Full Shields closer to being eliminated

redbear_71
College hockey news reported that this is very close to becoming a reality.
Anyone know when this decision will take place?

But there is a passionate belief throughout college hockey that full shields impair peripheral and up-and-down vision, and create unsafe conditions in and of themselves.

Jim Hyla

I'd don't understand how the full sheild impairs peripheral vision, however.

adamw
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Has to go through various levels - but all of that would be hashed out in June at the NCAA Convention. And then the Board meets in August. It's conceivable it could be implemented for next season.

@Jim ... I believe the argument is against the full cage hampering peripheral vision, which, from having worn one as a teenager, I believe is true. Players don't wear full visors because of the fogging issue - so the overwhelming majority wear cages.

The committee's men's members plan to collect data and work with appropriate medical agencies and committees during the next two years to consider allowing half shields as a legal piece of equipment. The improved technology of the equipment seems to have merit and the coaching community is supportive of this direction.

NOTICE TO CONSUMERS REGARDING THE USE OF VISORS
Visors provide significantly less protection than full face protection.
Visors provide only partial protection for the eyes and no protection for the mouth, teeth, lower face, and jaw.
To minimize the risks of injury, full-face protection is recommended.

ASTM F513 - 12 Standard Specification for Eye and Face Protective Equipment for Hockey Players

Abstract

Scope

1.1 This specification covers performance requirements and test methods for face protectors marketed, sold, and intended for ice hockey.

1.2 The intent of this specification is to reduce the risk of injury to the face without compromising the form or appeal of the game. To do so, the face protector shall be used:

1.2.1 As intended within the rules of the game and

1.2.2 In accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

1.3 Ice hockey is a sport with intrinsic hazards associated with the normal conduct of the game. Participation in ice hockey implies the acceptance of some risk of injury. Use of a face protector certified to this specification will not prevent all injuries.

1.4 This specification has been prepared after careful consideration of the frequency and mechanisms associated with facial and eye injuries that can potentially occur within the rules of the game of ice hockey.

1.5 Requirements and the corresponding test methods, where appropriate, are given for the following:

1.5.1 Construction,

1.5.2 Puck impact resistance,

1.5.3 Penetration,

1.5.4 Field of vision, and

1.5.5 Marking and information.

1.6 Face protection is intended for use by players, goalkeepers, and certain functionaries (for example, referees and coaches). Types of protectors considered under this specification are:

1.6.1 Type B1—A full-face protector intended for use by persons older than ten years of age, other than goaltenders;

1.6.2 Type B2—A full-face protector intended for use by persons ten years of age or younger, other than goaltenders; and

1.6.3 Type C (Visor)—A visor intended for use by person in the junior age category and older, other than goaltenders.

1.7 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.

1.8 Use of the singular does not exclude the plural (and vice versa) when the sense allows.

1.9 Although the intended primary application of this specification is stated in this scope, note that it remains the responsibility of the users of this specification to judge its suitability for their particular purpose.

1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

adamw
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Has to go through various levels - but all of that would be hashed out in June at the NCAA Convention. And then the Board meets in August. It's conceivable it could be implemented for next season.

@Jim ... I believe the argument is against the full cage hampering peripheral vision, which, from having worn one as a teenager, I believe is true. Players don't wear full visors because of the fogging issue - so the overwhelming majority wear cages.

cbuckser

Jim Hyla

I'd don't understand how the full sheild impairs peripheral vision, however.

I have never played ice hockey without a cage, and I am happy to have my teeth, jaw, nose, and facial bones intact. I think it doesn't take very long to get used to wearing a birdcage or full shield.

I am highly skeptical that moving from cages to 3/4 shields would reduce injuries. I have not perceived any additional recklessness in hockey leagues that require full shields. Thus, I have doubts that the premise for the change is valid.

The entire debate reminds me of the arguments hockey people made in opposition to the radical notion of goaltenders wearing masks.

I suspect that the only people who would benefit from a rule change from full shields to 3/4 shields are dentists, x-ray technicians, orthopedists, and plastic shield manufacturers.

MattS

cbuckser

Jim Hyla

I'd don't understand how the full sheild impairs peripheral vision, however.

I have never played ice hockey without a cage, and I am happy to have my teeth, jaw, nose, and facial bones intact. I think it doesn't take very long to get used to wearing a birdcage or full shield.

I am highly skeptical that moving from cages to 3/4 shields would reduce injuries. I have not perceived any additional recklessness in hockey leagues that require full shields. Thus, I have doubts that the premise for the change is valid.

The entire debate reminds me of the arguments hockey people made in opposition to the radical notion of goaltenders wearing masks.

I suspect that the only people who would benefit from a rule change from full shields to 3/4 shields are dentists, x-ray technicians, orthopedists, and plastic shield manufacturers.

I totally agree. I have played hockey with a cage for ~25 years. It has not in any way hampered my vision and I am also glad to have my face intact.

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

But I think the real argument in favor of eliminating cages is that it reduces injuries from players blocking slapshot pucks without fear of puck breaking one's face. At the luncheon once a few years back, Coach Schafer mentioned how in the NHL players get out of the way of heavy shots, like the Red Sea parting: in college, by contrast, players go down on one knee and try to block heavy shots, a behavior that results in unnecessary injuries. Eliminating the face shield effectively removes the moral hazard here by putting the fear of god back into the players. At least, that is the argument as I understand it.

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

But I think the real argument in favor of eliminating cages is that it reduces injuries from players blocking slapshot pucks without fear of puck breaking one's face. At the luncheon once a few years back, Coach Schafer mentioned how in the NHL players get out of the way of heavy shots, like the Red Sea parting: in college, by contrast, players go down on one knee and try to block heavy shots, a behavior that results in unnecessary injuries. Eliminating the face shield effectively removes the moral hazard here by putting the fear of god back into the players. At least, that is the argument as I understand it.

I thought the major concern was players, who are checking, being more likely to have their stick up or hit higher. Without the full mask players instinctively were more careful. That's not to say your reason is not valid.

RichH

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

But I think the real argument in favor of eliminating cages is that it reduces injuries from players blocking slapshot pucks without fear of puck breaking one's face. At the luncheon once a few years back, Coach Schafer mentioned how in the NHL players get out of the way of heavy shots, like the Red Sea parting: in college, by contrast, players go down on one knee and try to block heavy shots, a behavior that results in unnecessary injuries. Eliminating the face shield effectively removes the moral hazard here by putting the fear of god back into the players. At least, that is the argument as I understand it.

I thought the major concern was players, who are checking, being more likely to have their stick up or hit higher. Without the full mask players instinctively were more careful. That's not to say your reason is not valid.

That's my impression from the arguments I've heard, and the "heavy shot" argument also makes sense. Players would be less inclined to make dangerous hits as well as be more aware not to put themselves in positions of being hit dangerously. Jack Parker specifically has been most visible about it since Travis Roy's injury, as mentioned in the CHN article.

Roy 82

RichH

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

But I think the real argument in favor of eliminating cages is that it reduces injuries from players blocking slapshot pucks without fear of puck breaking one's face. At the luncheon once a few years back, Coach Schafer mentioned how in the NHL players get out of the way of heavy shots, like the Red Sea parting: in college, by contrast, players go down on one knee and try to block heavy shots, a behavior that results in unnecessary injuries. Eliminating the face shield effectively removes the moral hazard here by putting the fear of god back into the players. At least, that is the argument as I understand it.

I thought the major concern was players, who are checking, being more likely to have their stick up or hit higher. Without the full mask players instinctively were more careful. That's not to say your reason is not valid.

That's my impression from the arguments I've heard, and the "heavy shot" argument also makes sense. Players would be less inclined to make dangerous hits as well as be more aware not to put themselves in positions of being hit dangerously. Jack Parker specifically has been most visible about it since Travis Roy's injury, as mentioned in the CHN article.

Huh? I think that they have a name for NHL players who do not try to block "heavy shots". They are called "former NHL players".

ftyuv

Roy 82

RichH

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

But I think the real argument in favor of eliminating cages is that it reduces injuries from players blocking slapshot pucks without fear of puck breaking one's face. At the luncheon once a few years back, Coach Schafer mentioned how in the NHL players get out of the way of heavy shots, like the Red Sea parting: in college, by contrast, players go down on one knee and try to block heavy shots, a behavior that results in unnecessary injuries. Eliminating the face shield effectively removes the moral hazard here by putting the fear of god back into the players. At least, that is the argument as I understand it.

I thought the major concern was players, who are checking, being more likely to have their stick up or hit higher. Without the full mask players instinctively were more careful. That's not to say your reason is not valid.

That's my impression from the arguments I've heard, and the "heavy shot" argument also makes sense. Players would be less inclined to make dangerous hits as well as be more aware not to put themselves in positions of being hit dangerously. Jack Parker specifically has been most visible about it since Travis Roy's injury, as mentioned in the CHN article.

Huh? I think that they have a name for NHL players who do not try to block "heavy shots". They are called "former NHL players".

Or "Luongo". ZING!

ugarte
Every time I see this thread I think that a Romulan ship is attacking.

Roy 82

RichH

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

nr53
I've only played hockey for two years and I've only worn a cage other than the one time I went to a practice a friend of mine was holding for the team she was coaching. I played without a shield or visor and the difference was really noticeable.

I agree. There is a huge difference not having the cage on. I wear the cage because I want my teeth, nose, and eyes intact, not because I've fooled myself into thinking it doesn't matter.

But I think the real argument in favor of eliminating cages is that it reduces injuries from players blocking slapshot pucks without fear of puck breaking one's face. At the luncheon once a few years back, Coach Schafer mentioned how in the NHL players get out of the way of heavy shots, like the Red Sea parting: in college, by contrast, players go down on one knee and try to block heavy shots, a behavior that results in unnecessary injuries. Eliminating the face shield effectively removes the moral hazard here by putting the fear of god back into the players. At least, that is the argument as I understand it.

I thought the major concern was players, who are checking, being more likely to have their stick up or hit higher. Without the full mask players instinctively were more careful. That's not to say your reason is not valid.

That's my impression from the arguments I've heard, and the "heavy shot" argument also makes sense. Players would be less inclined to make dangerous hits as well as be more aware not to put themselves in positions of being hit dangerously. Jack Parker specifically has been most visible about it since Travis Roy's injury, as mentioned in the CHN article.

Huh? I think that they have a name for NHL players who do not try to block "heavy shots". They are called "former NHL players".

As for the Travis Roy type of injury, I think that it is unlikely that a face mask makes a big difference unless the energy of the hit is really absorbed by the damage to the face. Cuts and abrasions probably do not absorb a lot of energy. It would take some serious cartidge or bone damage. You need force acting over a distance. Plus, if your head is down so much that it is the compression of the neck that absorbes the hit then it probably means that it is the helmet striking the boards and not the mask. (Does anyone know if this was the case in the Tavis Roy incident?).

I am surprised that the issues of fan apeal and transition to professional hockey have not come up as motives for the change. Seems a bit disingenuous.