In regard to the full shield/half shield question...
 
First, I think there are several important points which need to be
addressed.  The rule was made in order to prevent the injuries that
result from high sticks.  So, if the full shield requirement is going to
be removed, it is inevitable that injuries will result unless something
is done to counter this rule change - like issuing a directive to referees
to enforce the high-sticking penalties.  If we do go to half shields, I
think it is imperative that this occur.  I have been very pleased with the
way hitting from behind and hitting after the whistle have sharply
decreased with the emphasis placed upon referees to make these calls.  I
still think that if something similar was done in the area of high-sticking,
we would see a drastic change; perhaps it would not be eliminated entirely,
but it could certainly be decreased if players were aware that it was
going to be called, even if no injury was caused.  However, at the same
time this does place an added responsibility upon officials to watch for
more infractions - but by allowing linesmen to inform the referee of
penalties, the chance that such infractions would be missed is less than
it was a few years ago.
 
I think the principal concern here is the safety of the players, and that
will make it difficult to implement a change to half shields.  This isn't
pro hockey, after all.  I agree with everyone who has posted that something
should be done to bring the sticks down, but I would prefer to see an
attempt made through stricter enforcement of the rules before we make a
change that is going to result in some players being injured.  By just
going to half-shields, it leaves the impression that we are threatening
the players with injury if they don't bring their sticks down.  Why not
just take the helmets away, too?  To what extent do we go to lower the
sticks?
 
Also, if a player chooses to wear a full-shield, will he be allowed to?
 
I wish I had included this issue in the poll.  My official
answer is, as I said, I want to see the rules enforced first before we
go to half-shields.  That makes more sense to me than forcing the players
to endure a "transition period" during which they will be more at risk
than players who came before or after them.  I don't know whether this
*will* work, but I would like to see it at least attempted.
 
To carry this a step further, I suggest that there should be stronger
penalties handed out for illegal uses of the stick like high-sticking
and cross-checking.  Maybe an automatic double-minor for these infractions
would be a good place to start.  A mandatory misconduct along with the
current minor is another possibility, since it has been said that the
player should be penalized and not the team, but I think that if players
know they will be hurting their teams more by taking these penalties, they
will be more likely to abide by than the rules than if they received a
minor-misconduct.  I might even agree with a mandatory major instead of
a double-minor.  And if these penalties occur very late in the game, when
a major wouldn't hurt a team much more than a minor, add a mandatory DQ.
This may preclude the occurrence of stick battles at the end of a one-sided
game.
 
But this may raise another problem.  Referees are at times known to put
their whistles away late in close games; will this prevent them from
calling heavily-penalized stick infractions in these situations?  That
I don't know.
==========================================================================
Mike Machnik             [log in to unmask]    samsung!hubdub!nin15b34
NORTHEASTERN HUSKIES: 1988 Beanpot & Hockey East Champions
MERRIMACK WARRIORS: 1993 Hockey East Champions
NCAA Hockey -> Fire on Ice!  See you at the 1992 Final Four in Albany, NY!
Go Huntsville Stars (Southern League AA baseball, Oakland A's affiliate)
==============================cmk=========================================