Another interesting read...

[mrusse01 0]

You cant say that you dont mind a broken nose, but cant play with an eye injury, and think a half shield will fully protect you. My point is that using a half shield does not truly protect your eyes. The greater risk (eye injury) is not being acknowledged.....it is being ignored. I thought my point was crystal clear.

He's not ignoring the risk, he just doesn't think it is relevant. Of course everybody that wears a visor realizes they may suffer a bad eye injury.

There is a risk that when I cross the street I might get hit by a bus...but my mind can rationalize that I'm really not likely at all to be hit by a bus, and although it would be devestating if I did (I'd be dead), I kinda of need to get where I'm going, so I cross the street.

I wear a half visor because I prefer it to wearing a cage in terms of visibility...I think almost everybody would agree. Obviously the downside to that is there is a very small chance that I might suffer a terrible injury, and a somewhat larger chance that I'll suffer a moderate injury. I'm aware of these risks, I just don't think they outweigh the certain benefits that putting a visor on provides me. You can disagree with that decision all you like, but I'm not ignoring anything.

[pantherfan 0]

Why does beauregard wear the full visor?

He lost an eye in juniors from a highstick on a breakaway, still managed to score though.

Guess he's just not got much faith that lightning doesn't strike twice, eh.

[eric42434224 1]

You think a possible eye injury isnt relevant? This couldnt illustrate my point any better.

Not saying what you are doing is "wrong". I only submitted this point to show how one can rationalize wearing no shield, or a half shield, where the debateable positives are far outweighed by the possible negatives. It is done all the time in everyday situations like you said. Like driving a car.....we take the risk of getting in an accident everyday...but I do everything within my control to lessen the chances. I wear my seatbelt, drive defensively, and dont drink, etc. Just like with facial protection in hockey, I do what ever possible to protect my eyes. But I still have some risk in many ways. Just like skydiving....I dont fault anyone for trying it....I only bring up the point of someone rationalizing the risks. Just be honest with yourself about the risks, and perhaps your choices will change....perhaps not. By saying the risk isnt relevant exactly proves my point of using rationalization and/or denial. I am not trying to comment on wether any one individual should or should not wear one. An individuals choice is their right......just dont rationalize it to everyone else using faulty logic.

I dont think my participation in this topic with be of any further benefit, if it even has yet, so I will bow out. Happy Holidays!

[Rustpot 1]

eric, it sounds like you don't think visors provide any protection at all. I think the visor guys are trying to say that wearing a visor signifcantly reduces chance of eye injury compared to a naked face, and the small risk associated for the eyes only is acceptable to them.

[eric42434224 1]

eric, it sounds like you don't think visors provide any protection at all. I think the visor guys are trying to say that wearing a visor signifcantly reduces chance of eye injury compared to a naked face, and the small risk associated for the eyes only is acceptable to them.

I totally agree that a visor can and does mitigate the possibility of an eye injury.....but it doesnt eliminate it.

The above poster wrote:

"I'll likely find the smallest visor I can find and bring it down just low enough to cover my eyes - I've found that I can deal with a broken nose, but it's going to be difficult to play hockey with one eye."

This guy not only wears a half shield, but wears the smallest one possible to cover his eyes. This may protect him from a straight on shot, but leaves him extremely vunerable from objects that come from below...which seems to be where the majority of objects come from....like errant high sticks and deflected pucks. I agree the risk is diminished, but his statement talks about the possibility of an eye injury as if it has been eliminated.

Again, everyone has a right to their choice, but I also think that most people who wear shields rationalize, or are in denial to the real risks, thats all Im saying.

And the above quote supports that.

[mrusse01 0]

You think a possible eye injury isnt relevant? This couldnt illustrate my point any better.

Not saying what you are doing is "wrong". I only submitted this point to show how one can rationalize wearing no shield, or a half shield, where the debateable positives are far outweighed by the possible negatives. It is done all the time in everyday situations like you said. Like driving a car.....we take the risk of getting in an accident everyday...but I do everything within my control to lessen the chances. I wear my seatbelt, drive defensively, and dont drink, etc. Just like with facial protection in hockey, I do what ever possible to protect my eyes. But I still have some risk in many ways. Just like skydiving....I dont fault anyone for trying it....I only bring up the point of someone rationalizing the risks. Just be honest with yourself about the risks, and perhaps your choices will change....perhaps not. By saying the risk isnt relevant exactly proves my point of using rationalization and/or denial. I am not trying to comment on wether any one individual should or should not wear one. An individuals choice is their right......just dont rationalize it to everyone else using faulty logic.

I dont think my participation in this topic with be of any further benefit, if it even has yet, so I will bow out. Happy Holidays!

The risk of serious eye injury isn't relevant. The odds of it happening are too small....or at least that's what everybody who wears a visor thinks, or else they wouldn't do it.

And you don't do everything to prevent the risk of getting in a car accident, or else you would never get in a car.

Most people don't understand risk or uncertainty very well. It's like say I know for certain there is a 99% chance a stock will go up tomorrow, and a 1% chance it will go down. Would you buy or sell that stock today? Most people would say obviously you should buy it.

But the correct answer is you still don't know. There could be a 1% chance it goes down 100% or a 99% chance it goes up 0.001%, if i told you that does it still make sense to buy? Of course not.

It is the same principle with wearing a visor, or doing anything risky in life. It is up to each person to decide if a very very small chance of something very very bad happening is enough for them to alter whatever they are doing. I personally decide that in the case of visors, I'd rather take the certain chance of a small good (better play) over the very remote chance of something very bad (lose an eye). If you happen to disagree, that's fine, but please don't call my choice illogical or delusional.

[eric42434224 1]

You think a possible eye injury isnt relevant? This couldnt illustrate my point any better.

Not saying what you are doing is "wrong". I only submitted this point to show how one can rationalize wearing no shield, or a half shield, where the debateable positives are far outweighed by the possible negatives. It is done all the time in everyday situations like you said. Like driving a car.....we take the risk of getting in an accident everyday...but I do everything within my control to lessen the chances. I wear my seatbelt, drive defensively, and dont drink, etc. Just like with facial protection in hockey, I do what ever possible to protect my eyes. But I still have some risk in many ways. Just like skydiving....I dont fault anyone for trying it....I only bring up the point of someone rationalizing the risks. Just be honest with yourself about the risks, and perhaps your choices will change....perhaps not. By saying the risk isnt relevant exactly proves my point of using rationalization and/or denial. I am not trying to comment on wether any one individual should or should not wear one. An individuals choice is their right......just dont rationalize it to everyone else using faulty logic.

I dont think my participation in this topic with be of any further benefit, if it even has yet, so I will bow out. Happy Holidays!

The risk of serious eye injury isn't relevant. The odds of it happening are too small....or at least that's what everybody who wears a visor thinks, or else they wouldn't do it.

And you don't do everything to prevent the risk of getting in a car accident, or else you would never get in a car.

Most people don't understand risk or uncertainty very well. It's like say I know for certain there is a 99% chance a stock will go up tomorrow, and a 1% chance it will go down. Would you buy or sell that stock today? Most people would say obviously you should buy it.

But the correct answer is you still don't know. There could be a 1% chance it goes down 100% or a 99% chance it goes up 0.001%, if i told you that does it still make sense to buy? Of course not.

It is the same principle with wearing a visor, or doing anything risky in life. It is up to each person to decide if a very very small chance of something very very bad happening is enough for them to alter whatever they are doing. I personally decide that in the case of visors, I'd rather take the certain chance of a small good (better play) over the very remote chance of something very bad (lose an eye). If you happen to disagree, that's fine, but please don't call my choice illogical or delusional.

You and I agree more than you think. I fully agree with someones informed choice. You obviously are aware of the dangers and have made an informed decision. My point was that many dont. They rationalize the risk, or are in denial. I know the risks of getting in a car accident....but I do ALL the things that are reasonable to mitigate the danger, like wearing a seatbelt. The half shield is the same thing. If you want to eliminate the risks completely, you dont drive, and you dont play hockey. But I choose to do all the things I can to mitigate danger while still performing the activity.

Not wearing a cage is like driving without a seatbelt. You may drive your whole life without using one, and never get hurt....but you were at higher risk the whole time.

Some people dont wear a seatbelt because it wrinkles their clothes. But it increases chances of injury, and that is a fact. But the chance of getting in an accident on any given day is statistically low. Not wearing a seatbelt for any reason is a poor one when compared to the possible negative ramifications. But that is an individuals choice.

The logic for a half shield is similar. It increases my vision (a debateable positive for a beer league), and the chance for eye injury is decreased and not as likely. You are making an informed decision, and that is cool....but others seem to have this denial complex that the eye risk has been eliminated. Not saying anyone inparticular here is like that, but many, many are.

The risk of an eye injury IS relevant. But by rationalizing it as being a small risk is exactly what I am talking about. I seriously debated using a half shield, but I just couldnt get past the "what if". The bad "what if" is far outweighed by any percieved positives gained. Again....my opinion and choice. I have never told anyone they were "wrong" for wearing a shield. But I have corrected people who said their eyes were safe with a half shield. We are adults and have the right to make a choice. Just know and accept the risks....dont ignore or deny them, right?

;)

[phunky_monkey 6]

Wow. I've been clipped on my cage way too many times in minor hockey to consider a half shield or no shield. I don't really see myself ever changing that. Hope his son ends up alright.

I agree, no later than last night I stepped up to block a shot, the puck hit my stick and then up and hit me right on the cage.

I was hit in the mouth by a puck last game in a similar situation. Glad I was wearing a mouthguard or I may have a few less teeth right now.

I find shot blocking and goalie screening the two things that are affected by wearing a visor. You have to think about it a bit more instead of just going gung ho and diving at a slap shot etc

Things like that make you think (especially as this is the first year I've worn a visor , obviously wore a cage in juniors as is the mandate here and have had a few years off). But I know the risks involves, and choose to wear a large-ish visor and a mouthguard to reduce risk. I'd never play bare-faced, or without a cup on, so it's a calculated risk we take and have to accept the consequences of our choices.

[fatwabbit 93]

same sentiments as phunky... I wear a cup and cage, so when i block shots i dont have think twice.

[LkptTiger 1]

The above poster wrote:

"I'll likely find the smallest visor I can find and bring it down just low enough to cover my eyes - I've found that I can deal with a broken nose, but it's going to be difficult to play hockey with one eye."

This guy not only wears a half shield, but wears the smallest one possible to cover his eyes. This may protect him from a straight on shot, but leaves him extremely vunerable from objects that come from below...which seems to be where the majority of objects come from....like errant high sticks and deflected pucks. I agree the risk is diminished, but his statement talks about the possibility of an eye injury as if it has been eliminated.

Again, everyone has a right to their choice, but I also think that most people who wear shields rationalize, or are in denial to the real risks, thats all Im saying.

And the above quote supports that.

Fourth grade must have been a bitch for you, eh? Reading comprehension doesn't quite seem to be your thing. My AP English teacher would have had a field day with you - she's quite the stickler for number agreement and consistancy of past/present/future tenses. You fall short in the latter of these two areas (among others).

If you had read my initial post, you would read that I am currently playing Junior hockey. It should probably then be concluded that I am either currently required to wear either: 1) full facial protection, or 2) a certified halfer (like, for example, the Itech DX 100 - which, indeed, I do wear....and it comes down to about the tip of my nose).

"I'll" is a contraction of the self-addressing "I" and the word "will," which is usually indicative of an action which will take place in the future. So when I say "I'll likely find the smallest visor I can...," you should probably be left with the idea that I have not yet done so, but have such plans at some point later on in my lifetime. Thus, you are premature in your "accusation" that "This guy not only wears a half shield, but wears the smallest one possible to cover his eyes." (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - you're premature! *sorry; I'm young yet, so obviously the word "premature" brings me to thoughts of other, more private ways that you might be as such*).

Ultimately, I'm just fucking shocked that I have to break this part down for you - I'll type real loud and slow so you can understand, k?

IIIIIIIffff IIIIIIIIII tttaaaaaaalllllllkkk aaabooooooouuuut ttthhhheeeeeee ppppooooossssiiiibbbiiiilllliiiittttyyy ooooooffff lllllooooosssiiiinnnnng (aaaaaaaannnnn) eeeeeeyyyyyyyeeeee(sssssiiiiiggggghhhhtttt), ttthhhhhheeeeeennnn iiiiiiiiitttttt ccccaaaaaaannnnn'tttt bbbbbeeeee aaaaarrrrrggggguuuuueeeeedddd ttthhhhhhaaaaatttt IIIII aaaaaammmmm iiiiiiinnnnn ddddeeeeennnniiiiiaaaaalll rrrrreeeeegggggaaaaarrrrddddiiiinnnggg ttttthhhhhhaaaaaattt rrrrriiiiiiiisssskkkkk.

For those of you who don't need me to walk you step-by-step through elementary logic, what I just said was "If I talk about the possibility of losing (an) eye(sight), then it can't be argued that I am in denial regarding that risk." I addressed the fact that there is a possibility that I could lose either my eyesight or an eyeball....how the FUCK can you then argue that I'm in denial of that very risk?

I close: "You're a moron."

[BuffaloKing 0]

Fourth grade must have been a bitch for you, eh? Reading comprehension doesn't quite seem to be your thing. My AP English teacher would have had a field day with you - she's quite the stickler for number agreement and consistancy of past/present/future tenses. You fall short in the latter of these two areas (among others).

If you had read my initial post, you would read that I am currently playing Junior hockey. It should probably then be concluded that I am either currently required to wear either: 1) full facial protection, or 2) a certified halfer (like, for example, the Itech DX 100 - which, indeed, I do wear....and it comes down to about the tip of my nose).

"I'll" is a contraction of the self-addressing "I" and the word "will," which is usually indicative of an action which will take place in the future. So when I say "I'll likely find the smallest visor I can...," you should probably be left with the idea that I have not yet done so, but have such plans at some point later on in my lifetime. Thus, you are premature in your "accusation" that "This guy not only wears a half shield, but wears the smallest one possible to cover his eyes." (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - you're premature! *sorry; I'm young yet, so obviously the word "premature" brings me to thoughts of other, more private ways that you might be as such*).

Ultimately, I'm just fucking shocked that I have to break this part down for you - I'll type real loud and slow so you can understand, k?

IIIIIIIffff IIIIIIIIII tttaaaaaaalllllllkkk aaabooooooouuuut ttthhhheeeeeee ppppooooossssiiiibbbiiiilllliiiittttyyy ooooooffff lllllooooosssiiiinnnnng (aaaaaaaannnnn) eeeeeeyyyyyyyeeeee(sssssiiiiiggggghhhhtttt), ttthhhhhheeeeeennnn iiiiiiiiitttttt ccccaaaaaaannnnn'tttt bbbbbeeeee aaaaarrrrrggggguuuuueeeeedddd ttthhhhhhaaaaatttt IIIII aaaaaammmmm iiiiiiinnnnn ddddeeeeennnniiiiiaaaaalll rrrrreeeeegggggaaaaarrrrddddiiiinnnggg ttttthhhhhhaaaaaattt rrrrriiiiiiiisssskkkkk.

For those of you who don't need me to walk you step-by-step through elementary logic, what I just said was "If I talk about the possibility of losing (an) eye(sight), then it can't be argued that I am in denial regarding that risk." I addressed the fact that there is a possibility that I could lose either my eyesight or an eyeball....how the FUCK can you then argue that I'm in denial of that very risk?

I close: "You're a moron."

Perchance you would send this to your AP English teacher for her to grade the effectiveness of your response?

You are young yet and haven't acquired sound judgement.

[LkptTiger 1]

Jugement has since gone out the window. At this point, I'm more concerned about the logic of "this guy's" argument.

[M.W. 0]

Why does beauregard wear the full visor?

He lost an eye in juniors from a highstick on a breakaway, still managed to score though.

Guess he's just not got much faith that lightning doesn't strike twice, eh.

Actually, in his rookie season in the QMJHL he took a highstick under his visor, which scratched the cornea of his left eye, which was the same one that got injured later on. Him losing his vision in the eye was lightning striking twice.

[eric42434224 1]

Jugement has since gone out the window. At this point, I'm more concerned about the logic of "this guy's" argument.

Your real concern should be your obvious lack of self-control, and your completely inappropriate response levels. Seriously, you need to get back on your Ritalin.

[eric42434224 1]

The above poster wrote:

"I'll likely find the smallest visor I can find and bring it down just low enough to cover my eyes - I've found that I can deal with a broken nose, but it's going to be difficult to play hockey with one eye."

This guy not only wears a half shield, but wears the smallest one possible to cover his eyes. This may protect him from a straight on shot, but leaves him extremely vunerable from objects that come from below...which seems to be where the majority of objects come from....like errant high sticks and deflected pucks. I agree the risk is diminished, but his statement talks about the possibility of an eye injury as if it has been eliminated.

Again, everyone has a right to their choice, but I also think that most people who wear shields rationalize, or are in denial to the real risks, thats all Im saying.

And the above quote supports that.

Fourth grade must have been a bitch for you, eh? Reading comprehension doesn't quite seem to be your thing. My AP English teacher would have had a field day with you - she's quite the stickler for number agreement and consistancy of past/present/future tenses. You fall short in the latter of these two areas (among others).

If you had read my initial post, you would read that I am currently playing Junior hockey. It should probably then be concluded that I am either currently required to wear either: 1) full facial protection, or 2) a certified halfer (like, for example, the Itech DX 100 - which, indeed, I do wear....and it comes down to about the tip of my nose).

"I'll" is a contraction of the self-addressing "I" and the word "will," which is usually indicative of an action which will take place in the future. So when I say "I'll likely find the smallest visor I can...," you should probably be left with the idea that I have not yet done so, but have such plans at some point later on in my lifetime. Thus, you are premature in your "accusation" that "This guy not only wears a half shield, but wears the smallest one possible to cover his eyes." (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - you're premature! *sorry; I'm young yet, so obviously the word "premature" brings me to thoughts of other, more private ways that you might be as such*).

Ultimately, I'm just fucking shocked that I have to break this part down for you - I'll type real loud and slow so you can understand, k?

IIIIIIIffff IIIIIIIIII tttaaaaaaalllllllkkk aaabooooooouuuut ttthhhheeeeeee ppppooooossssiiiibbbiiiilllliiiittttyyy ooooooffff lllllooooosssiiiinnnnng (aaaaaaaannnnn) eeeeeeyyyyyyyeeeee(sssssiiiiiggggghhhhtttt), ttthhhhhheeeeeennnn iiiiiiiiitttttt ccccaaaaaaannnnn'tttt bbbbbeeeee aaaaarrrrrggggguuuuueeeeedddd ttthhhhhhaaaaatttt IIIII aaaaaammmmm iiiiiiinnnnn ddddeeeeennnniiiiiaaaaalll rrrrreeeeegggggaaaaarrrrddddiiiinnnggg ttttthhhhhhaaaaaattt rrrrriiiiiiiisssskkkkk.

For those of you who don't need me to walk you step-by-step through elementary logic, what I just said was "If I talk about the possibility of losing (an) eye(sight), then it can't be argued that I am in denial regarding that risk." I addressed the fact that there is a possibility that I could lose either my eyesight or an eyeball....how the FUCK can you then argue that I'm in denial of that very risk?

I close: "You're a moron."

You dont need to actually perform the action to be in denial of a risk. You can be in denial of a risk just as much if you are planning to perform an activity in such a way that the risk will not be reduced to the amount you assume.

Example:

I go skydiving, but only pack one chute...no back up...using the reasoning that the chances of something going wrong with my chute are very low. I am performing the said activity and am making a decision with little upside and huge downside, essentially rationalizing the risk, or outright in denial of it.

Now if I talk to someone about the fact that I am going to go skydiving and not pack a back up chute....for the same exact reasons stated above....you are most certainly still treating the potential risk in the same exact manner.

In short, I reiterate: The denial or rationalization of a specific risk is not dependent of the action actually being performed or not. Ergo, if you plan on wearing a shield (and only one that just barely covers the eyes), and assume that you now will only have to worry about a broken nose and not an eye injury, you are still very much in denial, or rationalizing your risk. You dont have to actually perform the activity of wearing the shield for the risk denial to occur.

I close: "Class dismissed". And I dont think you are a moron. I just think you answer too quickly, too defensively, and with too much anger. Name calling only hurts your credibility in an intelligent debate.

[LkptTiger 1]

Jugement has since gone out the window. At this point, I'm more concerned about the logic of "this guy's" argument.

Your real concern should be your obvious lack of self-control, and your completely inappropriate response levels. Seriously, you need to get back on your Ritalin.

If there is one thing I've learned while playing this game, it's that I'm not big enough to lack self-control.

As per dictionary.com:

Denial: –noun

1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges.

2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.

3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.

4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it.

5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal

6. Law. refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary's plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial.

7. sacrifice of one's own wants or needs; self-denial.

8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

Once a risk is acknowledged (a risk like, say, taking a stick to the eye...the one that I addressed in my very first post), you can't argue that there is a denial of that risk. That's just the way it works. Whether or not I can or can't take a stick or puck or whatever up in my eyes while wearing a visor (either like the one I wear now or like, for example, an Oakley small-straight cut) is not relevant to this argument. Is there a risk? Sure. Is it substantially lower with a visor in place? Yep.

Not that it matters, I get the impression that you think I believe I can throw a visor on and not have to worry about anything - that maybe it's like a force-field or something. I've played and watched enough hockey to know that, ultimately, it doesn't matter how much gear you're wearing - you can always get hurt. The visor doesn't give anyone special "super-human powers" (unless your name is Kirk Maltby or Patrick Kaleta).

If I wear a visor of any length (either down to the bridge of my nose or down to my lips), there is that chance I could get poked in the peepers. I never said that wasn't possible. However, it's much more likely I'm gonna get blasted in the beak.

[eric42434224 1]

That response was much more controlled, with less anger. Much better.

Also, you have further elaborated on your position, and that makes things clearer.

However, before this most recent response, all one has to go on is what you previously stated:

"I'll likely find the smallest visor I can find and bring it down just low enough to cover my eyes - I've found that I can deal with a broken nose, but it's going to be difficult to play hockey with one eye."

One can easily, and quite reasonably, infer that your shield cant stop a broken nose, but can prevent any eye injury....as evidenced by how you say you can play with a broken nose, but not an eye injury. I think that almost anyone reading that would come to the same conclusion. And with that conclusion, you would be in denial of the risk.

All you had to do was expound on the original quoted statement, and make it clear that you meant to say that the risk of eye injury was reduced, but not eliminated. With that, the previous diatribes would have never happened.

I myself am guilty of not getting my point accross as fully and completely....and accurately for that matter....as I would like. But that is the internet for you.

A moron I am not....at least not in this instance. And please disregard the Ritalin comment.

Have a good day, and Happy Holiday.

[LkptTiger 1]

However, before this most recent response, all one has to go on is what you previously stated:

"I'll likely find the smallest visor I can find and bring it down just low enough to cover my eyes - I've found that I can deal with a broken nose, but it's going to be difficult to play hockey with one eye."

One can easily, and quite reasonably, infer that your shield cant stop a broken nose, but can prevent any eye injury....as evidenced by how you say you can play with a broken nose, but not an eye injury. I think that almost anyone reading that would come to the same conclusion.

That's the nature of the game we play and the equipment we wear. Hockey, in and of itself, is one big risk. My hockey gloves help prevent injury to my hands, but I've still broken bones in my hands. My shoulder pads protect my chest, but I've cracked ribs. When I wore a cage, it covered my face, but that didn't keep me from getting opened-up on probably more than a dozen occasions (sometimes BECAUSE of the cage).

Most of us have been around the game long enough to know that there is no way to make yourself completely impervious to injury. All you can do is take as many precautions without letting the gear get in your way...then hope for the best. As I've grown-up, I've realized that I can be comfortable on the ice while being relatively vulnerable - it's a gift and a curse. I know that sticks and pucks and shoulders and elbows can (and do) hurt me...but, for some reason (Ego? Stupidity? I'm not sure), the thought of getting hurt never enters my mind once I'm on the ice. Being scared isn't going to win my team hockey games. Whether my mentality changes once I'm out of competitive hockey and into beer leagues remains to be seen - but I just don't see it happening; over the course of my pseudo-career, I've been hard-wired to avoid worrying about injury.