Deron Writes:
 
>What I want to know, is does any research exist that supports the idea the a
half-shield or no shield is actually safer in some instances??
 
Good Question.
 
To my knowledge none yet.
 
Certainly, I don't disagree that peripherally, vision would be better without
a facemask-- period. That's why all the guys don't even want to wear a half
once they have the choice.
 
I think the half is a half solution to a problem that just won't be fixed by
facial protection alone. It's partially about stick work (an NCAA coach
already admitted that they were "teaching" some of these moves), a disregard
for the opponent or unecessary illegal play, and extreme contact at high
speed.
 
Before the NCAA will mandate from full to half, there will have to be studies
in order to ascertain what in fact is the safest, along with more stringent
rules and stricter enforcement. Any violation that causes a severe injury
deserves significant punishment.  We know though, that often these kinds of
severe injuries happen in the course of legal play. So, we're back to healthy
respect with or without the half or full.
 
I don't disagree that stripping off the invincibility might do the deed. But,
in the nonprofessional arena, you're looking at an increase in facial and
dental injuries just from the physicality of the game. I wouldn't think the
American Medical Association would back the half on that point alone.
 
Some important considerations are:
1.Protecting the Eyes
2.Protecting against facial and dental injuries
3.Gaining conclusive evidence on the effects of impact on the   facial area
that contributes to concussions.
 
 
 
 
Vicki
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.