Toggle sidebar

NHL To Grandfather In Visors

Artemis

Artemis

Took the red pill
Dec 8, 2010
20,860
2
Mount Olympus
patty59 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sensationalize? You think the very real possibility of Danny Paille or Steve Stamkos losing their sight if they hadn't been wearing visors is sensationalizing? What do you think happens to someone's face if it takes a 100-mph slapshot straight between the eyes?

The vast majority of players went along with this because they've seen a bloody Marc Staal screaming on the ice. If you think that's "dressing it up," great. Thankfully it appears what happened to him finally knocked some sense into his peers.
 
patty59

patty59

***************
Apr 6, 2008
18,632
1,018
Lethbridge, Alberta
Artemis said:
Sensationalize? You think the very real possibility of Danny Paille or Steve Stamkos losing their sight if they hadn't been wearing visors is sensationalizing? What do you think happens to someone's face if it takes a 100-mph slapshot straight between the eyes?

The vast majority of players went along with this because they've seen a bloody Marc Staal screaming on the ice. If you think that's "dressing it up," great. Thankfully it appears what happened to him finally knocked some sense into his peers.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the whole grandfathering thing? Like at all? Because if you did you'd realize that it has nothing to do with his peers and everything to do with is future peers. If it knocked sense into his peers, like you said, they wouldn't need this and everyone would just start wearing one. But that hasn't happened.
 

member 96824

Guest
Looking forward to all the broken hands and fingers when every fight turns out like Mark Stuart on Simmonds a couple years back.
 

trudatman*

Guest
"visors will be grandfathered in" made me think that only those who already have visors will be allowed to keep them. you really have to have a firm grasp on the language of morons to follow a lot of what goes on in the hockey community. let me take a swing at this: "Peverly has alot of player's thinking they should of taking the easy rode to fame...." I think I've got it, but it's much easier to create than it is to read.
 
Artemis

Artemis

Took the red pill
Dec 8, 2010
20,860
2
Mount Olympus
patty59 said:
Do you understand the whole grandfathering thing? Like at all? Because if you did you'd realize that it has nothing to do with his peers and everything to do with is future peers. If it knocked sense into his peers, like you said, they wouldn't need this and everyone would just start wearing one. But that hasn't happened.
Click to expand...

No, I don't understand grandfathering. Please explain it to me. :shakehead
 
Shaun

Shaun

Registered User
Oct 12, 2010
25,271
3,254
Can't wait for full cages and no fighting so we can get the full NCAA experience!
 
N o o d l e s

N o o d l e s

Registered User
Jul 17, 2010
15,526
7,254
South Shore
I agree it shouldn't be mandatory. Why should players have to wear visors if they really don't want to? I understand injuries, but you get what you get when you choose not to wear a visor. I see the insurance issues as the real issue at hand here, though, like others have mentioned. Why not make players sign a waiver or something like that? If you choose not to wear a visor it's on you and if you happen to receive an eye injury that's on you. Or something like that.
 
Boston BROin

Boston BROin

Marchand makes u mad
Feb 29, 2008
6,327
282
NYC
Shaun said:
Can't wait for full cages and no fighting so we can get the full NCAA experience!
Click to expand...

This was what I was thinking. If you really want to protect the players, why not make full cages mandatory? What could possibly be the argument against it? It would make the players safer, no?
 

Salem13

Registered User
Feb 6, 2008
5,624
1,507
Salem,Mass
Boston BROin said:
This was what I was thinking. If you really want to protect the players, why not make full cages mandatory? What could possibly be the argument against it? It would make the players safer, no?
Click to expand...

Sumo Suits for everyone!

sumo-suits.jpg
 
deliciouspie

deliciouspie

the best post »»»»»
Oct 22, 2008
2,778
0
sf, austin, here
i hated it when my mom told me to eat my vegetables when i was five, ergo i hate that the national (socialist) hockey league led by that awful bettman character is telling me what to do
 
SerenityRick

SerenityRick

Registered User
Jan 23, 2008
14,805
139
Moultonborough, NH
Boston BROin said:
Hey, I don't agree with the visor rule, but if they're looking to protect players, why not go the full cage?
Click to expand...

This is what concerns me.. it sets a precedent.

If it's about "Well.. we truly care about our players and we want them to be safe and snuggly warm!"

Then a ban on fighting will be just around the corner.. full cages and finally; no hitting.

After all.. all those things mean safer players, no? Why would those be so ridiculous but forcing players to wear visors wouldn't be? It's certainly not at this point yet.. but it's trending there and that concerns me is all.
 

panny2727

Registered User
Oct 12, 2010
850
0
wait does this mean i have to wear a visor in men's league now or any oter recreational tourney

does the wording mean anyone in the league now has the choice and those future dudes don't?
 
DaveFromNB

DaveFromNB

Registered User
Sep 6, 2008
2,337
383
Quispamsis, NB
SerenityRick said:
This is what concerns me.. it sets a precedent.

If it's about "Well.. we truly care about our players and we want them to be safe and snuggly warm!"

Then a ban on fighting will be just around the corner.. full cages and finally; no hitting.

After all.. all those things mean safer players, no? Why would those be so ridiculous but forcing players to wear visors wouldn't be? It's certainly not at this point yet.. but it's trending there and that concerns me is all.
Click to expand...

The precedent was set decades ago with goalie masks and player helmets. This is just part of the progression.

It might result in more safety steps down the road, but you can replace teeth, you can't replace eyes. To me, this is a logical step, although I might be biased since I've been wearing a cage for about 40 years.
 
ODAAT

ODAAT

Registered User
Oct 17, 2006
52,595
21,327
Victoria BC
No issues at all with this, most, if not all of these pro`s had to wear visors at the Junior level and to take wear one at the pro level shouldn`t at all be an issue.

My biggest issue I would like to see addressed is the ridiculously dangerous equipment these guys use, the shoulder/elbow pads are just accidents waiting to, or already happening.

I went out to find a pair of elbow pads as my 20 year old one`s finally asked me to put them to rest, couldn`t believe the suit of armor out there to choose from.

Get rid of the bloody icing too. Watching Junior hockey here, I`ve not once found it to be anything but a positive to automatically call an icing eliminating the race for the puck and having no injuries because of it.
 
Artemis

Artemis

Took the red pill
Dec 8, 2010
20,860
2
Mount Olympus
Lobster57 said:
And Artie can't deal with the reversal of condescension, surprising
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Someone makes a stupid comment to me, I'll note its stupidity, just as anyone else on this board would.

Visors are meant to protect players' eyes, period. The arguments against them (by a minority) are the same ones used against helmets (and I was around then, so I remember). A piece of safety equipment doesn't curtail anyone's rights, nor does it mean fighting will be banned, or any other such nonsense.
 

member 96824

Guest
Artemis said:
Nonsense. Someone makes a stupid comment to me, I'll note its stupidity, just as anyone else on this board would.

Visors are meant to protect players' eyes, period. The arguments against them (by a minority) are the same ones used against helmets (and I was around then, so I remember). A piece of safety equipment doesn't curtail anyone's rights, nor does it mean fighting will be banned, or any other such nonsense.
Click to expand...

There is already a rule against starting a fight with a visor on, so I believe the fear of banning fighting, especially since it's been talked about by many before, is far from "nonsense."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X