<snip>
 
on April 7, 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:
 
>yes, and the article you mention (but don't describe) was about  >the
continuing controversy over them, in that the coaches want to >change the
rule to allow half-shields, while the NCAA refuses to. >The doctor the NCAA
is listening to sounds like a real dweeb. His >response to all of the coaches
and player's comments was "they're >stupid, they don't know what they're
talking about'. Gee, what >great advice the NCAA must be getting.
 
Coaches want more visibility, particularly peripherally. Their contention is
that full sheilds help contribute to invinceabiltity. The NCAA can't really
mandate half shields when there have been no scientific and conclusive
studies showing one is safer than the other--liability the issue. The study
done by the Flames team Dr. is the first that compares the half with the full
shield. According to that study, as I just posted previously, full shields
are safer. The NCAA mandated helmets (due in part to pressure from the
American Medical Association) and other safety measures like facemasks,
mouthguards--again liability. For that same reason the NHL certifies their
pucks against law suits from mega mill players.
The safety of the players is an NCAA priority; the performance of the players
is a coaching priority. I'm not saying coaches don't care about their
players; I am saying they care about them after they perform well. (-:
 
Vicki Price
Concussion Free Zone
at violentcontact.net
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.