| 0 |
Subject: High-sticking Whining
Posted by: The Left Wings
- [6142019] Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 07:26
You don't see the players complaining about that. It's the media that's making a big deal out of it. Those idiots from the media know nothing about actually playing hockey, as seen by the way they're calling for compulsory visors.
Just like Don Cherry said ages ago, more equipments do NOT decrease injuries. It actually increases injuries because players would be more vicious and carefree, thinking that they are invincible. This is proven by the fact that there are so many more concussions in the league ever since helmets became compulsory. Wearing visors will only increase facial injuries. There will be more players with the toothless agression around. Then the next thing will be compulsive full face shields.
The bottom line is, as Brian Burke said today, those players accepted that the high sticks are their job hazard. If they don't want to get hurt, go play golf or other non-contact sport. Let the players decide what to do with their health. It is not up to the media to care for the NHL players.
I really hate it when an injury or death happens, people increase precautions. Look at what they did when that girl died from a flying puck. If you don't want to catch the damn puck, don't go to the game! Watch the damn game at home!
A lot of people die from freak accidents. You can't just take precautions AFTER the accident happened, because it is so unlikely that it'll happen again.
That stupid fishnet is an eyesore. I'm not going to a game unless I'm sitting in the middle expensive seats. It's a symbol of utter paranoia, politics-driven action. If you don't put up the nettings, the media will, for sure, accuse that organization of not caring for their customers.
Gosh, I hate the media when they step out of the boundaries of objective reporting and start spreading propaganda. |
| 1 | walk
Leader
ID: 32928238
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 09:41
|
Nice rant. I would likely disagree with you and Cherry. It's very difficult to prove that an modest increase in equipment (visors) will lead to increase in more aggressive behavior and subsequent injuries. I think the helmet-concussion argument is weak. I bet, but do not know that in the pre-helmet daze there were fewer concussions reported and diagnosed. Cat scans and MRIs were not around back then. The game was more "macho" in terms of not reporting injuries.
Also, why do all juniors and minor leagues and kiddies and college players where helmets with faceguards and visors?
Ultimately though, I think it's fine being up to the players -- if they would rather not wear the visor and lose some more teeth or risk an eye injury, then fine by me. Of course, if my son ever takes a liking to hockey (he is only 3, so there is time!), he's gonna be wearing a helmet with a face mask, visor, and kevlar vest.
;-)
walk
|
| 2 | Domi's Left Fist
ID: 3711152
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 11:11
|
All I know is my own personal experience and what I have done. The minute I put on a full face shield I immediately began high sticking everyone in the head (OK, well not everyone). I had NEVER done that when I was sans all face protection.
|
| 3 | walk
Leader
ID: 32928238
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 12:15
|
Well Domi's Left Fist, that explains it. I cannot comment first-hand. Of course, your moniker does tend to suggest that you are more inclined towards violence anyway.
;-)
However, if it is truly and surely clear that face shields lead to significantly greater swordplay, then they should not be worn.
Of course, I still do not understand why they then make the kiddies and juniors and the collegians wear them.
Finally, do you know WHY you high stick more when you wear a face shield. Is it unconscious or conscious? The psychologist in me has to ask.
thanks,
- walk
|
| 4 | Smackrat
ID: 59117310
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 12:48
|
Don't discount the fact that the new sticks weigh 400 grams. Hard to control them when they are as light as a feather. No feel and they come up fast!
I wouldn't listen to Don Cherry on this one. Players wear visors and helmets and that's not going to change. Any player who risks his eye sight because of some macho code needs to give his head a shake.
|
| 5 | Domi's Left Fist
ID: 3711152
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 12:55
|
It was weird and I myself was totally shocked (it only happened three times, but had never happened before)... it was completely unconscious. Sort of emotionally like (but opposite)when you don't wear elbow pads,or better shin pads. I have no problems blocking shots ... but once on the ponds with friends there is no way I'm getting in front of any kind of puck.
seems with the face thing you don't see quite as well and start 'thrashing' around a bit more. At least that was my experience.
Trying to think about my experiences playing rugby and football (w/o & with equipment) but it doesn't seem the same at all. sure in football you hit with your head, but a helmet doesn't make you go after other people's heads. actually the exact opposite. in football "face masking" is so bad that you never go near there. in rugby you often go for the face ;)
Weird
|
| 6 | walk
Leader
ID: 32928238
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 14:00
|
Interesting DLF. So, it's hard to explain. I gotta agree with Smackrat in principle though -- the risk (serious eye injury) seems to outweigh the reward (vision and machismo). However, in any competitive sport, if the visor is perceived by some to put them at a competitive disadvantage, then, well, we're going to see few visors. And this is what we have today: visors are not worn by the majority, and a good % of visor-wearers, so it seems, wear the visor only after they have had a key facial injury. So, there does not seem to be a wide-spread notion at all amongst the players that visors provide necessary prevention. Also, I have neglected to consider whether some might find the visor actually more hazardous...? Perhaps a puck or fist to the visor could lead to a shattered glass type result? I dunno. Visor experts know about this possibility?
What about mere face masks, a la what football players wear? Would that be a better compromise for safety?
- walk
|
| 7 | R9
Leader
ID: 2624472
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 18:05
|
I used to wear a half-visor, and recently switched to the full fask mask, a la football. MUCH, MUCH better. Your eyes just dont see the grill, and you feel like your looking at real ice again. Wearing a visor is like watching the game from behind a window. I hated it. Still, its incredibly silly to risk losing an eye (or teeth for that matter) to look 'tough'. A face mask is the best alternative.
I look mighty tough as it is when I check people hard into the boards, or push them from in front of my net. I don't need a helmet to do my publizing for me. :)
|
| 8 | The Left Wings
ID: 191481017
Tue, Feb 10, 2004, 20:04
|
Look, I began playing hockey only a few years ago and I won't go on the ice without a full face mask because I'm afraid of getting hit by the puck in the face, even though the puck rarely gets shot over the waist in our crappy games. To me, my face (which I'm quite confident with) is too precious to be carved up.
But to those who are already carved up, I can absolutely understand why they don't want to wear a face shield. I hate my wire shield. It absolutely sucks. Wire shields obstruct the views, and plastic ones fog up and cost a lot more too.
As for wearing all the hockey gears, I have to tell you that it doesn't hurt one bit when I fall or crash into the boards (again, in our crappy, gentlemanly games). With my slow speed, I don't even mind running into the boards full speed (which is still slow) because I know it won't hurt at all.
I began playing when I was about 16, so I was old enough to understand not to run into others in the game even though it doesn't hurt a bit. But when kids are brought up wearing full gears, they will take the protection for granted. When it gets competitive, it gets violent.
Don Cherry predicted the head injuries like 15 years ago. They even dug up the tape and ran it on HNIC to show how right he was. I believe in what he says.
If I had a kid, I probably won't let him play ice hockey until he's like 6. Not because I'm afraid he'd get hurt, but because I want him to play some gearless street hockey first. Let him get whacked around a bit and he'd learn how NOT to do it to others.
It's from pain that one learns. Playing painless hockey is what makes headhunters out of the kids. You've got to let a baby fall before it figures out how to walk. You've got to let a kid get hurt before he figures out how to play hockey. Wrapping a kid in gears half his weight may protect him, but that won't protect other kids.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|