Karen Ambrose's post about the Boston Globe article on the safety
issues related to the full face shields (cages, etc) made me think
of something I was discussing with a friend yesterday.  She tends to
prefer the women's game because it requires more finesse and skill
since there's no checking.  Now I'm not prepared to comment on the
truth of this in this post (or perhaps any other), but it occurred
to me that the women seem to get along fine with the same head gear
as the men.  It would seem the difference is the checking aspect.
Now I'd be the first to admit this is highly speculative since I
haven't followed women's hockey much, certainly not enough to be
aware of injury rates.  And I'm certainly not asking for hitting
to be removed from the men's game.  We've all seen games like that
(not intentionally, of course) and they are BORING since the hitting
is not replaced by skill but by laziness.  But I thought it might be
an idea worth comment?
 
By the way, the Globe article really did not strike me well.  It
seemed like they only quoted those in opposition to the rule, though
it was curious to see Harvard's Bill Cleary having second thoughts
(he was on the committee when the rule went in).  And anyone who's
followed college hockey in this area knows Jack Parker's opinion
on the matter (sort of like asking burglars if they'd like to have
home alarms outlawed :) ).  Anyway, a little more balance could
have made a decent article even better.  I tend to agree with whoever
it was that said that the way to solve these problems is to enforce
the rules.  Note I said 'tend' not 'totally'.  Rules can't do everything
and coaches have to be responsible, too.
 
Dave Reusch
UMaine '86
UNH G Dec '95 (Please?!)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.