Visors, Warriors and Idiocy

Vol. I,  No. 44

Ian Laperriere has seen the light.  Or, he can see the light. A half inch lower, and Ian might not be seeing the light.

Last night, the veteran Flyers forward took another puck in the face.  It was the second time in six months.

On November 27, 2009 he was hit in the mouth in a game against the Buffalo Sabres.  After 50 - 100 stitches, missing seven teeth, he sat out the second period and then returned to play in the third. Even so, Ian chose to continue to play without face protection - a plexiglas visor.

In Newark, Laperriere took another risk, dropping to block a shot by Devils defenseman Paul Martin. The puck hit him just above his right eye.  This time, it was 60-70 stitches above the eye. As he was helped off the ice, Laperriere asked his trainer if his eye was still in its socket.  

Hockey has a reputation for tough guys, and Laperriere sets the bar for his team and others. He is among the league's leading shot blockers. In the New Jersey playoff series, Laperriere blocked 6 shots in 5 games. He thinks in terms of sacrifice more than wins.

Contrast this with other Flyers who wear face protection, including Captain Mike Richards. Had Laperriere been wearing a visor, the shot would have rattled his noggin but not much more.

After the game, in an interview, he admitted that he will skate with a shield from now on. The 36-year old, eldest player on the team, wants to be able to see his kids grow up.

Why does it take two severe injuries to convince a player to get wise with a visor?  Some players do it without an injury (especially those coming from US colleges where facegear is mandated).

Colin White of the Devils wears a visor after taking a puck in the right eye on September 19, 2007. Take a look at White and Laperriere on the ice together.  Which one is the smart guy?  What's the moral here?  If you only lose a couple of teeth (OK, seven, but who's counting), then maybe you figure the chances of another puck in the face are nil, even if you drop to block shots. Real smart.

The truth is that there is a mystique to the warrior image of NHL toughness. A player who freely opts for a visor is admitting weakness. After all, they are already wearing helmets and lots of padding. In old tyme hockey, there were no helmets. And even the goalies played without masks.  Terry Sawchuck had 600 stitches in his face, over his career.  But that was in the age of pre-slap shot hockey, before pucks travelled at 100mph, and before seasons lasted 82 games, with playoff runs of another 20 - 30 games (for teams which reach the SC finals).

There is one answer for this.  The league needs to protect Ian Laperriere and others from the idiocy of peer pressure, pretending to be knights in shining armor (but without the full helmets).  If the NHL mandates visors, Ian Laperriere will be among the last to almost lose an eye.  

Helmets are required.  Visors should be part of the standard gear. Players earning millions per year will not lose as many days to facial injuries.  It makes economic sense.  Will the League see the light, or is it blinded by the tradition of real men playing through the pain?

Tell that to 1997's Rookie of the Year Bryan Berard, who didn't lose an eye, but after seven operations wound up with 20/600 vision in his right eye.  He continued to play for 11 years, and fitted with a special contact lens, he can see.

The NHL needs to look forward, to protect its players, to remove the stigma of asking for a visor. It needs to create a new rule.

Hockey Rules (but sometimes not enough).

P.S. Five quarterfinal series have gone past 5 games.  Four teams are up 3 - 2, after being ahead 3 -1.   Last night, Ottawa extended their series in a second OT against Pittsburgh. Tonight, Montreal bested Washington in a 2 - 1 thriller. And Buffalo managed to extend their series against Boston. Only one team has won their series 4 - 1. The Flyers rule the Devils.  For New Jersey fans, there is a summer to wait and ponder what 2010-11 holds.