NHL To Grandfather In Visors

[Danton Heineken]

How will shallower nets lead to more goals?

 

[missingchicklet]

How will shallower nets lead to more goals?

I guess the logic is that there will be more room behind the net to operate as well as provide more wrap-around opportunities. I doubt it will have much of an impact on overall goals scored. It may also provide a little bit more safety as well. I don't see it as a big deal one way or the other. Time will tell I suppose.

 

[hoss75]

our sales people and people who meet with clients do indeed have specific shoes and suites they are required to wear.

bottom line is it is not uncommon for employers to tell employees what is required to be worn.

Then they should have to wear helmets just in case some freak accident occurs when they meet with a disgruntled client.

 

[Scotto74]

Then they should have to wear helmets just in case some freak accident occurs when they meet with a disgruntled client.

differnt role don't you think. Which is why my other example was having to wear a hard hat and steel toe boots while doing construction for safety. They are just examples of other employers mandating what employees wear. It happens all over the place not just in sports.

Right now the NFL is dealing with major law issues for not protecting their players. This is one step for the NHL to protect themselves against similar future lawsuit's.

But I see by your response that your not looking at this in a reasonable way.

 

[Therick67]

Right now the NFL is dealing with major law issues for not protecting their players. This is one step for the NHL to protect themselves against similar future lawsuit's.

the thing is, the players have had a choice to wear eye protection, it's not like it hasn't been an option. Some players could be in the league for 10 plus years under this grandfathered rule without a visor. I don't see players wearing neck guards, and we've seen guys get cut. if we really want to protect them, make full face shields mandatory.

 

[patty59]

differnt role don't you think. Which is why my other example was having to wear a hard hat and steel toe boots while doing construction for safety. They are just examples of other employees mandating what employees wear. It happens all over the place not just in sports.

Right now the NFL is dealing with major law issues for not protecting their players. This is one step for the NHL to protect themselves against similar future lawsuit's.

But I see by your response that your not looking at this in a reasonable way.

You're right about PPE. But you'd be hard pressed to find another place where they would have a different set of PPE rules depending on seniority, while doing the exact same work.

Also, they have outlined what they determined to be minimum safety requirements, but are now changing them, for some people.

If the players think visors should be mandatory, make them mandatory for everyone. But we all know that would not result in a 'clear majority' vote. Which is why they did it this way.

 

[Scotto74]

the thing is, the players have had a choice to wear eye protection, it's not like it hasn't been an option. Some players could be in the league for 10 plus years under this grandfathered rule without a visor. I don't see players wearing neck guards, and we've seen guys get cut. if we really want to protect them, make full face shields mandatory.

But if this was the only way to get the current players to vote it in at least the NHL could say they tired to protect the players. I don't agree that players should be able to file a lawsuit unfortunatlly it will happen at some point.

I also think players should have the choice.

I am just pointing out that it is a common thing for employers of all types to set standards of what employees have to wear.

To me this is really not a big deal at all.

 

[Scotto74]

You're right about PPE. But you'd be hard pressed to find another place where they would have a different set of PPE rules depending on seniority, while doing the exact same work.

Also, they have outlined what they determined to be minimum safety requirements, but are now changing them, for some people.

If the players think visors should be mandatory, make them mandatory for everyone. But we all know that would not result in a 'clear majority' vote. Which is why they did it this way.

exactly. If this is the only way to get the clear majority vote at least the NHL can say that if/when someone who gets hurt decides to file suit.

you are also correct that it would be very difficult to find any other place that has different saftey rules depening on seniority but most other places also would not have the employees vote on the safety equipment they would just do it. In this case with the NHLPA they can't do that.

 

[trenton1]

I think we will hear them announce the participation in Sochi quite soon.

 

[Alan Ryan]

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

I'm with you. Mandatory visors is good news.

 

[BergyDGD]

Ahh I don't agree with mandatory visors but they're so common in today's game it's not something I'm gonna lose sleep over. The natural thing I worry about is this could become a first step down a slippery slope in which we see the game changed and become less physical like Euro hockey or NCAA hockey. Not saying it will but that's really the only fear I have. So ya I don't agree with it but it's not really a big deal.

 

[wetcamelfood]

Seems like shallower nets are just going to make it harder for them to decide on goals that go straight in and out (i.e. blast that hits under bar a la DK game 2 OT Philly series in '11 etc.)

 

[Ratty]

Ahh I don't agree with mandatory visors but they're so common in today's game it's not something I'm gonna lose sleep over. The natural thing I worry about is this could become a first step down a slippery slope in which we see the game changed and become less physical like Euro hockey or NCAA hockey. Not saying it will but that's really the only fear I have. So ya I don't agree with it but it's not really a big deal.

Eh, have you ever been to a BC/BU game? Or any other college hockey games for that matter? Believe me, the checking and hitting are intense.

Nothing wrong with a hard hitting, clean hockey game.

 

[Ratty]

the thing is, the players have had a choice to wear eye protection, it's not like it hasn't been an option. Some players could be in the league for 10 plus years under this grandfathered rule without a visor. I don't see players wearing neck guards, and we've seen guys get cut. if we really want to protect them, make full face shields mandatory.

Full face shields are not practical. They seem to be cumbersome and impair breathing. And all it does, as opposed to the eye shield, is protect a player from losing a few chicklets or getting a stitch or two on the jaw.

The idea of the eye shield is to prevent injuries such as those suffered by Pronger, Heatley, Soderberg and others who are impacted not only for their careers, but for their lives as well.

Sure, you could have a freak accident where an errant stick slides under the protector and injures the eye, but that possibility is greatly diminished with proper fitting shields. Some of those with inward curves seem, to this observer, to be the most effective.

 

[patty59]

Full face shields are not practical. They seem to be cumbersome and impair breathing. And all it does, as opposed to the eye shield, is protect a player from losing a few chicklets or getting a stitch or two on the jaw.

The idea of the eye shield is to prevent injuries such as those suffered by Pronger, Heatley, Soderberg and others who are impacted not only for their careers, but for their lives as well.

Sure, you could have a freak accident where an errant stick slides under the protector and injures the eye, but that possibility is greatly diminished with proper fitting shields. Some of those with inward curves seem, to this observer, to be the most effective.

He was wearing a visor when he got that injury.

 

[Mountain]

It would be awesome if there was a visor could be taken off if someone wants to fight or something like that.

 

[ReggieMoto]

It would be awesome if there was a visor could be taken off if someone wants to fight or something like that.

Take the helmet off. Visor's attached.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

It would be awesome if there was a visor could be taken off if someone wants to fight or something like that.

There has been discussion of snap off visors before

 

[stick9]

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?

Almost every adult playing outside the NHL has that choice and chooses to wear some sort of facial protection.

I am quite sure every player would follow along if told they had to conform immediately, they my grumble a bit but they do it.

Visors have come a long way. The optical clarity now is amazing.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

I see the visor thing as a way of passive aggressively reducing fighting.

What does this do to protect players when this option is already available to them?

Don't like it. Don't like the hybrid icing. Don't think the shallow nets do much.

How about provisions to eliminate diving? That would actually IMPROVE the quality of play on the ice.

 

[patty59]

Almost every adult playing outside the NHL has that choice and chooses to wear some sort of facial protection.

I am quite sure every player would follow along if told they had to conform immediately, they my grumble a bit but they do it.

Visors have come a long way. The optical clarity now is amazing.

If they were told to do it, they would do it, of course. But since this was put to a vote do you think it would have been a "clear majority" in favor? I highly doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't have gone the grandfathering route.

 

[patty59]

...

I see the visor thing as a way of passive aggressively reducing fighting.

What does this do to protect players when this option is already available to them?

Don't like it. Don't like the hybrid icing. Don't think the shallow nets do much.

How about provisions to eliminate diving? That would actually IMPROVE the quality of play on the ice.

Try to improve the quality of play!?!?!?!?!?! Are you insane?

I'm with you on everything here. But to be honest, I'm just happy they didn't implement another stupid rule, like auto penalty shot offside or something.

For some reason they feel the need to change things up every single year. Every year we sit around and wait for how they're changing the game(since the lockout anyways).

For some reason they think these changes will make the game better, not sure how, but they think it. Shallower nets? WTF?

Hybrid icing? so now the d-man won't get hit, but if the forward is winning the race he gets hit instead?

Leave the game the way it is, or better yet, remove a few of the Pejorative Slured rules, like the puck over the glass.

The only new "rule" they brought in that's any good is the no-change icing. The rest are ****.

 

[stick9]

If they were told to do it, they would do it, of course. But since this was put to a vote do you think it would have been a "clear majority" in favor? I highly doubt it, otherwise they wouldn't have gone the grandfathering route.

My take, grandfathering it in was a way to get it in without having to risk a vote. It may have even passed, I'd say the majority are now visor wearers.

It's funny how easily guys put one when they play in the Olympics or in international play.

No regulations on size and shape either, which is another plus. There are more than few NHLer's who were a trimmed down version.

 

[stick9]

I actually think the shallow nets may help improve scoring. Some of these guys are sitting in their nets now.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

My take, grandfathering it in was a way to get it in without having to risk a vote. It may have even passed, I'd say the majority are now visor wearers.

It's funny how easily guys put one when they play in the Olympics or in international play.

No regulations on size and shape either, which is another plus. There are more than few NHLer's who were a trimmed down version.

But just because you wear a visor, doesn't mean you need to force others to do the same. Or WANT to force them, rather.

I don't think the vote would pass, which is why they didn't put it to one.