chef_ducky 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 Couldn't find the actual picture but it is on the AHL Homepage. It is the third pic. What is the point of inforcing the rule if players are going to wear it like that http://www.theahl.com/home/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBert 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 The Marlies player, right? I thought he was wearing his helmet tilted up, but the visor looks like it's mounted on something ridiculous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGaGa 162 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 That's his way around the rule. Bates is an NHL veteran who never wore a visor...in the "A" he HAS too...so he wears it like that. It's guys who CHOOSE to wear one, and wear them like that, that annoys me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chef_ducky 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 I am in 100% aggreyance. But why enforce the rule if that is going to happen. There should be some sort of ruling as to how much of the face it has to cover. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msander 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 That would be an incredibly arbitrary and impossible standard to enforce. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBert 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 Is it a stretch to just word the rule as "mount your visor on properly"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGaGa 162 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 That would be an incredibly arbitrary and impossible standard to enforce.Not really. No different than a stick or other piece of "illegal" equipment. At a stoppage, refs looks at visors. If it isn't down in front of the face...guy is either tossed off the ice, or given a penalty - illegal equip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndTheySayChiCity 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 this guy right?it's an accessory for his forehead. :) he looks like a damn fool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pat19 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 I am in 100% aggreyance. But why enforce the rule if that is going to happen. There should be some sort of ruling as to how much of the face it has to cover.why? who cares? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdcopp 1 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 9.5 Protective Equipment - All players of both teams shall wear a helmet and clear protectivevisor of design, material and construction acceptable to theCompetition Committee at all times while participating in a game,either on the playing surface or the players’ or penalty benches. Thehelmet and visor must not be worn tilted back such that the protectivecapacity (integrity) of the visor is diminished. Improper positioning ofthe visor will result in a warning to the player with the second orsubsequent violation resulting in the player being assessed a misconduct penalty. While the choice of visor model and manufactureris left to the player, it is recommended that for optimal protection thebottom of the visor come to the tip of the nose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadioGaGa 162 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 I wonder if that is the original wording of the rule...or an add-on, after the way some guys have worn them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdcopp 1 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 it's the current rule, probably changed a few times to suit the needs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chef_ducky 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 I am in 100% aggreyance. But why enforce the rule if that is going to happen. There should be some sort of ruling as to how much of the face it has to cover.why? who cares?AHL i am assumong, hence the rule. It is not that I care, I am just making a point that a rule is not being followed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 1 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 What they really should do is put it in a player's contract that if they are injured due to improperly worn, or inadequate equipment (i.e. that visor, chin strap not tight enough) that they are entitled to no salary or insurance money. If you work on a construction site, and you're mandated to wear steel toed boots, but you wear Crocs, and you get your toes crushed, I imagine that's considered nobody's responsibility but your own. If that guy gets his eyes poked out, it's nobody's fault but his. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chef_ducky 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 That is a very good point, except that would never happen. Like said, their is no justification on how to where it, so Players could even say that that was having his face covered! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hotsauce 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2008 a linemate of mine does the same thing b/c one league requires face protection (visor/cage). i jus laugh when he gets hit in the face Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strosedefence34 175 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 i find it ironic because most of the visors these days are optically correct. I wear an oakley pro straight and when its on if it doesn't have ice or sweat on it I don't even notice it being there. So a player in the AHL who don't even have to wipe their own visor off all he has to do is throw it to the equipment manager and he is having trouble wearing one that covers their eyes. Further more someone who doesn't have to pay for them so if they get scratched all he has to do is tell equipment manager and bang new visor for game time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperMan3 1 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 Yeah, but he never wore a visor before, so its probably different for him, maybe he doesn't want anything there at all? Wearing it like that is like not wearing a visor at all, just like he used to do in the NHL, so why should they even care how they wear their equipment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hockechamp14 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 the rule is for guys like bobby ryan, not a 33 year old 6th round pick, who's already played 580 NHL games, they have no reason to care about him disobeying the rule. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viking 1 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 Yeah, but he never wore a visor before, so its probably different for himHe would have worn a full cage in minor hockey, and a visor in junior. And it's not like these things are hard to see through or something. And it's not like he wore that visor in junior either - the visors worn by junior players are, and have been for a long time about the biggest and most protective visors on the market. They're giving him the choice of what visor to wear (even though some of them, like the Oakley small straight really are not protective enough for my liking - I'm not saying everyone should look like Dany Heatley, but it would still be pretty easy to lose an eye in one of those things), and the only thing they should ask is that it actually cover his eyes.This visor rule is to protect players from their own idiocy, but it's not doing it if they can wear them like that. If you think about it logically, there is absolutely no good reason not to wear one. Hockey teams really should not be held responsible legally or financially if these idiot players willfully neglect to wear safety equipment to do their jobs. Visors were invented so players could have the option to protect their eyes and faces - the reduction of highly probable eye/facial injuries should be enough to make anyone with a brain wear one. But add on top of that that every player in the NHL has played in a major junior or other league that has mandated the use of a visor, so they've already worn one and had a chance to get comfortable with it. And then professional hockey adopts the same rule (now pretty much every hockey league on earth other than the NHL), and mandates that every player must wear one, and these guys STILL aren't smart enough to know that having to wear this thing is for their own good? If all of that has happened, and that much has been done to tell you that you need this thing, and you still don't get it, I don't know how anyone can help you more than that. If you do that, and you lose your eyes, your health, and your livelihood, you got nothing less than you deserved, because everyone who could did everything possible to protect you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettlynch11 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 The fact of the matter is that it should be players preference. There is no way someone should be forced to wear something like that when they hadn't their whole career. It's just like with the first and third base coaches in baseball now having to wear helmets. If they don't want to be protected, they shouldn't have to be. It seems like pro sports are way overconcened with injuries anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chef_ducky 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 The fact of the matter is that it should be players preference. There is no way someone should be forced to wear something like that when they hadn't their whole career. It's just like with the first and third base coaches in baseball now having to wear helmets. If they don't want to be protected, they shouldn't have to be. It seems like pro sports are way overconcened with injuries anymore.Then MacTavish would still not be wearing a helmet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kosydar 0 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 Behind the bench? Mandatory equipment rules are retarded. If someone doesn't want to wear something (including a helmet), its his own fault if he gets hurt. So long as the league isn't liable, there shouldn't be any problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DavidT 11 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 That's how I wear my visor in our roller hockey house league since for whatever reason they make us wear them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chippa13 1844 Report post Posted April 30, 2008 Looks like Crosby and Ovechkin have trouble playing with visors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites