Truth & Rumors > NHL

Insurance plans may make visor decision for players

Views
1559
Comments
50

08:21 AM ET 03.18 | The Calgary Flames' Steve Begin, who like many veterans prefers not to be told what to do when it comes to the visor debate, does not wear one. The day when Begin and the rest of the 27 per cent of the NHL's 740 players who still do not wear an eye-protector on their helmets are forced to do so may be approaching faster than they think. And it will be the insurance industry calling the shots, not the NHL, which has long wanted to make visors mandatory but cannot because the NHL Players' Association prefers the matter to remain a personal choice. ... Either way, more NHL players are putting on visors. The NHLPA's numbers show that 73 per cent of its members now wear them, up from 34 per cent in the 2003-04 season.

The Globe and Mail

Sidney Crosby, Getty Images Sidney Crosby, Getty Images
Comment #1 has been removed
March 18, 2013  08:28 AM ET

within 5 years the non-visor use will be strickly limited to goons and a few old farts. this isnt even worth discussing.

March 18, 2013  08:31 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

If the guy in the picture can play with one, there is zero reason as to why anybody else can't.

either way, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

March 18, 2013  08:59 AM ET

Insurance plans may make visor decision for players

I can see that.

March 18, 2013  09:05 AM ET

Just like the other innovations in hockey. They resisted helmets, goalies didn't want to wear facemasks and I'm sure in the early days they resisted wearing shin pads and cups.

March 18, 2013  09:18 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Just like the other innovations in hockey. They resisted helmets, goalies didn't want to wear facemasks and I'm sure in the early days they resisted wearing shin pads and cups.

Some players claim they can't see out of them. Ironically, Brooks Orpik just started to wear one, and then took a puck right to the visor in one of the games over the weekend. Imagine it could have been bad if he hadn't been wearing one.

March 18, 2013  09:29 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

within 5 years the non-visor use will be strickly limited to goons and a few old farts. this isnt even worth discussing.

Exactly

March 18, 2013  09:34 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

within 5 years the non-visor use will be strickly limited to goons and a FEW OLD FARTS. this isnt even worth discussing.

Hey! You talking about me? LMAO.

I agree with you. While I have never played hockey, these guys (who don't wear visors) are nuts to risk life-changing injuries which could be prevented.

March 18, 2013  09:42 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Some players claim they can't see out of them. Ironically, Brooks Orpik just started to wear one, and then took a puck right to the visor in one of the games over the weekend. Imagine it could have been bad if he hadn't been wearing one.

I saw that one. It would have been bad.

March 18, 2013  10:00 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Just like the other innovations in hockey. They resisted helmets, goalies didn't want to wear facemasks and I'm sure in the early days they resisted wearing shin pads and cups.

to your last point....I'd say knowing my gender, that last one was never a debate.

March 18, 2013  10:03 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

to your last point....I'd say knowing my gender, that last one was never a debate.

Gotta agree with you it makes as much sense as a catcher not wearing one

March 18, 2013  10:05 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

to your last point....I'd say knowing my gender, that last one was never a debate.

Not all rubber is helpful in that area ;-)

March 18, 2013  10:05 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

within 5 years the non-visor use will be strickly limited to goons and a FEW OLD FARTS. this isnt even worth discussing.

Hey! You talking about me? LMAO.

Well do you talk to Alex Trebek to get your insurance?

March 18, 2013  10:26 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Well do you talk to Alex Trebek to get your insurance?

I wouldn't talk to Alex Trebek to get the correct time

March 18, 2013  10:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

I wouldn't talk to Alex Trebek to get the correct time

Alex will take "smug and arrogant" for 200

March 18, 2013  10:57 AM ET
QUOTE(#15):

Alex will take "smug and arrogant" for 200

The Answer is; Canadian Game show host that thinks he is as smart as the contestants because he has THE ANSWERS ON THE CARDS IN FRONT OF HIM!!!!!!!!

March 18, 2013  10:58 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

within 5 years the non-visor use will be strickly limited to goons and a few old farts. this isnt even worth discussing.

And, in another five years, I see them installing wiper blades on their visors.

March 18, 2013  11:07 AM ET

The American Dental Association will lobby against full cages, however.

March 18, 2013  11:18 AM ET

I don't care if the player chooses to wear a visor or not. They are making an informed decision, and if they get hurt because they weren't wearing one, then "oh well". I won't feel bad for them. They accepted the risk.

 
March 18, 2013  11:19 AM ET

Crosby is in favor of visors, and fighting, and the realignment.
And puppies, sunny days, and ice cream.
He's a swell guy.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    14773
    Comments
    682
  2. 2
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    3171
    Comments
    503
  3. 3
    Trump taking a legit run at the Bills
    Views
    2497
    Comments
    108
  4. 4
    Why the Raiders have lost 111 of 160 games
    Views
    10567
    Comments
    74
  5. 5
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    649
    Comments
    70

SI.com

SI Photos