>    You know what that is fine, wear the full shield you can have it. I
>believe that others still should be given the opportunity to not wear it...
>But as we live in a society that needs to have organizations to tell us
what
>to do, I believe the NCAA is handcuffing itself with the current rules and
>regulations. Now the coachs same coachs that voted to get these things
>mandated want them banned and won't. Ever wounder why pros immediately get
>rid of mask? It is a hinderance. How many are wearing them on a full time
>basis in the NHL? The only ones I can think of are the ones that are
>suffering from a face injury. The minute it heals they shed them things.
 
Elite athletes pretty consistently demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice
safety the moment that they think a competitive advantage, or even comfort,
can be obtained.  By your logic, why shouldn't steroids be permitted?  It's
the athlete's choice to use them.
 
You absolutely have the right to not wear a face shield.  You also have the
right to not play NCAA hockey.  Beyond the obvious liability issues that
will keep the NCAA from making shields optional, it is also well within the
organization's purview to mandate that certain equipment be used in games
that it sanctions.  Stepping aside from the almost obligatory cynical
comments about the NCAA's motives, perhaps they simply do not want to have
their name attached to a sport in which a fairly simple action is not taken
to reduce injuries?  Because no matter whether it's the athletes' choice to
not wear shields, injuries that result from not wearing them (or even
seeming to result from not wearing them) will reflect on the organization
that runs the sport.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.