Larry wrote:
 
> The NCAA will never permit a retrogression of a safety rule. The full
shield
> offers over twice the protection of the half shield. No  university in
the
> USA is going to face a liability suit over this. This (1/2 shields) will
> never happen. The fact that other leagues may allow this will only result
in
> someone getting hit big in the pocketbook (and no liablity insurer will
go
> along with half shields)-
 
Isn't  the whole question whether this *is* a retrogression on a safety
rule?
 
I would think that the more there is empirical evidence that a given piece
of equipment may actually lead to more injuries, then the more pressure the
NCAA will feel from the standpoint of liability to change that equipment.
 
Any time a player is hurt, his lawyers will be on the university in a
heartbeat.  Given that, I would think the universities would wish to be
able to demonstrate due diligence that they were up on the evidence and
made their choices accordingly.  It won't help much (juries will find  for
the injured player over heartless, faceless university  every time), but
it's all they can do.
 
From the standpoint of the insurers, they are going to support whatever
generates the least in settlements against their accounts, and punish with
higher rates any NCAA rules decision which moves away from that optimal
bottom line. They're scum, but they're predictable scum, and for once this
works in the general interest.
 
-- Greg
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.