5 ms·

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 comic

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.

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.