9 ms·

Last I checked, college and professional women's leagues mandated face protection. Why don't men's?

bsznjyewgd 7y ago
Not only that, but the NHL BANS full face protection unless you're recovering from an injury. (Ex-all star Dany Heatley spent most of his career wearing a comically big half-visor after suffering a serious eye injury, I wonder if he would've opted for a full visor if given the choice.) Some players already dislike the currently mandated half-visors (visors can distort vision, or fog up, etc.) and do weird shenanigans like having small or tipped-up visors. There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection.
- krisgee 7y ago
  >There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection. Having grown up playing hockey in a pretty rough league that's not true. You just hook your hand under the back of the helmet and pull, it'll pop right off.
  - rhcom2 7y ago
    There was a recent rule change that bans players from removing their own helmet (but not their opponent's) before a fight and the threat of punching hard plastic doesn't seem to have stopped anyone.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    With a full cage? Either the wearer has deliberately made that possible, or it'll hurt. I was kept mine so that I could get it on and off without unclipping the cage, but as snug as possible while still allowing that. So pulling it off isn't quick, and I wouldn't fancy someone else doing it.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  The “fighting culture” in the NHL (perhaps more in the AhL and college leagues?) can’t die soon enough. It’s already better than it used to be in the 80s and 90s but there is some way to go. A good first step would be actual match penalties for proper fights. It has worked elsewhere.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. Teams have goons and enforcers. It’s the goon’s job to hurt star players. A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game, the series, or potentially the season. It’s those hits that cause injuries and end careers. An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out of you. Fights are by mutual consent, and almost never result in serious injury. But they hurt physically, and losing one hurts morale. The league actually introduced an instigator penalty a while back, which means whoever initiated the fight is penalized. Concussions went up, because now the enforcer couldn’t do his job, or his own team suffers even more. So it was open season with cheap shots on stars.
    - pvg 7y ago
      Teams have goons and enforcers They don't, really, and the stats show a fairly steady decrease in fighting. There might be a 'theory' but the evidence is fighting is on the way out. You could make the argument that removing players who specialize in fighting and the ceremony and ritual surrounding it it makes fighting more dangerous - a recent case in point would be Ovechkin knocking out Svechnikov earlier this year. But that's also an even better argument for eliminating fighting altogether.
      - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
        Yes it’s definitely on the decline, and nothing like before the rule changes, but it’s still an issue. Crosby has been punished heavily his whole career and suffered several concussions, so the Penguins had to make changes to give him more protection. The theory is backed by the evidence. It’s correlation, but the link seems obvious. Concussions went way up after the original instigator rule. They went up even more after the “no hits to the head if you can hit somewhere else rule”. The number of man games lost in the playoffs has also gone up steadily. So by all metrics, outcomes have gotten worse. Pests and cheap shots have no deterrent, and compared to fighting, those are what cause real damage. Your arguments sound plausible, but the numbers tell a far different story, and the coaches who have star players vocally disagree with you. https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-instigator-penalty-needs-to-go/ https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-instigator-penalty-needs-to... ”The instigator rule may be limiting fights, but it isn’t protecting the players. It’s allowing dirty players to thrive. And that has to be worse for hockey than two players facing off in an effort to guard their teammates.” Don’t get me wrong, I get the moral argument and the issue with glorifying violence. I don’t have an opinion on fights, but I find the change in outcomes to be interesting in the behavioral economics sense.
jdpedrie 7y ago
The cage makes it harder to see the game at your feet. There's also just the culture of hockey. The last un-helmeted NHL player didn't retire until 1997. Referees often didn't wear them for some time thereafter. I remember one ref, Kerry Fraser, who retired in 2010, who refused to wear a helmet so as to not mess up his famously coiffed hair. The NHL did recently mandate visors for all new players entering the league; it seems quite possible cages will come before too long.
- soperj 7y ago
  If you're looking at your feet, you're gonna get run over, no one in the NHL looks at their feet.
  - cjaybo 7y ago
    Sure they do. Not while stick handling or skating normally, but while receiving a bad pass, sending a puck between their skates while trying to out-maneuver a defender, etc. Cages affect your peripheral vision, as well.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
ben7799 7y ago
There's a flipside in another sport. In Men's Lacrosse at the college level they wear helmets... in Women's Lacrosse helmets are not allowed, they wear ridiculous eye-cages instead. Their argument is that they have less contact allowed and don't need them. I think the real thing is trying to look better and/or culture like hockey. Women's college Lacrosse apparently is #2 for concussions after Men's Football. Men's Lacrosse apparently has far fewer concussions even though it allows contact. My wife had 3-4 concussions playing Lacrosse in College.. I definitely worry about some effect of it coming back as we age. Her concussions were apparently bad enough the effects lasted and messed up her schoolwork for quite some time. I played a lot of pond hockey as a kid.. we somehow managed to not knock each other's teeth out or get head injuries without helmets but there was no contact and the level of play was very low. First time I suited up in a rink with a helmet I got hit in the head by the puck coming around the boards. I was totally fine cause of the helmet but it scared the crap out of me, I don't think I ever really played pond hockey again.
- dmurray 7y ago
  Women's college lacrosse is effectively a different game, as different as baseball is from softball.
  - lozaning 7y ago
    Trying to play attack with no pocket is a fool's errand. I honestly don't know how they manage to play.
    - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
      Well, they turnover a hell of a lot more for one...
- pge 7y ago
  It is women’s soccer that is second only to mens football for concussion rate - see this article: https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/15/health/concussion-high-school-sports-study/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/15/health/concussion-high-scho... Having played men’s lacrosse and coached both boys and girls, my observation is that concussion-risk events in girls lacrosse are extremely rare, and not affected by helmets. The head trauma in the mens game is usually from intentional body contact and collisions, which are not allowed in the womens game. The occasional stick to the head happens but those are not (usually) violent enough to be a concussion risk. I would expect concussion rates in womens lacrosse to be similar but lower than a sport like basketball) and uncorrelated with the rate in mens lacrosse which is a much different game
jccooper 7y ago
Tradition and machismo.

Not only that, but the NHL BANS full face protection unless you're recovering from an injury. (Ex-all star Dany Heatley spent most of his career wearing a comically big half-visor after suffering a serious eye injury, I wonder if he would've opted for a full visor if given the choice.) Some players already dislike the currently mandated half-visors (visors can distort vision, or fog up, etc.) and do weird shenanigans like having small or tipped-up visors. There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection.

krisgee 7y ago
>There's also a fighting culture in North American professional hockey which would be destroyed by mandatory full face protection. Having grown up playing hockey in a pretty rough league that's not true. You just hook your hand under the back of the helmet and pull, it'll pop right off.
- rhcom2 7y ago
  There was a recent rule change that bans players from removing their own helmet (but not their opponent's) before a fight and the threat of punching hard plastic doesn't seem to have stopped anyone.
- OJFord 7y ago
  With a full cage? Either the wearer has deliberately made that possible, or it'll hurt. I was kept mine so that I could get it on and off without unclipping the cage, but as snug as possible while still allowing that. So pulling it off isn't quick, and I wouldn't fancy someone else doing it.
alkonaut 7y ago
The “fighting culture” in the NHL (perhaps more in the AhL and college leagues?) can’t die soon enough. It’s already better than it used to be in the 80s and 90s but there is some way to go. A good first step would be actual match penalties for proper fights. It has worked elsewhere.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  There is a theory that fighting actually prevents serious injuries and concussions. Teams have goons and enforcers. It’s the goon’s job to hurt star players. A skilled goon can lay a clean, legal, but devastating hit on your top scorer and go unpunished. If he gets him when his head is down or not paying attention, he can take him out of the game, the series, or potentially the season. It’s those hits that cause injuries and end careers. An enforcer is hired to send a message that if you plan to incorporate injuring the star player as part of your strategy, he’s going to beat the living hell out of you. Fights are by mutual consent, and almost never result in serious injury. But they hurt physically, and losing one hurts morale. The league actually introduced an instigator penalty a while back, which means whoever initiated the fight is penalized. Concussions went up, because now the enforcer couldn’t do his job, or his own team suffers even more. So it was open season with cheap shots on stars.
  - pvg 7y ago
    Teams have goons and enforcers They don't, really, and the stats show a fairly steady decrease in fighting. There might be a 'theory' but the evidence is fighting is on the way out. You could make the argument that removing players who specialize in fighting and the ceremony and ritual surrounding it it makes fighting more dangerous - a recent case in point would be Ovechkin knocking out Svechnikov earlier this year. But that's also an even better argument for eliminating fighting altogether.
    - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
      Yes it’s definitely on the decline, and nothing like before the rule changes, but it’s still an issue. Crosby has been punished heavily his whole career and suffered several concussions, so the Penguins had to make changes to give him more protection. The theory is backed by the evidence. It’s correlation, but the link seems obvious. Concussions went way up after the original instigator rule. They went up even more after the “no hits to the head if you can hit somewhere else rule”. The number of man games lost in the playoffs has also gone up steadily. So by all metrics, outcomes have gotten worse. Pests and cheap shots have no deterrent, and compared to fighting, those are what cause real damage. Your arguments sound plausible, but the numbers tell a far different story, and the coaches who have star players vocally disagree with you. https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-instigator-penalty-needs-to-go/ https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-instigator-penalty-needs-to... ”The instigator rule may be limiting fights, but it isn’t protecting the players. It’s allowing dirty players to thrive. And that has to be worse for hockey than two players facing off in an effort to guard their teammates.” Don’t get me wrong, I get the moral argument and the issue with glorifying violence. I don’t have an opinion on fights, but I find the change in outcomes to be interesting in the behavioral economics sense.

jdpedrie 7y ago

The cage makes it harder to see the game at your feet. There's also just the culture of hockey. The last un-helmeted NHL player didn't retire until 1997. Referees often didn't wear them for some time thereafter. I remember one ref, Kerry Fraser, who retired in 2010, who refused to wear a helmet so as to not mess up his famously coiffed hair. The NHL did recently mandate visors for all new players entering the league; it seems quite possible cages will come before too long.

soperj 7y ago
If you're looking at your feet, you're gonna get run over, no one in the NHL looks at their feet.
- cjaybo 7y ago
  Sure they do. Not while stick handling or skating normally, but while receiving a bad pass, sending a puck between their skates while trying to out-maneuver a defender, etc. Cages affect your peripheral vision, as well.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

ben7799 7y ago

There's a flipside in another sport. In Men's Lacrosse at the college level they wear helmets... in Women's Lacrosse helmets are not allowed, they wear ridiculous eye-cages instead. Their argument is that they have less contact allowed and don't need them. I think the real thing is trying to look better and/or culture like hockey. Women's college Lacrosse apparently is #2 for concussions after Men's Football. Men's Lacrosse apparently has far fewer concussions even though it allows contact. My wife had 3-4 concussions playing Lacrosse in College.. I definitely worry about some effect of it coming back as we age. Her concussions were apparently bad enough the effects lasted and messed up her schoolwork for quite some time. I played a lot of pond hockey as a kid.. we somehow managed to not knock each other's teeth out or get head injuries without helmets but there was no contact and the level of play was very low. First time I suited up in a rink with a helmet I got hit in the head by the puck coming around the boards. I was totally fine cause of the helmet but it scared the crap out of me, I don't think I ever really played pond hockey again.

dmurray 7y ago
Women's college lacrosse is effectively a different game, as different as baseball is from softball.
- lozaning 7y ago
  Trying to play attack with no pocket is a fool's errand. I honestly don't know how they manage to play.
  - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    Well, they turnover a hell of a lot more for one...
pge 7y ago
It is women’s soccer that is second only to mens football for concussion rate - see this article: https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/15/health/concussion-high-school-sports-study/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/15/health/concussion-high-scho... Having played men’s lacrosse and coached both boys and girls, my observation is that concussion-risk events in girls lacrosse are extremely rare, and not affected by helmets. The head trauma in the mens game is usually from intentional body contact and collisions, which are not allowed in the womens game. The occasional stick to the head happens but those are not (usually) violent enough to be a concussion risk. I would expect concussion rates in womens lacrosse to be similar but lower than a sport like basketball) and uncorrelated with the rate in mens lacrosse which is a much different game

jccooper 7y ago

Tradition and machismo.