Eric Burton wrote:
 
>>Also in the second game of the HNIC telecast a player high sticked another
player in the face area and the announcer made the comment that the players
do not respect each other. He blamed the way kids are taught to play hockey
and the full face shield.  He went on to say that I am not advocating youth
hockey players do away with the full sheild but he did mention that he felt
it contributed to them never being hurt (meaning never have been the victim
of a high stick, which would then cause them to be more careful) because
they wear the full sheild.<<
 
This statement (the HNIC guys, not yours) is pandering of the worst sort.
So what IS he advocating?  Why did he make the statement?   What he's trying
to do is to be "politically correct" by not  criticizing a policy of
Canadian youth hockey, but pandering to the Don Cherry crowd by repeating
old urban legends about "respect."  My observation is that there are a lot
of players, the majority in fact,  who wear shields or cages, AND who play
clean, hard, physical, and are careful with their sticks.  There are others
who play wild, reckless hockey, who wouldn't be the least deterred if they
sliced and diced an opponents face.  He'll just repeat some silly old cliché
like "if you are afraid of getting hurt, take up tennis."
 
GETTING hurt because of a high stick doesn't make you more careful with your
stick -- it makes you more likely to use facial protection.  INJURING
another player doesn't make a reckless player more likely to be careful with
his stick.
The idea that doing away with facial protection would make players act more
respectful of others is essentially based on the fallacy that all hockey
players are honorable and that they act rationally at all times.  The fact
is that there are some who aren't honorable, and most act irrationally at
times "in the heat of the moment."    Do away with facial protection, and
the players who used to be careful with their sticks will  continue to be.
The ones who were careless or reckless will continue to be, and will cause
injury.  And there will  continue to be facial injuries cause by accidental
or "in the heat of the moment" incidents..
 
I DO agree with the HNIC announcer's comment that part of the problem is the
way players are taught to play hockey. 
 
>>Maybe getting rid of them [face shields] in HS and Junior and NCAA college
would take care of this [the fact that players have never been the victim of
a high stick , which would then cause them to be more careful]  to a certain
degree. Anyone find it ironic that you can go without a shield or face mask
in USHL but not in NCAA. Canadian College wears a half shield. I never
understood this.<<
 
I don't find it ironic at all.  The USHL is modeled after Canadian Juniors,
who are modeled after the NHL because they're a feeder system for the NHL.
The NCAA was developed separately, and was not originally designed as a
feeder system for the NHL; in fact I think it's safe to say that many NCAA
rules were developed because the NCAA rulemakers didn't like the NHL style
of hockey. 
 
And sorry, but I disagree with doing away with facial protection at the
college level, but I disagree violently at the high school level.  You're
willing to let a 14 year old kid get his face carved up to teach him to
control his stick (when it was the fact that someone ELSE didn't control
their stick that caused the injury)?  You're willing to let a 15 year old
experience reconstructive surgery because a tipped slapshot hits him?    
 
>>I would assume that someone over 18 should be able to act like and be
treated like an adult.<<
 
I'd like to assume that too, but I can point out hundreds of examples of
hockey players over 18 who prove that it's a bad assumption.
 
Clay
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.