As shots kept getting harder (and sailing higher) and players kept getting bigger and stronger, the NHL evolved to find ways to make the violent sport of hockey survivable enough for players to make it through lengthy regular seasons. Yet in a sport in which toughness (and some might even say masculinity) is always at the forefront – whether it be in scrums or the borderline insane act of placing your body in front of a 100 mph slap shot – almost every bit of added safety found some opposition.
Jacques Plante received plenty of grief when he became the first NHL goalie to don a primitive mask, even from his own head coach. Hockey players were so strongly resistant to wearing helmets that the league didn’t require players who already skated without helmets to don one. (Call it a “grandfather with a bloody nose” clause.)
Each time, there was at least some thought that such innovations would reduce the effectiveness of the players. For instance: people felt that a mask might hinder the peripheral vision of a netminder.
One of the most common debates regarding player safety comes in the form of whether or not the NHL should force its players to wear visors. Proponents of such a rule can boast obvious examples of athletes who suffered from disturbing eye injuries playing hockey. From Steve Yzerman to Al MacInnis to Bryan Berard and Mike Mottau (seen in this post’s photo), the sport has no shortage of cautionary tales in which a visor might have saved the day.
Both sides have some reasonable arguments, so we thought we would ask: should the NHL require players to wear visors? And if so, should the league follow the formula created by the helmet requirements by allowing players who previously played in the NHL to be “grandfathered in” and play without one or should the NHL/NHL Players Association force players old and new to skate with a visor in? Let us know by voting in the poll below.
Lucic: If I wanted to hurt Couture, ‘I would have hurt him’
While Lucic knew he deserved a penalty, he said after the game that he didn’t “know why it was called a match penalty.” His coach, Darryl Sutter, agreed, calling it “a borderline even roughing penalty.”
“I accept the 41-game suspension handed down to me by the NHL’s Department of Player Safety. I worked extremely hard over the last two years following reconstructive knee surgery to resume my NHL career, and this is the last thing I wanted to happen. I am disappointed I have put myself in a position to be suspended again. I sincerely apologize to Jakob for the hit that led to this suspension, and I’m extremely thankful that he wasn’t seriously injured as a result of the play. I also want to apologize to my Sharks teammates and the organization.”
A statement from San Jose GM Doug Wilson:
“The Sharks organization fully supports the NHL’s supplementary discipline decision regarding Raffi. While we do not believe there was any malicious intent, this type of hit is unacceptable and has no place in our game. There is a difference between playing hard and crossing the line and there is no doubt, in this instance, Raffi crossed that line. We’re very thankful that Jakob was not seriously injured as a result of this play.”