Marc Staal takes a puck to the face

[jsykes 35]

The Rangers require that their players have extra padding on the back of their gloves. If they can do that, I dont know why another owner cant mandate a shield. After all, they're investing millions into these players. If a player gets hurt in action, they still get paid and if they cant play, what is the team getting for their millions of dollars. Not to mention, the cost of all the medical bills on top of it.

I dont see how the PA can argue against that and if the Rangers can mandate a piece of equipment, why cant others.

As said, all new players come from wearing a shield, it seems like a simple thing to just mandate that those players coming in cannot take them off and soon all will be wearing them.

[chippa13 1844]

Guys who get chirped in beer leagues for wearing cages are the ones who stir up shit or play completely reckless. 99% of the guys in my beer league who wear cages don't hear a word about it. Mini-rant over, now back to mandatory visors.

The PA says they educate players on the benefits of wearing visors every offseason and says they will take a stronger approach this summer, along with discussions about uniforms with the powers that be. That was reported last night or the night before on NHL Network and I think the willingness to have the discussion could mean they are softening on the player choice aspect.

[chk hrd 164]

Required equipment should have nothing to do with the NHLPA. The NHL rules say you need a helmet, shin pads, elbow pads and dictates the type of skate blade that needs to be worn. Put it in the rules books, tell the PA to stick it and if players don't want to wear a visor they can play somewhere else...which would be no where since everyone but the NHL requires visors. If a player gets injured it is the owners who are out money. They invested alot in each player and have to pay them even if they are injured. What financial responsibility does the PA have; none as usual.

In the US OSHA says that I have to wear a hard hat and protective glasses on a construction site, regardless if I am walking around inspecting the project or doing actual work. I may not like it but I have no choice.

[pizzakid13 5]

Any dipshit that tries to belittle a guy for wearing a cage/shield is a total moron. If I didn't wear a cage, I wouldn't have a face.

[Chadd 916]

Guys who get chirped in beer leagues for wearing cages are the ones who stir up shit or play completely reckless. 99% of the guys in my beer league who wear cages don't hear a word about it.

Only time I ever said a word to a guy about a cage was when he butted me in the face with it after the whistle.

[strosedefence34 175]

Guys who get chirped in beer leagues for wearing cages are the ones who stir up shit or play completely reckless. 99% of the guys in my beer league who wear cages don't hear a word about it. Mini-rant over, now back to mandatory visors.

The PA says they educate players on the benefits of wearing visors every offseason and says they will take a stronger approach this summer, along with discussions about uniforms with the powers that be. That was reported last night or the night before on NHL Network and I think the willingness to have the discussion could mean they are softening on the player choice aspect.

Only time I ever said a word to a guy about a cage was when he butted me in the face with it after the whistle.

Its funny I have to some what agree with chippa and chadd. I wear a full cage in my beer league I also don't run around starting with people. We have this one team full of goons that no one in the league wants to play against. The players on the team that wear the full cages are the dirtiest ones.

Mandating visors: the players know the risk of what can happen when they play the game. Its a terrible thing to happen, but I still think it should be players choice and if anything maybe up the to owners to make that rule for their club. Not the NHL or Players Association.

[moteef17 7]

Its funny I have to some what agree with chippa and chadd. I wear a full cage in my beer league I also don't run around starting with people. We have this one team full of goons that no one in the league wants to play against. The players on the team that wear the full cages are the dirtiest ones.

Mandating visors: the players know the risk of what can happen when they play the game. Its a terrible thing to happen, but I still think it should be players choice and if anything maybe up the to owners to make that rule for their club. Not the NHL or Players Association.

Regarding cages and beer leagues.....I play weekly with a group of about 25 guys, and we all know each other. A few brothers and cousins like to rough it up with each other, but they know better than to go after other players who want zero contact. We require cages for ALL of our guys (no matter how much experience they have), and when friends who are true 'A' leaguers want to jump into a game, we require that they also put a full cage on. Why? 1st game last season, an 'A' leaguer wanted to play with us, no problem. He toned his game down to make it fun for the beer guys, but he also went cage and visor free. A beer leaguer deflected a shot up off the ice, simply because his stick in the wrong position, and it hit the 'A' leaguer right in the mouth. He lost 2 teeth, a good amount of blood and is still paying off his dental bills. What a waste.

The night after Staal took the puck to the eye socket, I let a snapshot go, and they who was trying to square up to block it left his stick down on the ice in front of him. My shot was probably an inch off the ice, deflected off his stick blade and made direct contact with his throat. Nothing to do with the 'cage' per se, but just goes to show that the beer league can be a bit of a circus with the odd-ball things happening EVERY game.

Last night an NHL player appears to have been saved by his visor twice in about 2 seconds. First a high stick came accross his face and then a play was upended and his skate edge appears to have slashed directly accross the visor at eye level. That could have been awful.

[dsjunior1388 81]

I've only been "chirped" once about wearing a cage, and when I replied "If I had a face like that I wouldn't bother to protect it either," he didn't have a response.

I'm coming more to the side of leaving the option to the players after reading this thread. First off, as was stated, over 70% of guys are wearing them anyway, thats a substantial majority. Secondly, you are seeing more and more old timers, like Lecavalier, St. Louis and Lidstrom, put visors on and keep them on after years without. When the old guard comes around, it has a big impact on the young players who don't wear one. It seems in a few years the only guys who won't be wearing one are low-minute fighters with an machismo high on their agenda. I say let them, they have all the information they could need at their disposal, the decision is informed.

What I could see is it being an important part of future contracts, where teams want a clause dictating that a player will wear a visor. If I'm re-upping a Staal brother, I might set up a bonus if they wear a visor for X amount of games, trying to get them to protect themselves and stay on the ice.

[IPv6Freely 2094]

I still haven't yet heard a good argument against grandfathering it in.

[dsjunior1388 81]

Appears Orpik was all talk, as he still hasn't been seen in a visor. Both Jordan and Eric continued to play without visors as well.

[Trooper 8]

I would think if the insurance companies step in it will come to fruition a little bit faster, but until their calculations show it makes sense that won't happen.

[psh 25]

I'd like to see the owners come together and make a statement to the players to the effect: "We are making tremendous investments in you, the fans are buying tickets because they want to see you, and you will live many years and do many things that you'll want to see after your playing career. Consequently, it is in your best interest, our best interest, and the fans' best interest that you protect your eyes."

It's not a complicated argument.

[RadioGaGa 162]

Refresh my memory. Are players responsible for any of their own insurance...or is that something the team takes care of.?

What if insurance companies just started refusing to insure a player who doesn't wear a visor? Or, are they even legally allowed to deny insurance on those grounds?

[MyBoxersSayJoe 133]

Personally, I'm for grandfathering it in.

[Jason Harris 31]

I'd like to see the owners come together and make a statement to the players to the effect: "We are making tremendous investments in you, the fans are buying tickets because they want to see you, and you will live many years and do many things that you'll want to see after your playing career. Consequently, it is in your best interest, our best interest, and the fans' best interest that you protect your eyes."

It's not a complicated argument.

While I agree with you, they obviously had the opportunity to discuss this during the lockout, so it doesn't appear any conversations went too far.

[iceman8310 106]

Do some teams now require their players to wear visors? seems like most of the lightning are now wearing visors

[RadioGaGa 162]

Well, if only "most" and not all of the players wear them...there obviously isn't a team mandate.

Teams/Owners can't make players do anything that hasn't been collectively bargained for and agreed on. I can assume the reason the Oilers can helmets mandatory during warmup is becasue helmets are already mandatory equipment during games.

Other equipment can be suggested/encouraged. ie: the extra padding in NYR's gloves...or the shot blocking pads that just about everyone in the Montreal organization (Habs and Bulldogs) were wearing a few years ago. But, thay can't be made to do anything...yet.

Craig Button told a story on TSN the other day; When he was running the Flames....he had the trainers put visors on every helmet in training Camp (Rookies, Vets...EVERYONE). And said, "leave out a couple scew drivers...if they want them off...they have to do ti themselves".

[chippa13 1844]

I saw that. He should have gone one step farther and not had the screwdrivers left out. How many more guys would have tried the visors if they had to go searching for the tool to take them off?

[psh 25]

Craig Button told a story on TSN the other day; When he was running the Flames....he had the trainers put visors on every helmet in training Camp (Rookies, Vets...EVERYONE). And said, "leave out a couple scew drivers...if they want them off...they have to do ti themselves".

That's interesting. It follows the "nudge" theory of economics. Leaving market choices up to individuals, but making the most prudent thing the easiest tends to create optimal results. The classic example is employers who have a default contribution to a retirement account withdrawn from paychecks. If an employee doesn't want to save for retirement, he or she has to go to payroll and ask for the change to be made. The percentage of participation in retirement savings programs for such employers is apparently very favorable. In Europe, this same approach has apparently been very successful in increasing participation in organ donation programs.

It would be interesting if a team owner would institute a policy of not drafting or trading for any player who won't agree to wear a visor. It might put the team at a short term disadvantage by narrowing the range of players available to the team (and because of that, I don't see it happening), but if an owner held the line and explained it is simply because he cares about his players as investments and, more importantly, as people, it might be the sort of act that moves the opinion dial over time. That would take the NHLPA out of the equation. They can have any policy they want, but if player decisions render them unemployable, tough bounce.

A variation on this theme has already been mentioned above. If insurers started mandating the wearing of visors, it would be a win-win. Insurers would have fewer payouts for eye and face related injuries and, as a result, teams would pay lower insurance rates. Pretty nice outcome. I really don't understand the thinking at the bottom of this. Every one of these players in question grew up wearing cages or shields. And, they played well enough with that protection to make it into the best league in the world. Is a visor really going to set them back that far?

[pizzakid13 5]

Insurers would have fewer payouts for eye and face related injuries and, as a result, teams would pay lower insurance rates

theoretically of course. remember, they are insurance companies.

[chippa13 1844]

It is doubtful that the insurance would decrease. Career ending eye injuries are extremely rare, there have been only a handful in the North American pro ranks over the last decade or two. It would be pretty low on the risk scale when insuring a player's contract.

Now, if you are talking about health insurance, that would be something that would have to happen over time and still may not effect premiums. The decline in facial injuries would have to be so significant as to impact the medical trend on the whole in order to create a reduction in team insurance premiums.

[Trooper 8]

It is doubtful that the insurance would decrease. Career ending eye injuries are extremely rare, there have been only a handful in the North American pro ranks over the last decade or two. It would be pretty low on the risk scale when insuring a player's contract.

Now, if you are talking about health insurance, that would be something that would have to happen over time and still may not effect premiums. The decline in facial injuries would have to be so significant as to impact the medical trend on the whole in order to create a reduction in team insurance premiums.

Exactly, insurance is based upon statistics, so unless their analysis shows it makes a difference in the overall numbers, one guy every X number of years losing an eye isn't going to make a difference.

[zachary 2]

Appears Orpik was all talk, as he still hasn't been seen in a visor. Both Jordan and Eric continued to play without visors as well.

Personally I feel they should be mandated. Wearing one does not take away from your vision what-so-ever. I don't get these lame excuses that it obstructs it or it's uncomfortable. It really doesn't change much other than a slight contrast in lighting. Losing teeth isn't a big deal as they can be replaced, your eyes not so much.

[chk hrd 164]

Kyle Quincy of the Red Wings suffered a broken cheek bone last night from a puck that ramped up his stick. Another injury that could have been prevented or at least minimized with a visor.

[Buccaneerfan 16]

Any info on Staal's injury?