Half Sheilds?

[pantherstud09 0]

So fair many leagues are inforcing the half shields on all players. This year is the first year the UHL has them. Do you think it will make it up to the AHL and maybe the NHL some day?

[Gongshow11 1]

no, nhlpa wont allow it. only way i see it is with a gradfather clause, new guys coming into nhl have to wear it.

[masterpirate13 0]

They won't do that in the NHL. You'll see another strike if they try...F'ing NHLPA. I don't think it would be a reasonable move for the NHL to make anyways because there is an extra penalty for guys who get in fights with a half shield on. So if they went through with the rule then guys would basically always get 15 minutes for fighting...or whatever it is.

[rausch27 1]

They won't do that in the NHL. You'll see another strike if they try...F'ing NHLPA. I don't think it would be a reasonable move for the NHL to make anyways because there is an extra penalty for guys who get in fights with a half shield on. So if they went through with the rule then guys would basically always get 15 minutes for fighting...or whatever it is.

which would make guys not want to fight , which the nhl is probably trying to eliminate , which would making the half shield rule a plus for them

but i think it would a stupid idea, if the guy doesnt want a visor , he shouldn't have to wear one. But if all these leagues are enforcing it then the guys coming up will be used to the visor and continue wearing it which would mean that alot of nhl'ers would wear one

[Chadd 916]

no, nhlpa wont allow it. only way i see it is with a gradfather clause, new guys coming into nhl have to wear it.

And it will come with the next CBA, if not before. Teams can't afford to lose a big guy for a large portion of the season. In the past tbigger market teams could trade for another guy or sign someone else. With the salary cap it isn't always possible.

[Rustybender 0]

People often don't realize that players are an investment. It is easy to forget that teams still have to pay players when they are injured.

If I have a player making $400,000+ a month, that is a serious cost to me if that player suffers an eye injury. Even if that player is back in a week I am still out $100,000. If I can take steps to protect my investment, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to take those steps. Losing $100,000 because a player refuses to take his safety seriously is rediculous.

any new CBA should have wording to this effect:

In the event of any injury that prevents a player from playing, the player will continue to recieve wages, as long as his contract remains valid, with the following exception.

If a player suffers a facial injury above the lowest part of the nose and the player did not have an approved face shield affixed to his helmet, the player will not receive wages for any period of time missed due to that injury.

Give the players the choice of protecting themselves, but give them the financial risk of making that choice. If the player refuses to protect himself and gets injured, the player loses money, not the owner. It would be interesting to see how many players decide to wear visors if a rule like this was enacted.

[slaw 1]

I agree with Rusty. Think of the money spent on dental or stitches or anything that happens in that area that wouldn't be spent if only players would wear visors. I have played a couple games of junior and can't stand itech Visors but with the Oakley its like your not even wearing one and they're fairly comfortable. I don't see a bigt deal with the Grandfather rule. Let the older players be stubborn and they will learn. Look at Mats Sundin he wears a visor now because he almost lost his eye sight, same thing goes for Steve Yzerman they will all learn and it will take something unfourtanetly drastic such as the Bryan Berard incident for them to all wear visors.