Interesting article on the Hockey Visor Debate, written by an anonymous, active NHL’er. Here’s an important quote:
Not once have I been told that the League is pressuring the players for a rule change. Is that what the League would like the media and the fans to believe? I don’t know. I’ve never heard Gary Bettman suggest that if it weren’t for the players there would be a mandatory visor rule in place. Although in fairness, I do tend to tune out when he starts talking.
The whole thing is interesting and mostly establishes that some players choose visors and others not and that they’re safer with possibly a penalty in performance (limiting vision). The Player comes down marginally in favor of the freedom to choose, I’d say.
But the thing that confuses me is why on earth there ISN’T an owner mandate for visors. If they actually limit injury, they’re protecting an owner investment, right?
If that’s the case, I’d definitely be in favor of visors if I were an owner. I realize there’s a debate about whether helmets and other protection increases injuries because the feeling of safety actually inspires more reckless play. I’m willing to be convinced of this empirical point.
But visors? Surely they don’t make people more reckless. Why DOESN’T Bettman make this a bigger deal?