Page 1 of 2

Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:50 pm
by sseagle
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=6729 ... L|NHL|home

Board of Governors need to say (Frank) OFF.. for christs sake

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:40 pm
by glen a richter
Somehow this will make the sport more dangerous, just like helmets did.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:58 pm
by dmiles2186
I really don't think it's that big a deal. A lot of guys are wearing them as is and this has been inevitable for awhile.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:27 pm
by STLADOGG
I have no problem with it.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:32 pm
by glen a richter
Once everyone is using them, the especially dickheaded pricks will be taking even more liberties with their stick than they are now. The more armor these guys wear, the more dangerous it'll get out there until someone finally gets decapitated. Make helmets optional and you'll see a safer, more wide open and higher scoring (more entertaining) game.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:08 pm
by Electric Blue
Who will be the Craig MacTavish of visors?

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:37 pm
by sseagle
Well all you supporters of NON-CHOICE, how about they grow a pair and make EVERYONE wear FULL CAGES?

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:22 pm
by STLADOGG
sseagle wrote:Well all you supporters of NON-CHOICE, how about they grow a pair and make EVERYONE wear FULL CAGES?
That's what I play with, I'm fine with it.
EDIT: As long as they can fight still.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:57 am
by Oaklandblue
glen a richter wrote:Once everyone is using them, the especially dickheaded pricks will be taking even more liberties with their stick than they are now. The more armor these guys wear, the more dangerous it'll get out there until someone finally gets decapitated. Make helmets optional and you'll see a safer, more wide open and higher scoring (more entertaining) game.
So players will innately stop when chasing for a puck or performing checks just because you're not wearing a helmet? Isn't there an argument that when a player has to second guess a hit before the hit that it causes more damage?

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:56 am
by WaukeeBlues
I'm actually really surprised that a "clear majority" of NHL players voted for mandatory visors. I guess you can't really argue with the players out there in the trenches if a solid majority are saying go for the mandatory visors. Granted 70%+ of them already wear visors as it is but it's not a given those already wearing one would be in favor of mandatory wear for all new players. Quite interesting.

There's not a doubt in my mind this thing will pass the Board of Governors no problem. Makes fights a little harder, but if you ignore that it really doesn't take away from the game. IMHO.

I wonder who the last player in the NHL will be without a visor now.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:58 am
by sseagle
WaukeeBlues wrote:I'm actually really surprised that a "clear majority" of NHL players voted for mandatory visors. I guess you can't really argue with the players out there in the trenches if a solid majority are saying go for the mandatory visors. Granted 70%+ of them already wear visors as it is but it's not a given those already wearing one would be in favor of mandatory wear for all new players. Quite interesting.

There's not a doubt in my mind this thing will pass the Board of Governors no problem. Makes fights a little harder, but if you ignore that it really doesn't take away from the game. IMHO.

I wonder who the last player in the NHL will be without a visor now.
Generation of (Franking) sheep... Everyone gets a trophy!
Next on the docket, mandatory non-sharp skates, wouldn't want to cut a shitty defenseman that scores a lot right?

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:53 am
by WaukeeBlues
sseagle wrote:
WaukeeBlues wrote:I'm actually really surprised that a "clear majority" of NHL players voted for mandatory visors. I guess you can't really argue with the players out there in the trenches if a solid majority are saying go for the mandatory visors. Granted 70%+ of them already wear visors as it is but it's not a given those already wearing one would be in favor of mandatory wear for all new players. Quite interesting.

There's not a doubt in my mind this thing will pass the Board of Governors no problem. Makes fights a little harder, but if you ignore that it really doesn't take away from the game. IMHO.

I wonder who the last player in the NHL will be without a visor now.
Generation of (Frank) sheep... Everyone gets a trophy!
Next on the docket, mandatory non-sharp skates, wouldn't want to cut a shitty defenseman that scores a lot right?
I understand the frustration and spirit of what you're saying but I really don't see much of an extension of mandatory visors to players playing "less tough." The vast majority of juniors players wear visors anyway, and it doesn't unduly restrict vision/sight (as a full cage undoubtedly does). In my mind, it's not all that different from when the NHL mandated helmets. The NHL is saying (then as now) "We don't doubt you're tough, but this will help make the game safer without unduly restricting your ability to play the game."

A full cage mask or restricting skate sharpness (in your example) WOULD restrict a players' ability to play to their full ability. Yea you can always make the argument that a visor restricts vision in the same manner a full cage does, but not to the same degree. Again: my opinion.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:44 am
by theohall
Listening to Denis Potvin on NHL Radio yesterday, this is probably a good thing. He wore a visor is last 30-something games and hated it. Yet, he did it for a serious reason. In his last years, sticks were coming up. He was the Al MacInnis eye injury. He was worried about his eyes for the rest of his life. He said wearing the visor sucked for him over the last games, but his future was more important to him. IMO - that last part is what matters.

If guys come up wearing visors all the time, it won't matter to them. It's not like college has the mandatory face mask rule already.

Don't really "like" the rule, but completely understand the safety aspect. One thing it should mean - elimination of the "visor" instigating a fight, game misconduct rule.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:06 am
by SteveO
They just need to enforce the extra penalty for fighting and not removing it then.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:12 am
by sseagle
So (Franking) stupid, goddamn NHL. They removed the fighting with a visor penalty and added a removing the helmet to fight penalty. This sport is run by incompetent nba douche canoes.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:30 pm
by goon attack
TEH PUSSIFICATION DEEPENS. :facepalm:

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:51 pm
by Kreegz2
sseagle wrote:So (Frank) stupid, goddamn NHL. They removed the fighting with a visor penalty and added a removing the helmet to fight penalty. This sport is run by incompetent nba douche canoes.
Wait what?

I'm not sure I correctly understand what you're saying... Removing the helmet to fight is now a penalty? How in the name of anything does that make any sense.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:09 pm
by sseagle
Kreegz2 wrote:
sseagle wrote:So (Frank) stupid, goddamn NHL. They removed the fighting with a visor penalty and added a removing the helmet to fight penalty. This sport is run by incompetent nba douche canoes.
Wait what?

I'm not sure I correctly understand what you're saying... Removing the helmet to fight is now a penalty? How in the name of anything does that make any sense.
Yes removing the helmet to fight is now two minutes.

The fighting with a visor penalty no longer exists.

Because the NHL is retarded.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:16 pm
by dmiles2186
sseagle wrote:
Kreegz2 wrote:
sseagle wrote:So (Frank) stupid, goddamn NHL. They removed the fighting with a visor penalty and added a removing the helmet to fight penalty. This sport is run by incompetent nba douche canoes.
Wait what?

I'm not sure I correctly understand what you're saying... Removing the helmet to fight is now a penalty? How in the name of anything does that make any sense.
Yes removing the helmet to fight is now two minutes.

The fighting with a visor penalty no longer exists.

Because the NHL is retarded.
Head injuries are at the forefront of discussion in sports. So it's either that or they abolish fighting altogether, which is what mainstream media types who don't follow the game shout to the high hills anytime someone sustains a serious injury in a fight. I'm not surprised, nor do I blame them for doing this.

Re: Hockey Just Got a Bit Shittier.. Mandatory Visors

Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:42 pm
by Kreegz2
dmiles2186 wrote:
sseagle wrote:
Kreegz2 wrote:
sseagle wrote:So (Frank) stupid, goddamn NHL. They removed the fighting with a visor penalty and added a removing the helmet to fight penalty. This sport is run by incompetent nba douche canoes.
Wait what?

I'm not sure I correctly understand what you're saying... Removing the helmet to fight is now a penalty? How in the name of anything does that make any sense.
Yes removing the helmet to fight is now two minutes.

The fighting with a visor penalty no longer exists.

Because the NHL is retarded.
Head injuries are at the forefront of discussion in sports. So it's either that or they abolish fighting altogether, which is what mainstream media types who don't follow the game shout to the high hills anytime someone sustains a serious injury in a fight. I'm not surprised, nor do I blame them for doing this.


The thing is that, with this rule in place, it will indirectly act as a major fighting deterrant, but the effect will be gradual ratther than immediate. Imagine 20 years from now when there are no visorless players left and everyone in the league has grown up wearing a visor and being subject to this rule. There will be hardly any fights at all.