Marc Staal takes a puck to the face

[RadioGaGa 162]

Orpik took a puck in the visor yesterday...would have been very similar to the Staal injury, if not for the shield. I'd guess any thoughts of removing the visor went away!

[chippa13 1844]

It isn't even that you couldn't pay a goalie not to wear a mask, play has to be blown dead immediately if a goalie loses his mask.

[SICKMITTZ39 0]

75% of players wear visors why cant the other 25%? Now theyre saying itll disturb fighting are you kidding me itll just make fighting better take your whole helmet off and fight whats the big deal itll save a whole lot of hand/knuckle injuries maybe more facial injuries guess its just one vicious circle!

[RadioGaGa 162]

Removing helmets to fight is not the best case scenario either....Mind you, if both guys want to , then fine...but there is always the risk of landing your your head at the end of the fight. But, if everyone had a visor it could do away with the extra 2 for "Instigating with a Visor"

[chippa13 1844]

Would that mean Kaleta would start wearing a fishbowl?

[chk hrd 164]

Forget grandfathering it in. Make a rule, tell the PA to piss off if they don't like it and tell players either wear it or don't play. If you GF it in you still have 25% of the players at risk until all of them retire.

[Chadd 916]

Forget grandfathering it in. Make a rule, tell the PA to piss off if they don't like it and tell players either wear it or don't play. If you GF it in you still have 25% of the players at risk until all of them retire.

That's not how collective bargaining works and the league would likely be in line for a financial penalty to every player that they forced into wearing a visor if they attempted to do it.

[chippa13 1844]

Just out of curiosity, how do the Rangers get away with the mandatory extra backhand padding? Other teams have had mandates like not letting players go with open inseam zippers/cut pants, wouldn't a team mandating visors be similar?

[chk hrd 164]

I know that's not how collective bargaining works and that is part of the problem. The PA should have no say over what rules the NHL has in place how conferences are divided or anything of that nature. When they have a financial responsibility to the teams, league or players then they should have some input on how the NHL can run the league and rules. The PA wants to appear to be a "partnership" with the NHL but it is far from it. A player gets hurt and the PA still gets thier dues from the player, meanwhile the owners are stuck paying for the injured player. Pronger is a great example, the only reason he doesn't retire is because he is still collecting a check being on IR...he even collected during the lockout because the injury happened prior to it.

[pizzakid13 5]

I know that's not how collective bargaining works and that is part of the problem. The PA should have no say over what rules the NHL has in place how conferences are divided or anything of that nature. When they have a financial responsibility to the teams, league or players then they should have some input on how the NHL can run the league and rules. The PA wants to appear to be a "partnership" with the NHL but it is far from it. A player gets hurt and the PA still gets thier dues from the player, meanwhile the owners are stuck paying for the injured player. Pronger is a great example, the only reason he doesn't retire is because he is still collecting a check being on IR...he even collected during the lockout because the injury happened prior to it.

you obviously dont understand collective bargaining. things like equipment etc. are changes to "working conditions" which are negotiated. not sure when the other things like schedule, divisions etc were negotiated but they were and the owners agreed. are you an owner?

[SICKMITTZ39 0]

Forget grandfathering it in. Make a rule, tell the PA to piss off if they don't like it and tell players either wear it or don't play. If you GF it in you still have 25% of the players at risk until all of them retire.

Forget grandfathering it in. Make a rule, tell the PA to piss off if they don't like it and tell players either wear it or don't play. If you GF it in you still have 25% of the players at risk until all of them retire.

I AGREE TOTALLY! Problem is player contracts! Its not mandated that they wear a visors so...u know how that'll play out!

[IPv6Freely 2096]

It isn't even that you couldn't pay a goalie not to wear a mask, play has to be blown dead immediately if a goalie loses his mask.

Was that collectively bargained? What about helmets? At some point both were optional, so I'm curious how that process went.

[chk hrd 164]

you obviously dont understand collective bargaining. things like equipment etc. are changes to "working conditions" which are negotiated. not sure when the other things like schedule, divisions etc were negotiated but they were and the owners agreed. are you an owner?

Am I an owner of a NHL team,no. Have I owned a business, yes. I have been in CBA negotiations and had to deal with Unions to much to my liking. Changes to equipment are safety issues, not working conditions, and need to be in the best interest of the players health. Safety issues should not be negotiable.

[pizzakid13 5]

its semantics. either way, i assume that any changes to that falls under their CBA guidelines. i believe the time is now with 75% wearing shields as it is but you still have to go through proper protocol.

[chk hrd 164]

its semantics. either way, i assume that any changes to that falls under their CBA guidelines. i believe the time is now with 75% wearing shields as it is but you still have to go through proper protocol.

I disagree, it's not semantics when your dealing with a PA/Union. Working Conditions and Safety Issues are two seperate things. Working conditions are what hotel rooms players get, modes of transport, practice schedules, etc. Safety Issues are equipment and other things that directly affect player safety.

The bottom line is it's the NHL footing the bills, not the PA. If NHL wants to mandate equipment be worn or ammend the rules to better protect thier investments then they should have the right to without having to get approval from an outside entity that has no financial responsibility.

[Buzz_LightBeer 973]

I disagree, it's not semantics when your dealing with a PA/Union. Working Conditions and Safety Issues are two seperate things. Working conditions are what hotel rooms players get, modes of transport, practice schedules, etc. Safety Issues are equipment and other things that directly affect player safety.

The bottom line is it's the NHL footing the bills, not the PA. If NHL wants to mandate equipment be worn or ammend the rules to better protect thier investments then they should have the right to without having to get approval from an outside entity that has no financial responsibility.

So where does it end? Will you mandate shot blockers after the next broken foot? Will a skate cut to the forearm mean mandated wrist guards?

As its been stated, the number of individuals going without visors is diminishing, it's an issue that is working itself out.

I'd be curious to look back at the last 5 years draft picks playing in the NHL, and what percent are wearing visors currently.

[chk hrd 164]

A broken foot is alot cheaper to repair than a broken face or eye. Break a foot, leg arm, etc and it can be cast and your back in 4-6 weeks. Bust an orbital bone, damage a nasal cavity, or the actual eye and you are looking at major surgery. And if the eye is damaged possible loss of sight. Pronger is still out and probably never will be back because of it.

If there are 700 players (not exact #) in the NHL and 25% are not wearing visors thats 175 players, thats alot of players. How long will it take to work itself out. I don't think it wear are talking 1 or 2 years, more like 5-10 even if they grandfathered it starting next season.

The PA should be the ones wanting it the most; it's to protect the players. It is not a mater of taking a choice away. That is the BS they feed to make it sound like the NHL is taking something from them and they can say they are fighting to protect the players rights.

[pizzakid13 5]

I disagree, it's not semantics when your dealing with a PA/Union. Working Conditions and Safety Issues are two seperate things. Working conditions are what hotel rooms players get, modes of transport, practice schedules, etc. Safety Issues are equipment and other things that directly affect player safety.

The bottom line is it's the NHL footing the bills, not the PA. If NHL wants to mandate equipment be worn or ammend the rules to better protect thier investments then they should have the right to without having to get approval from an outside entity that has no financial responsibility.

You're missing the point and letting your anti-union bias cloud the issue. If these types of changes were agreed upon by both parties at CBA negotiations, then there is no way around it. You cannot unilaterally impose what you want, from either party. That's why it's called "collective bargaining," whether you like it or not.

The owners agreed. Blame them for being wussies I guess.

[chippa13 1844]

The one thing I'd like to understand is what is the difference between the Rangers mandating extra backhand protection (not in collective bargaining) and teams mandating visors? Instead of waiting for it to become some kind of grandfathered rule, what is to stop individual teams from telling players that if you are an {insert team name here} then you are wearing a visor?

[wrangler 157]

That makes me wonder how far back it goes, and what the CBA terms were at the time.

I'm also curious as to how we know where to draw the line between an equipment change that is subject to bargaining, and a permissible unilateral change for workplace safety.

[chk hrd 164]

My guess is the PA could whine and fight it. Is the extra padding required by the team with a type of penalty if you don't comply or are the Rangers "strongly suggesting" that you have it. One is a direct order the other a suggestion with undertones. I don't know if the players have any complaints if the extra padding limits hand motion or puck handling. That is the big BS thing with visors...it impairs thier vision and interfears with thier game. So by making it harder to see they are infringing on thier rights by requiring them to wear equipment that is not required by the rules. If owners said players didn't have to wear a visor but had to pay for a insurance rider out of thier own pocket the PA would go ape@#!*.

I'm not missing any points, my point is since the PA has no financial risk (only financial gain) why do they need to be consulted for rule changes. The owners who are financially responsible for the game should be able to determine what is in the best interest of thier investments, the game and player safety. My best guess would be the owners started including this years ago because it made the PA feel more important and was something easy to give on if needed. Things like this never make or break a contract, they are usually hammered out first before they work on the money.

[Trooper 8]

Are all rule changes, no matter how mundane, subject to approval by the PA? If so, then however stupid, the visor issue needs to follow suit.

[Chadd 916]

The one thing I'd like to understand is what is the difference between the Rangers mandating extra backhand protection (not in collective bargaining) and teams mandating visors? Instead of waiting for it to become some kind of grandfathered rule, what is to stop individual teams from telling players that if you are an {insert team name here} then you are wearing a visor?

Players already wear gloves, the Rangers are simply putting additional padding on the back of the glove. Requiring a player to use a visor would be a CBA violation, any team doing that would likely have to pay a financial penalty for violating the CBA.

Are all rule changes, no matter how mundane, subject to approval by the PA? If so, then however stupid, the visor issue needs to follow suit.

If the league would have wanted it, they would have fought for it when negotiating the CBA.

[Buzz_LightBeer 973]

That makes me wonder how far back it goes, and what the CBA terms were at the time.

I'm also curious as to how we know where to draw the line between an equipment change that is subject to bargaining, and a permissible unilateral change for workplace safety.

I did a bit of searching to see how the helmet mandate came about in regards to NHL and NHLPA, no luck yet, but I'm still curious. Wikipedia made it sound like the NHL mandated it with a grandfather clause but has no mention of the PA supporting/opposing it.

[IPv6Freely 2096]

I did a bit of searching to see how the helmet mandate came about in regards to NHL and NHLPA, no luck yet, but I'm still curious. Wikipedia made it sound like the NHL mandated it with a grandfather clause but has no mention of the PA supporting/opposing it.

I was wondering the same, as well as goalie masks.