Vicki
 
A few snippets from the half shield debate;
 
>That pervasive combative behavior is what necessitates helmets and
shields in
the first place.
 
What do you mean by "pervasive combative behavior"?  Having played and
coached hockey (although waaaayyyy below Craig's level), I never likened
it to combat.  yes, the physical aspect of the game was there and, for
the most part, fun.  I've been cheap shotted, and, I must confess, have
retaliated.  But "combat"?.  Would you clarify?
 
>Mutual respect for each other as opponents is missing. I think that's
taught
too. The professionalization of amateur sports has aided a reckless
disregard
among athletes.
 
Hey!  I agree with that one!  Where is sportsmanship?  Remember the old
2-4-6-8 cheer?  Anybody still do it?  The earlier you start, the longer
it remains.
 
>A knock to the chin can cause a concussion with or without a mouthguard.
I
know several players who incurred concussions despite a mouthguard.
Another
fact from the article: despite mouthguards dental injuries were ten times
higher with half-shields.
 
But don't mouthguards lessen the occurrance of concussions?  As for the
latter sentence -- This is empirical, and a result of watching many
collegiate games from 73-78 when there were no facemasks in college.  I
can recall, at the most, 2 or 3 incidents where out player caught a puck
(never a stick) in the kisser and had to drink milkshakes for a week or
so.  Mouthpieces were required then, though they were the cheap plastic
thingys that you can get for a $1.99 now, not the concussion preventers
we have now.
 
Now my nickel's worth.  Though I'd love to see this put in, I tend to
agree with an earlier post by Larry Winer -- the administrations will
never go for it.  $$$ will be the overriding concern.
 
Now what about the college player coming up through the youth system in
the USA and Canada?  He has worn a facemask since he was 5 and has had
more padding on him than I ever wore.  He has no fear from injury and has
probably never been taught that the opponent's head is to be left alone
at all costs.  Now he gets to college and has a 1/2 shield on.  The good
players will adapt and adapt quickly.  The poorly coached and cement
heads will still be headhunters.
 
Bottom line -- Youth coaches, referees and organizations have to make it
known that the player's noodle is to be left alone.  ANY contact, whether
accidental or not, MUST be penalized.  After a few seasons, sticks,
elbows, and other assorted stuff will stay where they belong -- down.
 
Now - another problem and "The Law of Unintended Consequences".  By
raising the glass on the sidewalls, you've (a) protected the fans more
and (b) speeded up the game by allowing the defense to use the high glass
to clear the puck over the defensemen. The Law of Unintended Consequences
says that this rule cuts down scoring and adds to bad play by the
defense.
 
In the old days, with the glass lower, the hard around could be stopped
by an opponent by getting his body near the boards.  The puck was
inevitably 4' or so off the ice (rarely off the glass, it was too low)
and could be stopped.  The D had to learn to pass or skate the puck out
or do a loft clear.  All but the latter could be stopped by a
forechecking forward -> which leads to turnovers = more scoring chances =
more goals.
 
Now all the D has to do is bank a high shot off the glass and out of the
zone -- great skill work there.
 
The trouble is, I don't know how you can correct it.  $$$$ factor.
 
Joe
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.