• Print
  • Comment

Top Shelf: Visors will never win when players have choice

Moose forward Mike Keane put a visor on later in his career. (Photo By Dave Sandford/Getty Images)

Zoom Image

Moose forward Mike Keane put a visor on later in his career. (Photo By Dave Sandford/Getty Images)

In so many respects, professional hockey players are incredibly privileged.

There’s the gaudy pay stubs, calling a game ‘work,’ experiencing the camaraderie found only in smelly dressing rooms and a whole world of ancillary benefits I either can’t or, for the sake of not torturing myself, don’t want to imagine.

But when it comes to the issue of protecting themselves, many NHL players never had a chance.

The vast majority of players in the NHL have reached an age whereby they’re officially referred to as adults and, logic would dictate, are capable of making grown-up decisions.

So, when the inevitable player-protection debate arises following incidents like Richard Zednik’s freak accident, the first argument many reach for is: “They’re big boys, let them decide how to protect themselves.”

True, they are big boys.

But many of those big boys, despite their age, sometimes act like seven-year-old kids who feel they’re too cool for a bicycle helmet and need to be told by their parents it’s a non-negotiable part of the package.

The reason for that? When you’re reared on images of bloody-faced warriors “gettin’ it done” despite any ailment that occurs along the way, it’s hard not to get sucked into that culture.

When you grow up being told you have to wear adequate equipment, then flip on your TV only to see players who don’t and hockey personalities who question the manhood of those who do, it’s easy to see why so many players peel off the visor the moment it stops being mandatory.

Heck, my dad still plays old-timer hockey with men who refuse to accept one of the best things about your golden years is being able to see your grandchildren.

It has little to do with intelligence and almost everything to do with environment. If a kid grows up with Calgary Flames fans as parents, chances are pretty good he or she is going to join the sea of red, too.

That’s why it’s so crucial to have examples like Mike Keane out there. The 16-year NHL vet and three-time Cup champ isn’t just tough, he’s prairie tough.

As such, the Winnipeg native didn’t feel the need to sport a visor until late in his NHL career.

Now in his third season with the American League’s Manitoba Moose, the 40-year-old Keane continues to wear a visor – not just because his league mandates it – but because he recognizes the painfully obvious dangers of not wearing one after eluding a lifetime’s worth of flying pucks, sticks and elbows.

Related Links

The AHL made visors a must-have following an incident that occurred in February of 2006. Portland Pirates defenseman Jordan Smith, a second round pick of Anaheim in 2004, took a shot in the eye and was forced to forgo his dream of playing professional hockey.

His love for hockey kept him in the game and he now plays Canadian university hockey for the Thunder Bay-based Lakehead Thunderwolves.

Smith, who did not wear a visor at the time of the injury, had this to say to the Winnipeg Sun a few months later when the AHL made face protection mandatory:

"The bottom line is it's a good idea. If it minimizes some serious injuries, who knows if it saves one guy, then it's worth it. It's definitely a good idea. It's common sense. And it's a very smart thing to do."

Too often that viewpoint doesn’t find players until after a life-altering event.

I’m not somebody who believes players should be rolled in bubble wrap and bound in Kevlar suits before being sent out on the ice.

If the sole purpose of life were to avoid injury at all costs, sports wouldn’t exist to begin with. There’s an accepted level of risk in any sport (lest we forget race car drivers die every so often) and fans, media and the players themselves have obviously come to an agreement that they’re more than OK with that.

But don’t use the free will theory to circumvent the common sense fact simple measures can be taken to temper the risk without altering the fabric of the game.

Players should have the right to choose how they equip themselves? In theory, yes. In practice, many of them don’t acquire the perspective required to make that call until it’s too late.

Ryan Dixon is a writer and copy editor for The Hockey News magazine, the co-author of the book Hockey's Young Guns and a regular contributor to THN.com. His blog appears Wednesdays and his column, Top Shelf, appears every second Friday.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, Subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

From now until the trade deadline (Feb. 26) The Hockey News is having a subscription sale. Click HERE to get $10 off our regular subscription price.

HEy (Posted 2008-02-24 18:17:11)
I just don't get it. Glencross and Lucic, both had serious facial injuries this season, but as soon as they could they took tke visors/facemasks off. People should learn workplace security= no choice

BillM (Posted 2008-02-20 00:53:57)
The Hockey News appears to have different columnists but they all seem to say the same exact thing in every article. I think visors should be grandfathered in, but THN makes a concerted effort to ignore and/or dismiss any opponents of their "safety first, change the nhl as much as possible to conform to ADD addled americans attention, and ban fighting" mantra.

Derek (Posted 2008-02-19 16:27:35)
I like college hockey because the players play with reckless abandon. That cage gives you a sense of invincibility. I just put my cage back on for men's league because it allows me to be more aggressive without any fear. You are just going to see more ridiculous cheap shots if visors or cages are mandated.

Brian (Posted 2008-02-19 12:12:58)
I think it's ridiculous that more owners aren't trying to get the players wearing visors. It's a workplace safety issue, it's not a matter of player choice. If you work with machinery, in a warehouse, factory, etc. there's regulations, precautions and safety conditions to keep you safe in large part because if you get hurt on the job and miss work, it costs ownership money. I really find it difficult to believe that NHL owners, who all made money in various enterprises, don't get this. If a player goes down with an eye injury because he wasn't wearing a visor, that's an asset and a worker you have that's going to waste, unable to work because of an incident preventable by a simple, cheap piece of safety equipment. It's absolutely no different than a welder who's face is burned because he wasn't wearing a mask because it was "his choice." Frankly, if I were an owner and players really wanted it to be their choice whether or not to wear visors, then fine, if you get hurt in an area a visor would've covered, you're paying for your own medical costs, and I'm not paying you a dime until you're back to work, because you're missing time as a consequence of that choice. See how many guys would flock to visors then.

Craig (Posted 2008-02-18 14:17:13)
Mandatory visors or facemasks is not the answer. You're going to see a lot more high-sticking, cross-checks to the mask, and flying elbows, which will lead to more concussions. Watch closely at any high school, junior, or college hockey game and see how many careless blows there are to players' heads. Hits to the head would decrease if everyone played without a mask.

hey (Posted 2008-02-17 13:09:40)
they should make visors mandatory

Paul Gaudet (Posted 2008-02-17 13:07:21)
The use of visors and neck guards could be mandated by the insurance company. They won't cover the medical expenses if injured in the face or neck if they don't wear the visor or neck guard. When working for a company it is mandatory to wear protective equipment on the job. The union can't negotiate this. This is for the protection of the employees. I played US College hockey in the mid - fiftees and we had to wear helmets because the insurance companies dictated it. And if we didn't wear them we couldn't go on the ice for practices or games. You get accustomed to wearing them.

Kevin Dieterich (Posted 2008-02-17 08:31:30)
While my back has given out now, I played mens league hockey for 20+ years without any face protection. Like others say, it was those two nights late in my playing years when I took a high stick to the eye and later, skate blade to my upper lip and nose that made me go out and buy a half shield (after the highstick) and eventually a full face shield (after the skate in the face). Yes, it's about what you're used to, what allows you to see/feel the puck on your stick that keeps one from wearing protection. But when you see something bad happen to a teammate or yourself, you decide how your life might be affected by losing an eye, a huge scar on your face or other. I think that over time, many NHL'ers will come to accept that a half shield will not be a sign of being a wuss, but more that the person has some sense.

Robert Whitsitt (Posted 2008-02-16 22:49:16)
I can tell you first hand that peer pressure certainly plays a role in the decisions players make. When I tried out for the Hampton Roads Admirals (when they were in the ECHL), I skated onto the ice for my 1st practice with a visor. I removed it the next day, and no one had even said anything. The issue was I was one of four players to wear them, and one of the others was a Russian, we were the extreme minority! In retrospect I can't believe I played without it... Sure, I was 22 yrs old and it was my "choice" but my parents didn't even question my decision. That's a pretty accurate indication of how we think in this country, and how we're raised to believe that visors are for wimps! Nothing could be further from the truth... Actually, I'm considering going back to a full cage, and a neck protector.

Jason Weimar (Posted 2008-02-16 16:37:30)
I think most players will be wearing visors soon anyway. Jagr wears one and he's one of the OLDER players. New players like Ovechkin and Crosby both wear them too. In fact, I see more and more younger players wearing visors. I think it will become so common that there is no need to make a rule.

Andre (Posted 2008-02-16 15:21:15)
They are employees so the "free will" argument holds no water in my books. Also, regarding reduced visibility, if the player is good enough to make the NHL wearing at least a visor through juniors, university and now the AHL, the "reduced visibility" argument is baseless, apparently most players want to find out what their visibility is like after they take a puck to the eye.

Paul Kramer (Posted 2008-02-16 08:08:32)
I generally agree with Ryan Dixon's points, particularly the men-will-be-boys influences and pressures of the industry and culture of hockey. One counterpoint, however, that I'd like to add is this: if wearing a visor lowers a player's ability just a notch, that might be enough to mean a career in the minors rather than in The Bigs. I've heard comments to that effect from players over the years, and in that case it should be the individual's call to forego safety for opportunity.

Add a comment

Daily Dish - All the News in one click This Week - Subscribe Now

Which team will win the Atlantic Division?






THN Newsletter - Sign Up Now

"Our give-a-crap level was like at zero."

- Atlanta head coach John Anderson on Sunday's 4-1 loss to division rival Tampa Bay.

Our Partners