> 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.
 
not a lot of north american players wear the shields, but a lot of skilled
europeans do wear them like Forsberg, Hejduk, I believe Jagr wears one too.
 
>  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.
 
steroids are also a totally different ballgame than face shields, banning
steroids doesn't really have anything to do with the health risks associated,
or at least not much, it has to do with unfair performance enhancement.
 
>  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.
>
it should be the athletes choice whether he or she wants to wear a visor, or
at least whether to wear a full or half shield if you aren't willing to allow
them to take the risks associated with going shieldless onto themselves. I'm
not playing NCAA, but when I was trying to decide on facial protection for my
league (which doesn't require a shield, but states right out if you don't
have one you better have good insurance) I came to the conclusion quickly
that I can't stand the full shield, because I find it hard to breathe in and
the cage is visually distracting. the half shield is much easier to breathe
in and it does protect your eyes even if your lower face will probably get a
few stitches.  I think the bottom line is that it's ultimatley my face, and
the face of all the athletes, and I think it's the individual persons
decision, maybe the NCAA doesn't think its time to give grown men the
decidion to go visorless because they're worried about the message that would
send or liabiltiy issues, but I really don't think it shows a disregard for
safety to allow the individual to choose between a half shield and a full
visor. let the athlete take liability on themself for their choices, let them
know the possible outcomes of their decision.
                                                         --JB
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.