Adam,
 
My firm stance is that the game is way too violent.
 
Half shields won't protect players from dental, and facial injuries in
particular.
 
I believe visibility is important and I know that the first chance these guys
get to be maskless can't come soon enough for them. Peripherally the entire
headgear setup sucks according to the players, the mask in particular. Does
the half afford better peripherals, allowing you to not only see the ice
better but see the player who is on your back as well? Probably.
 
Obviously there's lots wrong with the way the game is played and the playing
logistics. These types of injuries, serious head and spine injuries didn't
exist until more recently. Speed and collision are a result of more skill,
better skates, and bigger players.
 
I do believe though that liability and pressures from the American Medical
Association will prohibit a change, unless somebody comes up with an
innovative deterrent that functions better.
 
And, we haven't even gotten around to concussions. Whether in fact the full
is more of a concussion deterrent, that would certainly lean me in the full
direction for better protection. Warning labels tell you that the helmet and
the mask offer limited protection. Finally it comes down to which affords the
best over-all protection.
 
According to the Flames Doctor, the half doesn't sit on the head right.
Players tend to wear the helmet tilted back with the half. He believes, from
the studies he undertook, that it causes more serious concussions. I can only
surmise from the information I've read that the full protects teeth, face and
brain better.
 
Certainly the full is a given for the youth ranks. It seems that for the NCAA
level, the question of which, won't be answered till studies are done here in
the States.
 
 
 
Vicki
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.