AHL Visor Rule

[brettlynch11 0]

It wont hinder your play, and pretty much any hockey player should be able to get used to it, but what I am saying is that they shouldn't.

[SuperMan3 1]

If they enforce the rule in one league, they should enforce it in every league.

[chef_ducky 0]

What about in no leagues. The ECHL doesn;t inforce it, do they?

[strosedefence34 175]

i agree with brettlynch11. They shouldn't force players to wear it or they should do something like when they first instated the helmet rule in the NHL. If you join the AHL/NHL after a certain year you have to wear one. This way any players who played in the NHL and are sent down don't have to wear one or any guys who have been in the AHL a number of years.

[D-MaN88 0]

Not that it really matters considering the new IHL is a joke, but they are all required to wear a half shield and everyone of the guys wears it exactly like that.

I'm in the same camp that agrees, mandatory equipment rules are stupid.

[Neal 41]

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.

Its that last sentence that is the sticking point. Who is liable for something is getting harder and harder to define these days. If Bates loses his vision because he is not wearing a visor, is the league liable? I think there are 2 key questions that need to be answered before you can say the league was liable:

Did the league know of the risk?

Did the league do everything they could to address the risk?

There is no question that the league knew there was a risk because players have lost their vision previously. Did the league address the risk? No, because players are adults and should have the choice to face that risk how they choose.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable answer, but could a good lawyer convince a jury that the league didn't do everything they should have to protect Bates? Definitely. And even if you win the appeal, defending against those lawsuits isn't cheap and it might just be easier to convince the players to start wearing visors.

[Chadd 916]

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.

If a team signs a player, they expect them to be available. If a guy gets an injury and misses time it can impact a strech drive or a playoff run for the other players and the franchise.

[Leafsrok 0]

if rules like this are going to work, they have to do what the NHL did with helmets and "grandfather" them in. this shouldnt be too big of a deal since kids coming out of Junior/AHL have to wear visors anyways.

[FCHC53 0]

I think the point is to establish the rule at lower levels of play as I tend to think one day in the not extremely distant future the half shield will be required in the NHL.

[brettlynch11 0]

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.

If a team signs a player, they expect them to be available. If a guy gets an injury and misses time it can impact a strech drive or a playoff run for the other players and the franchise.

If that is the case, why not make them wear full cages, neck guards, mouth guards, and wrist protection as well?

[phomp 0]

I went to the marlies game today and noticed a few marlies were doing it.. lol not just bates.. it looks funny

[hockechamp14 0]

Not that it really matters considering the new IHL is a joke, but they are all required to wear a half shield and everyone of the guys wears it exactly like that.

I think that's exactly the reason that itech half shield is the official one for the CHL, otherwise you'd have 16 year olds across canada wearing their visors like that.

[chef_ducky 0]

That is a good point. In Jr.B you don't have to wear the Itech ones that connect to the Helmets!

I thought they all just used those because they got them for free

[cbj05 0]

I think that's exactly the reason that itech half shield is the official one for the CHL, otherwise you'd have 16 year olds across canada wearing their visors like that.

Yeah, but then you still have lots of guys who will tilt the helmet as far up on their forehead as they can.

[slaw 1]

chef_ducky, I think you could be wrong on that one. I'm 90% sure that all Junior leagues in Canada are mandated (if permitted to wear visors) to have the Itech ones. When I played, lat year, I remember a guy in preseason had a little oakley straight cut and they made him get rid of it not because he could tilt it but because a stick could slide through the slit between his helmet and his visor.

We could make the same argument for any sport as someone said earlier, the base coaches in Ball have to wear helmets now BUT, if they didn't want to I think it should be there choice. Same with the visor, if you've got a guy who doesen't want to wear one its really his choice.

Perfect example of a kid coming straight out of JR wearing one and going right into the show is Milan Lucic, he doesen't wear one and he has been for the past how ever many years he played JR. He was as good with one as he is without one

[RadioGaGa 162]

A little off topic, but fitting for this thread...according to CBC last night, John Stevens (who's career was ended by an eye injury) has told Braydan Colburn that when he returns, and for as long as Stevens is his coach, he WILL wear a visor.

[Leafsrok 0]

Honestly should we even make a deal about this though?

I agree players should be able to wear whatever they want (protection wise and other), they just have to know that if anything happens, its their own fault.

But even if this rule is instigated, the quality of play isn't going to go down, these guys are legitimate amazing hockey pllayers no matter what they wear on their face.

[chippa13 1844]

That is all well and good, but what if a guy has a career ending injury that could have been prevented. All of a sudden the team that maybe spent a high draft pick, traded away assets, spent years grooming a player, or spent cap dollars that could have gone elsewhere is without a player.

[chef_ducky 0]

chef_ducky, I think you could be wrong on that one. I'm 90% sure that all Junior leagues in Canada are mandated (if permitted to wear visors) to have the Itech ones. When I played, lat year, I remember a guy in preseason had a little oakley straight cut and they made him get rid of it not because he could tilt it but because a stick could slide through the slit between his helmet and his visor.

We could make the same argument for any sport as someone said earlier, the base coaches in Ball have to wear helmets now BUT, if they didn't want to I think it should be there choice. Same with the visor, if you've got a guy who doesen't want to wear one its really his choice.

Perfect example of a kid coming straight out of JR wearing one and going right into the show is Milan Lucic, he doesen't wear one and he has been for the past how ever many years he played JR. He was as good with one as he is without one

The LHS manager in my town is also the Equip. Mgr for the Junior B team and he said it is not mandatory

[Rylake 0]

The reason most players wear the Itech visors in junior is that the visor has to be CSA approved. That takes out alot of visors that don't have three points of contact on the helmet (sides, front).

It was mandatory for us to wear them, but now there are a couple of "outlaw" jr leagues and they aren't as picky with the approvals.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

If you ask me the players should have to wear whatever the team says they have to wear. They are under contract to the team. As Chippa said that is the teams asset, money, etc. They basically own the player. Play the way the team says or don't get paid. Thats what a contract is for.

[chef_ducky 0]

If you ask me the players should have to wear whatever the team says they have to wear. They are under contract to the team. As Chippa said that is the teams asset, money, etc. They basically own the player. Play the way the team says or don't get paid. Thats what a contract is for.

I 100% agree with that statement. The AHL is going to realize this rules loop holes and make more stupid rules!