Hosting, Small Ice, and Face Shields

[CowbellGuy]

There's a new article on USCHO at

http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/04/26_006737.php

with a quote from Schafer on face shields, among other things.

[Greg Berge]

Adam has a touch of "nice guy in person, obnoxious guy in print" disorder.  Um, not that half the posters on eLynah don't. ;-)   Anyway, good article, worth following the link.

I would disagree that Michigan knows it's unfair that they host an NCAA game.  The Yost denizens seem to feel it's their divine right.  Minny seems to have a much healthier, "yep, we're gettin' away with murder, aint it grand?" attitude.

If the coaches are voting unanimously against the face shield, then why does the NC$$ keep it?  Well, put it another way: what is the pure greed issue that keeps the rule in place despite the pure greed interest of avoiding liability?  Presumably it's counter-liability: the minute they drop the face shield mandate and Johnny loses an eye, Johnny's parents will sue the NCAA for a gazillion dollars, so by putting it into place with all the safety hoopla, they have now effectively screwed themselves.



Post Edited (04-28-03 11:09)

[CowbellGuy]

Greg wrote:
Adam has a touch of "nice guy in person..."

Since when?

[pat]

I find it mildly interesting that the issue of face shields gets debated to death every year, but no one ever mentions checking from behind.

On a related but less inflammatory rules note, I will wildly speculate that USA Hockey's going to drop the limit on stick blade curvature, and that the NCAA will follow within a year or two.

[KeithK]

Yeah.  Does Parker really think Travis Roy got paralyzed because he was wearing a face shield?

Personally I'd be in favor of eliminating the rule.  If a guy loses an eye or a tooth because he didn't think he needed to wear a mask, then that's his problem.

Could an athlete really sue because he got hurt in a college game?  well, of course he could sue, but would he have a chance of succeeding?  Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[pat]

[Q]
Personally I'd be in favor of eliminating the rule. If a guy loses an eye or a tooth because he didn't think he needed to wear a mask, then that's his problem.
[/Q]

Except that the crux of the argument falls apart unless you explicitly forbid full cages, a la the NHL. However, American juniors who are over 18 can sign a waiver and wear a half shield. Few do, in my experience (0-2 per team in the Empire League).

[Greg Berge]

[q]Since when[/q]

Age, OTOH, is even nicer in print.  :-D ;-) B-]

[jtwcornell91]

Anyone notice that Willie Mitchell is currently wearing a full shield after suffering a facial injury?  I guess he needed to get dispensation for that.

The problem with half-shields, from what I've heard, is that they can be more dangerous that no shields at all, since players tilt them back to see under the visor, which means the helmet is not properly positioned to protect against things like concussions.

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

Given the frivolous lawsuits that actually get awarded in this country, I think there's a very good chance that a player injured playing hockey in college could sue not only the university or the maker of the helmet or face shield, but even the manufacturer of the stick.

JH

[Greg Berge]

It's funny how lawsuits are frivolous right up until the moment you're the one who's injured.  ;-)

Please, don't jump down my throat, obviously there are some lawsuits that are frivolous.  It's just that "frivolous lawsuits" is a phrase like "bad officiating" -- it's become so common that it's practically idiomatic, and after a certain point that in itself becomes highly suspect.

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]Greg said:

Adam has a touch of "nice guy in person, obnoxious guy in print" disorder.[/Q]Then Age took question with him being a nice guy in person.

Hey, what's going on? How was he obnoxious in print, and do we really need to malign him about how he acts in person? I know some might say this is all in jest, but if so that's what the smilies are meant to convey.

Personally I have always liked his articles, and don't feel that anything he said in this article was obnoxious, rather a recap of what has been said before. It sounds like he did get alot of obnoxious comments about what was said before, but his article about the host sites was just explaining the rules as laid down by the NCAA, and giving his take on the reasons for them.

I think we all need to see a hockey game so we can relax.:-P
[Q]Keith wrote:

Yeah. Does Parker really think Travis Roy got paralyzed because he was wearing a face shield?[/Q]No, he has talked about this alot before and there have been articles about it. In fact as I remember there was one at the time of this or last year's BU-CU series. The point is that the unspoken rule about not stick checking into the face seems to have been relaxed since there is so much supposed facial protection.

[Greg Berge]

For the record, I meant that Adam's article starts off obnoxiously, which reading it I think was completely intentional -- I think he was being "over the top" funny.  Once I wrote that I expressly wanted to make sure nobody thought I was slagging Adam, which is why the "nice in person" thing got added, plus I've been called that myself.  You're shocked, I know...

[gwm3]

Highly unlikely that a player could sue over an injury sustained during a sporting event.  Sports is one of the few places where the "assumption of risk" defense still operates with some force.

Suing a helmet or face shield maufacturer is perhaps another story, but the player would have to show that the product was in some way defective (meaning that it did not do something which it was intended to do).  Hard to argue that an injury like Travis Roy's was in any way caused by defective equipment.

[Greg Berge]

I wonder if a player who came in with the old shield rule, was on scholarship, and then had the rule changed could successfully sue on the theory that while he could always choose not to play, that would be imposing undue strain on him because he needed the scholarship?  No idea what the case law looks like, but I would think he could mount some sort of a "bait and switch" challenge -- the scholarship implicitly promised certain protections that were subsequently unilaterally withdrawn, hence the school has reneged, yadda yadda?



Post Edited (04-28-03 21:04)

[Mike Hedrick 01]

Don Cherry has griped about the full facemask in college hockey for years.  He insists that it causes poor stick discipline that follows players into the pro game.  

They may have a point about it, but having never played competitively I really don't know what's better.