Comments on: More on the protective gear dilemma

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 21 May 2007 17:31:46 +0000

My immediate thought was hockey as well. It has long been accepted that cages and face shields, especially with younger players learning the game, have increased the acceptability of carrying your stick up high, dramatically increasing the chances of a stick to the neck and above. back in the days of no face protection (or helmets at all), sticks were kept down.

By: Evan

Evan — Fri, 18 May 2007 16:34:35 +0000

In fact, hockey is so aware of this problem that they’re relaxing the instigator penalty for next season, allowing players more freedom to start fights unprovoked in order to reduce injuries to skilled players.

There was a reason no one ever hit Gretzky when he played in Edmonton in the early ’80s. Players knew that if they did hit Gretzky, Dave Semenko would skate over and punch them in the face.

By: AP

AP — Fri, 18 May 2007 02:19:36 +0000

The bicycle study is bad science. A researcher already in the habit of advocating for helmet-less riding measured his own behavior. Finding out that this person rides closer to cars when he both wears a helmet and knows the tapes are running doesn’t mean that helmets are dangerous.

By: tangotiger

tangotiger — Thu, 17 May 2007 19:48:31 +0000

Hockey fans are well aware of this issue.

The “protection begets recklessness” is often the reason that helmets, then face shields, etc were/are resisted at the NHL level.

And that fighting is condoned, otherwise other retaliation (stick infractions) would take its place.