Scott Ayen wrote:
 
> As far as I know the NHL does not require face shields.  This leads
> one to deduct that NHL players must be more adult than the college level
> player by getting to choose whether or not to wear a shield at all.  You
> can count the number of players in the NHL that wear face shields (on a
> regular basis) on one hand.  There must be a reason why they don't
> wear shields beyond the BS of its all peer pressure.  One would think
> that people making that kind of cash would weigh the choices and wear
> what they think is best for their career.
 
One would think, but it doesn't always work out that way.  Take a look at
the usage of performance enhancing drugs.  Some of the stuff being used is
more dangerous (and not necessarily in the long term, either) than I think
any of us are claiming that playing hockey without face shields is.
 
I learned not to assume that people will utilize provided safety features in
a different field.  When I was still doing survey research work, we surveyed
farmers in Olmstead County, Minnesota.  Farming, by the way, is the most
hazardous profession in the US (though they probably didn't compare it to
quarterbacking in the NFL).  The trouble that these people would go to to
disable or remove safety features that came on the equipment they purchased
was amazing.  Many of these features are uncomfortable, inconvenient or
reduce efficiency, which makes them a lot like helmets and face shields.
Despite the high frequency of significant injury that the study found,
safety did not rank near the top of many farmers' priority list.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.