Toggle sidebar

Visors and hybrid icing one step closer

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Bandit said:
Can't believe there are still people out there against this.
Click to expand...

The fight fans will hate this. Wearing a visor is seen as a negative by some people, as laughable as that sounds it's true.

Hopefully staged fighting is next to go.

And agreed 100% this should have happened years ago, I remember when Hossa knocked out Berard's eye, if the NHL weren't so stubborn and full of idiots they would have made them mandatory that offseason.
 
Herby said:
The fight fans will hate this. Wearing a visor is seen as a negative by some people, as laughable as that sounds it's true.

Hopefully staged fighting is next to go.

And agreed 100% this should have happened years ago, I remember when Hossa knocked out Berard's eye, if the NHL weren't so stubborn and full of idiots they would have made them mandatory that offseason.
Click to expand...

Would love Staged fights, fights right after a face off, to be GONE.

So tired of watching no talent meat bags trying to skate and play hockey.
 
If you don't want to wear one, don't wear one. While I agree with it in principle, why is the NHL forcing this on its players.
 
Reaper45 said:
If you don't want to wear one, don't wear one. While I agree with it in principle, why is the NHL forcing this on its players.
Click to expand...

I always try to see both sides of everything.

My best guess is that the teams are investing millions in these players and want to protect their investment.


Let's say you own a team and your team just locked up superforward and perennial 50 goal scorer Sean O'Connor to a 7 year deal at 7 mil per and then next game, he loses an eye. The club still has to pay Sean, unless he retires, and it's a pretty safe assumption that his production will drop
 
Better remove the automatic two minutes for instigating with a visor on. The league can't have it both ways.

I'd love to see a staged fight in the Kings game tonight. 31 games and counting without a fight. I'd be happy if they announced the fight an hour before game time and it happened during intermission at this point.
 
The Dingo said:
I always try to see both sides of everything.

My best guess is that the teams are investing millions in these players and want to protect their investment.


Let's say you own a team and your team just locked up superforward and perennial 50 goal scorer Sean O'Connor to a 7 year deal at 7 mil per and then next game, he loses an eye. The club still has to pay Sean, unless he retires, and it's a pretty safe assumption that his production will drop
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to post.
 
Scottkmlps said:
I can see no touch icing coming in within the next 2 years.
Click to expand...

i'm on board with that as well. it will speed the game up and reduce some injuries. the people that dispute this are nuts. i don't know of anyone that watches a game for the one or two races to the puck per game to wash out an icing. hell even the discussion of icing called based on player position at the hash marks to avoid end board collisions is a smart move
 
Just out of curiosity, which players had to cut their careers short because of an injury to their face?

I know Penner isn't very happy about this. And if Penner isn't happy, neither am I. :)
 
Black1963 said:
Just out of curiosity, which players had to cut their careers short because of an injury to their face?

I know Penner isn't very happy about this. And if Penner isn't happy, neither am I. :)
Click to expand...

Penner will be exempt from this, so he doesn't have to worry. most likely it work like the helmet rule. new players into the league next year and after will be req'd to wear one. players already in the league will be exempt. it is a good rule with sound reasoning.

sometimes the players have to protected from themselves and this is a perfect example of it. imagine today if the helmet rule wasn't implemented. with the size, speed and strength of the game today god forbid what may have happened with guys not wearing buckets
 
Scottkmlps said:
I can see no touch icing coming in within the next 2 years.
Click to expand...

This is what concerns me more. Players racing down the ice heading towards the boards!!! You slip or fall, you could be paralyzed or dead.

Personally, I'd like to see retaliation against clean hits come to an end. Don't know how, but just stop.
 
Reaper45 said:
If you don't want to wear one, don't wear one. While I agree with it in principle, why is the NHL forcing this on its players.
Click to expand...

The teams have an asset to protect and that same argument was made when the now-hilarious argument was made against helmets.

I'm for it...the league just better get rid of the instigating with a visor penalty to coincide with the move.
 
Black1963 said:
Just out of curiosity, which players had to cut their careers short because of an injury to their face?

I know Penner isn't very happy about this. And if Penner isn't happy, neither am I. :)
Click to expand...

I know these guys are older but both Chris Pronger and Ian Laperriere got hit in the eye area and it forced them to retire. Wouldn't have happened if they were wearing visors.

And for people saying it's their choice, what if a guy doesn't want to wear a helmet? I'm sorry it fogs up or whatever. I don't want to see any player lose an eye. If veteran guys like Penner want to be stubborn, fine, they can risk it. But I'm so glad that everyone coming up will be wearing these now.
 
All for visors being mandatory. Should have been a long time ago.

If they are going to do hybrid icing, they may as well do no-touch icing. The current foot race to the puck is needlessly dangerous and racing to the face-off dots is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom