Full Shields closer to being eliminated

[Drew]

Usually, it takes a bit longer to pick the puck up when it is in your skates, that is when you get blind sided.

BTW, it is rumored that McCarron has decommited from Mich State to join his brother at Cornell.

[ftyuv]

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!

[Aaron M. Griffin]

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!

+1

[ugarte]

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

[French Rage]

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

I keep thinking someone's planning to kill the oddly-named younger brother of a former Maine forward.

[RichH]

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.

The point I was trying to make with the Travis Roy injury wasn't about the effect of the impact of the hit, but that such a hit is less likely to be made in the first place.  The following article put it better by saying that shields give players a false sense of security, and draws this conclusion using a study performed at the ECHL level.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/05/09_doctor_study_supports_eliminating.php

I don't understand the mention of fan appeal.  Are there people not coming to Lynah because they can't clearly see the team's mugs? If anything, I like the look of the full cages for a lone reason: it makes a televised game instantly identifiable as being a college game when flipping around.