Helping Hockey Players Save Face
A serious case of common sense has broken out in the American Hockey League. As of today, all AHL players must wear a protective visor. League president David Andrews puts the case simply and succinctly:
“The safety of our world-class athletes remains a top priority, and after lengthy discussions with the Professional Hockey Players’ Association and medical experts, there is no doubt in our minds that this is necessary and the right thing to do.”
A few veterans - including some high-profile TV types - will no doubt object to the rule, insisting that visors should be a "personal choice." We hear this argument often, usually every time a hockey player leaves the ice with a towel clutched to his eye, headed straight for emergency surgery as a wave of panic courses through the arena. Such scenes will now be rare in the American League.
Meanwhile, researchers in Edmonton have a new invention that would come in handy in just about every locker room. A University of Alberta team has designed a device that can regrow human teeth:
Dr. (Jie) Chen is helping to create a tiny ultrasound machine that can be inserted into a person's mouth. The wireless device, roughly half the size of a nail on your baby finger, will be able to gently massage the gums to stimulate growth of the tooth root.
For a sense of how it might change the face of hockey, check out the visual evidence at James Mirtle's blog.
Comments
Visors should be a personal choice, as a player’s eyes are his property alone and the player is the only one who can make the tradeoff between safety and visual clarity. Teams may offer financial incentives to encourage visor use, as it would presumably lower their insurance costs, a savings that can at least be partly passed on to the player.
Lastly, players can still get eye injuries wearing visors (Dany Heatley & Saku Koivu come to mind). For the pundits claiming mandatory visors will save player’s eyes, why are they stopping at visors instead of advocating full face cages?
I don’t expect any change in the NHL policy. But the “personal choice” argument is full of holes, including this huge one: it assumes that players are responsible only to themselves. They aren’t. They also owe it to their employers to stay as safe as possible, not to mention the fans who expect a team to ice the best possible roster.
A team can never guarantee against injury, and it can’t keep its stars in protective bubbles. But it has every right to expect a player to take all reasonable measures to prevent injury. What if Jerome Iginla showed up next fall and told Darryl Sutter he was making a “personal choice” to play without a helmet? What’s the difference?
Isolated examples of players who suffered eye injuries while wearing visors prove nothing. If you look hard enough you’ll find people who smoked two packs a day and lived happy and healthy until the age of 98. It is meaningless when measured against the larger body of evidence, and we all know which way that points.
“…it assumes that players are responsible only to themselves. They aren’t.”
They are. Exceptions include where they have entered into voluntary agreements/contracts with others.
“… They also owe it to their employers to stay as safe as possible,”
As negotiated in contracts.
“… not to mention the fans who expect a team to ice the best possible roster.”
The fans are only ‘owed’ a 2.5 hour contest between two specific hockey clubs, not a guarantee of participation by any individuals. The larger body of evidence shows that they cheer the laundry, not the players.
“… But it has every right to expect a player to take all reasonable measures to prevent injury.”
‘Reason’ means the use of the human mind. Regulations bypass the human mind by using force.
I still haven’t heard an answer about why they should stop at visors and not go for the full face cage. Nobody’s asking for a protective bubble, but the technology exists to protect the eyes much better than visors. If atom thru NCAA players can wear them, why not NHL players? . . . if your real motivation is concern over their eyes!
“What if Jerome Iginla showed up next fall and told Darryl Sutter he was making a “personal choice” to play without a helmet?”
In my scheme, a smart Daryl Sutter negotiated safety clauses/bonuses into Jarome’s contract so that many of his millions are tied to wearing a visor, not riding a motorcycle, not skydiving, avoiding shared-needle-using crackwhores, etc., and if Jarome gets injured while violating the safety terms of the agreement, Daryl gets back millions to go get another scorer.
Although this isn’t really germane to the childish business of sports, the “larger body of evidence” shows that innovation, productivity, and happiness are lower in societies characterized as Nanny States. If you want adults to act like adults, you have to treat them like adults, not like children (”We know what’s best for you. No thinking on your part required.”)