Can we Please make Visors Mandatory?

[Fat Tony]

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.

If the release is difficult to reach, it would be pointless in a fight, which is why you're suggesting this. The bigger issue is, why engineer a potential safety gap into the design to solve an issue that really isn't there?

 

[RobertKron]

*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.

Most top-line guys that I can think of off the top of my head wear visors. Most non-visor guys that I can think of are either grinders, or "Good Canadian Kid" types like Thornton, Lucic, Kassian, Getzlaf, Horton, etc. I'm sure there is the odd guy that genuinely is better without one, but don't discount that image is huge in hockey, especially when you consider that increasingly pretty much every single player in the league wore at least a visor right up until they hit the NHL.

The NHL is the only serious hockey league in the world that doesn't currently require face protection. I'd imagine that this is an issue that will largely work itself out. Last year, the league was up to something like 70% of players wearing visors, and almost all rookies were wearing them, which is up from just below 30% ten years previously. There are no players entering the league today that have ever played a league game in their lives without at least a visor.

 

[Wilch]

Most top-line guys that I can think of off the top of my head wear visors. Most non-visor guys that I can think of are either grinders, or "Good Canadian Kid" types like Thornton, Lucic, Kassian, Getzlaf, Horton, etc. Image is huge in hockey.

They're also big, tall guys. Some of them fight too. Harder to get hit by a high stick when you've got a couple inches on the other guys.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

There actually is no argument for not wearing one.

The arguments that are being used are exactly the same ones used for why people should not have to wear hockey helmets, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, seatbelts.

Its the same arguments why people say they shouldnt have to wear their safety glasses and other PPE.

No player comes into the NHL not having experienced a visor or face shield.


There is no argument that hasnt been thoroughly debunked in the above examples.

 

[RobertKron]

They're also big, tall guys. Some of them fight too. Harder to get hit by a high stick when you've got a couple inches on the other guys.

Yeah, all "Good Canadian Kid" guys. Stereotypical beauties that you'd expect to have mullets and missing teeth and be from some dirt farm in Saskatchitoba somewhere.

Basically for little skill guys without visors we've got what St Louis, Marc Savard, Wellwood who was like Don Cherry's favourite son, who am I missing? I know there are more. But still, they're the anomalies.

Also, re: fighting, again, the kids entering the league the past several years have never ever played a single league game in their lives without a visor until they hit the NHL. It's not like they don't fight in junior.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

If the release is difficult to reach, it would be pointless in a fight, which is why you're suggesting this. The bigger issue is, why engineer a potential safety gap into the design to solve an issue that really isn't there?

I'm not sure whether this means that you think visors are fine the way they are or whether you think that eye injuries aren't an issue.

If the latter, than yeah, it's not a huge issue, I agree it's pretty rare. But there have been a handful of major eye-injuries in hockey so far, and statistically, there will be more - though not many.

I just think it makes sense to prevent them. And I think I remember reading that there are a few eye-related injuries every year, even if very few of these injuries are serious.

 

[molson78]

There actually is no argument for not wearing one.

The arguments that are being used are exactly the same ones used for why people should not have to wear hockey helmets, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, seatbelts.

Its the same arguments why people say they shouldnt have to wear their safety glasses and other PPE.

No player comes into the NHL not having experienced a visor or face shield.


There is no argument that hasnt been thoroughly debunked in the above examples.

I'm not against visors...but someone like Getzlaf, who hasn't worn it for over 7 years, might find it difficult to adjust back. Still, not a real reason to not implement it eventually. I think it will happen, but not anytime soon.

 

[Fat Tony]

I'm not sure whether this means that you think visors are fine the way they are or whether you think that eye injuries aren't an issue.

If the latter, than yeah, it's not a huge issue, I agree it's pretty rare. But there have been a handful of major eye-injuries in hockey so far, and statistically, there will be more - though not many.

I just think it makes sense to prevent them. And I think I remember reading that there are a few eye-related injuries every year, even if very few of these injuries are serious.

The issue I'm referring to are hand injuries due to visors.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

I'm not against visors...but someone like Getzlaf, who hasn't worn it for over 7 years, might find it difficult to adjust back. Still, not a real reason to not implement it eventually. I think it will happen, but not anytime soon.

Sure. At minimum grandfather it in.

Sad thing some people will have learn Malhotra style.

 

[RobertKron]

I'm not against visors...but someone like Getzlaf, who hasn't worn it for over 7 years, might find it difficult to adjust back. Still, not a real reason to not implement it eventually. I think it will happen, but not anytime soon.

If they bring them in, it will most likely be a grandfather thing like they did with helmets.

Also, if I remember correctly, the helmets were made mandatory because of pressure from insurance companies. I'd imagine that will be a driving force for a visor rule, too. Although maybe they'll mandate it on their own since the players are already overwhelmingly headed towards them anyway.

 

[RandV]

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.

Yeah it may be worth pointing out the quality of visor here as well. The typical NHL visor kind of looks like this, a 1-2 inch strip of plastic right in front of the eyes:

If it's really about protection though shouldn't they look more like this?

That's more what the visor I use for beer league looks like, except mines even a little bigger than that going down to cover my mouth. I never really put much thought into it, it's just what I picked up at sportcheck when I needed to get one quickly.

Also, I think the OP is smoking something... retractable visors with digital displays?

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

The issue I'm referring to are hand injuries due to visors.

Ah, ok. Well I'd rather not fight someone with a visor on.


I think a mechanism could be devised regardless (so that the visor comes off in a fight), but I guess we have to disagree on this.

 

[vanuck]

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.

I imagine technology now is advanced enough to engineer a solution around that possibility - even for a contact sport. Maybe some sort of full shield that can detach?

If visors impair your vision that much though, perhaps they should look into goggle-like ones that wrap around much closer to the face.

 

[Royal Canuck]

Visors would be manditory in a perfect world, and I could see it becoming a rule in the foreseeable future.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

Also, I think the OP is smoking something... retractable visors with digital displays?

Only limit is imagination. The 3rd example I'll bring up is scientists have recently found out the specific gene for aging. In several generations they will be able to stop people from aging. Combine this with the fact that they will continue finding cures for every disease. They have eliminated smallpox, basically eliminated the plague, malaria, polio, we have cures for several types of cancer and so on and so forth.

Combine these 2 facts, and soon enough, people (as in very rich people - at least in the beginning) will be able to live for hundreds of years.


So I don't think a retractable visor is that much of a stretch.

 

[JA]

While the consensus seems to be that visors are uncool, it seems there are a number of players in the NHL who wear one especially to look stylish. I think visors look phenomenal, and those who wear them look particularly sharp. It's too bad a culture has developed in which masculinity and toughness are associated with the lack of a visor; visors can be very cool if the culture was different. If not for the "tough guy/macho" image, I think visors would be more generally accepted.

People can interpret visors any way they want. The culture simply has to change, though it may be difficult. Who's to say visors don't look cool. Can it not the same as wearing shades or other eye wear for aesthetic purposes?

Sunglasses are a part of the image for police officers. There's something intimidating about police officers wearing sunglasses.

Visors can be "cool" to wear. The culture just has to change.

 

[Fat Tony]

They have eliminated smallpox, basically eliminated the plague, malaria, polio, we have cures for several types of cancer and so on and so forth.

Yersinia (plague) and polio are under control but malaria certainly is not. Worldwide, death from malaria number in the high 6/low 7 figures annually.

 

[vanuck]

@JetsAlternate: Agree. Hockey culture is very conservative in general. It just takes a long time for norms to change. Doesn't help when you have certain, um, elements in the media touting this tough guy macho image because it's 'expected' of you.

 

[RobertKron]

Only limit is imagination. The 3rd example I'll bring up is scientists have recently found out the specific gene for aging. In several generations they will be able to stop people from aging. Combine this with the fact that they will continue finding cures for every disease. They have eliminated smallpox, basically eliminated the plague, malaria, polio, we have cures for several types of cancer and so on and so forth.

Combine these 2 facts, and soon enough, people (as in very rich people - at least in the beginning) will be able to live for hundreds of years.


So I don't think a retractable visor is that much of a stretch.

WTF does that have to do with visors?

Will visors be mandatory in the ski area under the sea?

 

[Cocoa Crisp]

Only limit is imagination. The 3rd example I'll bring up is scientists have recently found out the specific gene for aging. In several generations they will be able to stop people from aging. Combine this with the fact that they will continue finding cures for every disease. They have eliminated smallpox, basically eliminated the plague, malaria, polio, we have cures for several types of cancer and so on and so forth.

Combine these 2 facts, and soon enough, people (as in very rich people - at least in the beginning) will be able to live for hundreds of years.


So I don't think a retractable visor is that much of a stretch.

... a couple of students were challenged to develop a robotic eye in 1982 at Caltech with the thought that it would be trivially simple. 2013, no one's yet managed it. Common cold? Still here, especially if you've spent time in the Northeast this winter.

As for the specific gene for aging... this is what happens when non-scientist journalists oversensationalize work that may peripherally hint at it. I consider myself fairly well read in science. Nothing I've come across is the definitive 'aging gene' and I'd be shocked if it were demonstrated to be so simple.

As for the retractable visor, it probably hasn't happened because of safety issues - ie. retracting when you don't want it to. No, it's much easier to make it part of the code (and I believe it kind of already is): Only cowards fight with a visor on. Take off your helmet if you're going to fight.

 

[Alan Jackson]

The solution is obvious, and I'm not sure why it's not happened yet. Grandfather in the mandatory wearing of visors.

All players coming into the league are wearing them already, so the performance/comfort issue becomes a non-issue. And veteran players who have played for 10 years without one aren't forced to put one on.

 

[looseneditforyou]

There actually is no argument for not wearing one.

The arguments that are being used are exactly the same ones used for why people should not have to wear hockey helmets, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, seatbelts.

Its the same arguments why people say they shouldnt have to wear their safety glasses and other PPE.

No player comes into the NHL not having experienced a visor or face shield.


There is no argument that hasnt been thoroughly debunked in the above examples.

If we tied boulders to every young player from peewee though junior, would we call them out for removing it at the professional level if they had a choice? Yes, they have experience with cages and visors -- that doesn't mean it isn't harder to see with them on. There's no convincing argument for not legislating the use of visors. There's obviously a very strong argument for not wearing one by choice.

 

[Seatoo]

Visors must be mandatory or at least grandfathered in like helmets were.

Also...

 

[Seattle Totems]

If visors restrict vision then why do many if not a majority of the most highly skilled players wear them?

 

[LiveeviL]

If visors restrict vision then why do many if not a majority of the most highly skilled players wear them?

Dem guys dat score, are good. But my function is...different.. to not wear visor.