Eric Burton said:
 
>>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 if the logic advanced by Gwodzecky, Sauer, et al is really true, making
them optional won't accomplish anything.  The logic said that people playing
reckessly was a result of  wearing facial protection, and knowing that the
other players on the ice aren't wearing facial protection.  If some people
wear full cages, some wear visors, and some wear nothing, how will I know
when to keep my stick down?  The only way to be SURE is to BAN them, not
make them optional.
 
>>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.<<
 
I'm fairly certain that the reason is that only visors are approved by the
NHL; full face shields aren't.  The reason that injured players shed them is
because they have to.  The rules don't explicitly state this.  Rule 22b says
everyone must wear a helmet of a design, material, and construction approved
by the rules committee.  I believe that full face cages and shields are not
approved by the rules committee.  Otherwise rule 23(b) "A mask or protector
of a design approved by the rules committee may be worn by a player who has
sustained a facial injury" doesn't make sense.
 
Clay
 
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.