Earlier this month, Chris Pronger returned to the ice after missing close to two weeks worth of play with an eye injury. An eye injury that was caused by an inadvertent stick to the face. One of those injuries that everyone talks about as a career ending injury if it had been just a few inches either way, it certainly could have. When he returned, he had a visor attached to his helmet. Just recently, Ian White of the Detroit Red Wings, missed a week's worth of games for accidental blocked a shot with his face. It broke a cheek bone, another reason you can never question a hockey player's toughness. So, it has brought up a debate of whether or not visors should be required for all NHL players.
It seems to be one of those things that players acknowledge is a good idea, but can hinder their play. Visors apparently cut down on their peripheral vision, and vision is key to the game of hockey. Those no look passes don't create themselves. It also can create issues with the enforcers. If they get into a fight, how can your fist go through their face if there is a piece of plastic in the way? Any argument you hear is just a mask for the real argument against the visors: it's not manly. I know that hockey is a game of manly men, but there also has to be a point when safety comes before masculinity.
I wasn't around for the debate about everyone being mandated to wear helmets, but I'm sure it went the same way. It blocks my vision, it doesn't feel right, if I punch someone the helmet hurts my hand. Everyone got over it and it was for the better. You can't tell me that helmets are a bad idea. Visors are the same way, it's a smart safe advancement for the players. I think that they should be mandated for every player. I don't want to hear this debate again after a player can't lace up his skates anymore because of an eye injury. All the league would have to do is grandfather everyone in. Anyone who is playing in the NHL right now, doesn't have to wear a visor, but anyone who comes into the league from this season onward must wear a visor.
The big thing that I don't understand is that in the lower leagues, they wear visors or cages, so what is the issue? I don't know if they restrict vision of the players, but it will keep them safe and that is what the commissioner should take into consideration. No one will question any player that wears a visor. I sure wouldn't. Would you want to be considered manly for not wearing a protective visor and having a shorter career because of eye or facial injuries or be considered less manly and have a longer career because your face is safe?
No comments:
Post a Comment