Can we Please make Visors Mandatory?

[Blue Suede Shoes]

I understand the 2 main arguments against wearing visors. They're not cool and they impact performance. But if they are mandatory, it won't be uncool to wear them because everyone will wear them. And If they're mandatory, they may impact your performance, but they will impact EVERYONE'S performance, so it will be an even playing field.


A piece of plastic in front of your face gives you less perfect vision. But it is like driving a car. Having a windshield may obstruct your vision while you drive but it probably saves your vision in the long-run. A visor is similar. If it is mandatory, then there is not really any issue about performance.

In fact, having some hockey players wear a visor while other's don't is an uneven playing field. It could be said that making visors mandatory makes things even.



The 3rd argument is a good one. Fighting. You don't want to cut your hand while punching a piece of plastic that's hiding someone's face. To this I say, we are living in the 21st century - a time where we have machines that can perform surgery on humans - (it's true) - yet we can't come up with a visor that can pop off your helmet?

Bull ****. They can probably invent a touchscreen helmet where you swipe the side of your helmet and the visor folds up and gives you directions on how to fight this particular opponent.



So my only question is: why not?



That leads to the 4th argument - and the most influential argument - against wearing visors, which is financial. I realize it's easier to market the game if fans can see the players' faces, but it's easier to just read the number on the jersey anyway. And they could use a type of plastic that's basically invisible I'm SURE.



So are there still any good reasons not to make visors mandatory?

Click to read more...

 

[RobertKron]

The performance thing is weird. Everyone in the league played with either a visor or full cage until at least age 18.

Fighting, macho throwback ****, and the fact that the players don't want to be told what to do are basically the only reasons.

You can argue that visors make the sticks get up a bit easier, but again, everyone in the league went through their entire development with at least a visor, so those habits are already there.

 

[jigsaw99]

Don Cherry Good Ole Canadian Kid no Visor

 

[looseneditforyou]

I doubt very much whether image has much to do with it -- it's harder to see the play with a visor on, and that disadvantage is huge at the top level of hockey where everyone's talented.

 

[RobertKron]

I doubt very much whether image has much to do with it -- it's harder to see the play with a visor on, and that disadvantage is huge at the top level of hockey where everyone's talented.

You're kidding yourself.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

Don Cherry Good Ole Canadian Kid no Visor

I think Cherry made it lame to wear visors... because the last generation thought it was important to look tough

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

Hockey culture can be painfully slow on these things. I wear a full cage for beer league and the amount of chirping I get is ridiculous. Of course, because I wear a cage I can't even make a peep on the ice. Well, I could I suppose but it's pretty lame to talk tough with a full cage. I wear it for the sole reason of protecting my eyes. Don't care about cuts from a stick or a puck but I can't risk a serious eye injury. Honestly, I'm so used to it now I barely notice it's on. The problem with visors is that I've seen guys get serious cuts from them and it's fairly easy for guys to get sticks and pucks that bounce up underneath the visor. Visors make a difference but it's not as major as some might think. I'm not even 100% certain a visor would've prevented Manny's injury.

God... I sound like Cherry.

I guess might point is that it should still be an option, maybe something better will come along that protects the eye completely; other than a cage of course.

 

[RobertKron]

Hockey culture can be painfully slow on these things. I wear a full cage for beer league and the amount of chirping I get is ridiculous. Of course, because I wear a cage I can't even make a peep on the ice. Well, I could I suppose but it's pretty lame to talk tough with a full cage. I wear it for the sole reason of protecting my eyes. Don't care about cuts from a stick or a puck but I can't risk a serious eye injury. Honestly, I'm so used to it now I barely notice it's on. The problem with visors is that I've seen guys get serious cuts from them and it's fairly easy for guys to get sticks and pucks that bounce up underneath the visor. Visors make a difference but it's not as major as some might think. I'm not even 100% certain a visor would've prevented Manny's injury.

God... I sound like Cherry.

I guess might point is that it should still be an option, maybe something better will come along that protects the eye completely; other than a cage of course.

If they become mandatory, it'll be due to insurance stuff.

And yeah, I'm not sure a visor would have helped him either, and I don't really have a problem with it being up to choice. That said, it's still crazy that anyone except a 2min/game boxer doesn't have one on. Basically every real hockey league in the world except for the NHL requires at least a visor.

 

[Fat Tony]

yet we can't come up with a visor that can pop off your helmet?

Am I alone in thinking this is a bad idea?

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

The performance thing is weird. Everyone in the league played with either a visor or full cage until at least age 18.

Fighting, macho throwback ****, and the fact that the players don't want to be told what to do are basically the only reasons.

You can argue that visors make the sticks get up a bit easier, but again, everyone in the league went through their entire development with at least a visor, so those habits are already there.

Definite performance issue at the top level.

I know I played 5 years without a visor in house ice and roller hockey after I gave up serious hockey without a visor (I was a goalie prior) and then 5 years with a visor.

It's not a massive difference but it's DEFINITELY harder to see with a visor.

Obviously in house the difference ... well makes no sense to lose an eye to have fun... but if it's the difference between potentially making a few mil $ more/year...

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

Definite performance issue at the top level.

I know I played 5 years without a visor in house ice and roller hockey after I gave up serious hockey without a visor (I was a goalie prior) and then 5 years with a visor.

It's not a massive difference but it's DEFINITELY harder to see with a visor.

Obviously in house the difference ... well makes no sense to lose an eye to have fun... but if it's the difference between potentially making a few mil $ more/year...

I don't think this would be an issue if EVERYONE wears a visor - would it? Because if it affects your performance, it also effects every single other player's performance. And you get paid based on your performance in relation to other player's performance, don't you? Not based on your performance in a vaccuum?

 

[m9]

I find it harder to see with a visor than with a full cage. The question should be why hasn't a better option been created aside from the visor? It's just not that great when it's right in your field of vision when you spend a ton of time looking down at the ice and puck.

There's gotta be something better. Maybe some cool goggle/wraparound sunglass thing.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

Am I alone in thinking this is a bad idea?

It could pop off or fold up or probably just disappear outright. Why is it a bad idea?

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

Hockey culture can be painfully slow on these things. I wear a full cage for beer league and the amount of chirping I get is ridiculous. Of course, because I wear a cage I can't even make a peep on the ice. Well, I could I suppose but it's pretty lame to talk tough with a full cage. I wear it for the sole reason of protecting my eyes. Don't care about cuts from a stick or a puck but I can't risk a serious eye injury. Honestly, I'm so used to it now I barely notice it's on. The problem with visors is that I've seen guys get serious cuts from them and it's fairly easy for guys to get sticks and pucks that bounce up underneath the visor. Visors make a difference but it's not as major as some might think. I'm not even 100% certain a visor would've prevented Manny's injury.

God... I sound like Cherry.

I guess might point is that it should still be an option, maybe something better will come along that protects the eye completely; other than a cage of course.

This is what I'm thinking. Scientists have recently discovered a theoretical way to travel faster than the speed of light. Actual warp speed, like from star trek. Not to get too nerdy here, but if they can invent warp speed, I have to believe they can build a visor (or SOME kind of protection) that only minimally obstructs view.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I don't think this would be an issue if EVERYONE wears a visor - would it? Because if it affects your performance, it also effects every single other player's performance. And you get paid based on your performance in relation to other player's performance, don't you? Not based on your performance in a vaccuum?

It depends. I'm no vision specialist but I would think it depends on your eyes... I also don't know much of the difference with those who wear contacts, etc...

Just don't have enough info. All I can say is that for someone with 20/20 vision wearing a visor vs not wearing a visor it is definitely easier to see and play without a visor. It's not a MASSIVE difference but I can see how some at the top levels would want that extra advantage.

 

[Fat Tony]

It could pop off or fold up or probably just disappear outright. Why is it a bad idea?

And it will never pop off or fold up due to puck or stick contact?

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

I doubt very much whether image has much to do with it -- it's harder to see the play with a visor on, and that disadvantage is huge at the top level of hockey where everyone's talented.

But if someone has a disadvantage, that means that someone else has an advantage, right? If everyone is wearing a visor, who has the disadvantage?


btw I'm not trying to be a dick here, I just want to open up discussion on this topic. The injury to Manny just seems tragic to me. I don't know if it was unavoidable, but there almost certainly will be other injuries in the future that are avoidable if something is done now.

 

[RobertKron]

This is what I'm thinking. Scientists have recently discovered a theoretical way to travel faster than the speed of light. Actual warp speed, like from star trek. Not to get too nerdy here, but if they can invent warp speed, I have to believe they can build a visor (or SOME kind of protection) that only minimally obstructs view.

Modern visors only minimally obstruct view.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

And it will never pop off or fold up due to puck or stick contact?

I'm pretty sure there's a location that would never get contacted enough to fall off incidentally - perhaps on the inside of it. I bet it could even be semi-digital, to be honest.

 

[RobertKron]

Definite performance issue at the top level.

I know I played 5 years without a visor in house ice and roller hockey after I gave up serious hockey without a visor (I was a goalie prior) and then 5 years with a visor.

It's not a massive difference but it's DEFINITELY harder to see with a visor.

Obviously in house the difference ... well makes no sense to lose an eye to have fun... but if it's the difference between potentially making a few mil $ more/year...

I haven't looked at it, but off the top of my head I would guess that the vast majority of visor-less guys in the NHL are bottom-six types that don't wear them because they're not "supposed to" in their role.

 

[Wilch]

I wear a full cage all the time. I've tried half visors and no visor before.

If you're used to the cage, it doesn't make a world of difference on your vision. There's a couple of dead spots you can't see, but it's quite insignificant.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

Modern visors only minimally obstruct view.

Even less then. If they tried, and put some money into it, I bet they could create some kind of protection that is for all intents and purposes non-noticable. Where it could be essentially invisible.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

I find it harder to see with a visor than with a full cage. The question should be why hasn't a better option been created aside from the visor? It's just not that great when it's right in your field of vision when you spend a ton of time looking down at the ice and puck.

There's gotta be something better. Maybe some cool goggle/wraparound sunglass thing.

I've heard this from other players as well. I think you get what you pay for, like most pieces of equipment. A really good visor is supposedly warp free and crystal clear.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I haven't looked at it, but off the top of my head I would guess that the vast majority of visor-less guys in the NHL are bottom-six types that don't wear them because they're not "supposed to" in their role.

*shrug*

When i'm watching usually I don't notice, even when someone gets clipped high normally I don't notice unless they get hurt, like Raymond's puck to the mouth the other night.

 

[molson78]

Good point about the disadvantage being nullified if everyone wore a visor, but right now there are many veterans in the league that don't wear a visor and haven't for a decade and now all of a sudden they have to? I'd say that's a definite disadvantage to them.

If they find a way to implement it, i'm all for it though...just think it's a bit too much of a hassle right now especially since the brand of hockey is on thin ice right now as is.