather this because this vote didn't affect a single voter. This would go over like a lead balloon if they tried to mandate it to all current players. Why do you think that is?

 

[Artemis]

I'm guessing that most players would prefer to have a choice on this matter. Which is why they grandfathered it because it would likely never fly otherwise. This vote was for players that aren't even in the league yet, I'm actually pretty surprised the union went for it to be honest.


You can dress your argument up any way you like, but I still think the players should have a choice and a lot of players would agree. I would also guess that a player that doesn't wear a visor is more expensive to insure.

Mandating visors was the subject of an NHLPA survey that revealed what Mathieu Schneider called a "clear majority" of support for grandfathering them in.


"I think the biggest thing is that every player coming into the league has to have previously worn one," said Schneider, a former NHL defenceman and special assistant to NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr. "And we have 70-plus per cent of the guys currently wearing them in the league. Overall, it's just been a change in attitude."

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=424736

 

[missingchicklet]

Similar arguments during the whole debate on whether or not to require helmets.

 

[patty59]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=424736

Yes I know, but as I'm sure you are aware, "grandfathering" means that it will not affect current players(ie. voters) so what do they care??

Usually a union fights for future membership rights. But not in this case I guess.

 

[Artemis]

that's great and all, but these are adults and should have the choice on whether or not they wear them or not.

It's easy for them to grandfather this because this vote didn't affect a single voter. This would go over like a lead balloon if they tried to mandate it to all current players. Why do you think that is?

See previous post.

And yeah, they're adults. But these guys also have wives, and children, and parents, who care about them, and in the case of their children, depend on them. Hockey is dangerous enough without forgoing a piece of plastic that can make the difference between laughing off an injury and losing your career. Just ask Chris Pronger.

 

[member 96824]

Make them wear them but please dont ask us to!

 

[Artemis]

Yes I know, but as I'm sure you are aware, "grandfathering" means that it will not affect current players(ie. voters) so what do they care??

Usually a union fights for future membership rights. But not in this case I guess.

A union fights for safe working conditions and protecting its members.

As missingchicklet pointed out, the same argument was used for helmets. People would laugh today if you didn't mandate helmets.

 

[patty59]

See previous post.

And yeah, they're adults. But these guys also have wives, and children, and parents, who care about them, and in the case of their children, depend on them. Hockey is dangerous enough without forgoing a piece of plastic that can make the difference between laughing off an injury and losing your career. Just ask Chris Pronger.

Chris Pronger has even said it should be the player's choice, after the injury.

Like I said, dress it up and sensationalize all you want, it still doesn't change the fact they should have a choice or that this wouldn't have been close to a "clear majority" if they tied to mandate it to all players.

 

[patty59]

A union fights for safe working conditions and protecting its members.

As missingchicklet pointed out, the same argument was used for helmets. People would laugh today if you didn't mandate helmets.

A union fights for it's memberships work rights. Visors are available to all that want to use them, so as far as the union is concerned; mission accomplished.