An Ounce of Prevention

Sure was nasty watching the fine young Philadelphia defenceman, Braydon Coburn, take a puck in the face Sunday night in Game 2 between the Flyers and Pittsburgh Penguins.

He was cut badly near the eye, and may or may not be able to play in Game 3.

Surely, it could have been worse.

Yet wasn't it also preventable?

Given where the injury was, it would appear a half-shield would have blocked the puck from hitting Coburn in the face. But he doesn't wear one, and so he was lost for the game, and maybe more.

Given that the Flyers were already without Kimmo Timmonen, losing their second best puck mover on defence was a huge hindrance. The Philly power play struggled mightily, although it worked once, and by the third period it was painful to watch Derian Hatcher, Jason Smith, Randy Jones and Jaroslav Modry try mightily but unsuccessfully to move the puck up ice.

Coburn, clearly, would have made a difference. Who knows, maybe a winning difference in a game in which the Flyers clearly had a chance to win.

Now players get hurt, that we know. But if a simple piece of equipment like a visor would allow a team in the conference final to be more competitive, wouldn't it stand to reason that the team would require the athlete in question to wear the protective equipment?

People try to make visors a macho thing, something that tough guys don't wear, or a sign of a sport that doesn't have the same mutual respect between players it once did (which is utter baloney, by the way).

But a deflected puck is an accident. It's not about manhood or toughness. It only makes sense in an industry in which millions and millions of dollars are at stake to have top players protected against such accidents.

If Coburn can't play the rest of this series and the Flyers lose, will it have made any sense at all that a 23-year-old hockey player who would have worn facial protection from the first time he stepped on to an ice rink until 2005 was able to do the "manly" thing and not wear one in the NHL?

Comments

[GarryS]

I totally agree. Furthermore, shouldn't NHL players wear full cages? Not only does it make sense health-wise, it would speed up the game (fewer penalties for drawing blood with high sticks).

[Al Pascal]

I couldn't agree with you more Damien. Players who have always worn a full cage and then a shield since they have been in hockey should NEVER take them off once in the NHL as evidenced here. Obviously most of these players appear to use their heads simply to wear a helmet or perhaps to keep their ears apart??

[Jeff]

I think the NHL should totally implement mandatory half visors for all it's players. Defenseman especially are vulnerable to deflected pucks, never mind the occasionaly accidental high stick. And those so called purists who say it goes against the tough guy code can shove it. Upshall and Kennedy managed to drop their gloves and their helmets before squaring off on Sunday.

Personally, I went to a half visor from a full wire cage in my mid-20's because I wanted to look more like a regular hockey player. Well, that worked fine for 4 years but this past season I took a deflected puck in the cheekbone and have since switched back to a full cage. I don't play in any leagues where fighting might occur so I'm happy to be as fully protected as possible while still enjoying the game I love no matter what kind of ribbing I get from the guys on the bench.

[Navin Vaswani]

I don't usually with Cox, but I have to here. It's stupid. Everyone should be wearing one. It's time to grandfather the visors in. Enough already.

[Matt]

dead on, Damien.

[Cloud9 Sports]

Conveniently no mention of the visual hindrance visors offer. Being macho is only a part of the equation, a portion that is soundly trumped by an athletes comfort level during a performance.

Some players are willing to accept the risks inherent to playing without a face shield because they know it provides them with a competitive advantage. Perhaps you could have tucked this nugget into your rhetoric?

[Steve]

Cloud9 Sports:

This visual hinderance you're talking about is complete bull. Having made the transition myself I will admit that going from no visor to a half visor takes some getting used to, but these guys are pros that are on the ice most days. Are you telling us that they wouldnt be able to get used to them? The Hart Trophy Candidates this year all wear visor (Ovechkin, Malkin, Iggy). So does Crosby, Heatly, Jagr, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc. and they dont seem to be affected by it. And the "competitive edge" you speak of would be null and void if visors were law. The eyes are the only body part that we dont do a good job of mending, a broken arm or a leg gets a cast, torn ligaments get surgery but once you lose an eye, its gone. Give these guys some cedit.

[Hockey Fan, therefore by Definition Not a Leaf Fan]

Well Mr. Cox, I am afraid that Cloud9 Sports is correct. I play alot of hockey (quite badly) and play D. I played with a cage, then half visor almost my entire life.

My cage broke off my helmet on day, so I played a month or two without a cage. It was incredible the visibility difference, and I like to believe that the quality of my play improved.

However, after having a skate blade tap the tip of my nose, and a butterflying puck hit my eye socket (pancake wise, thank goodness) I put the cage back on. I figure my eyes are more important to a beer league hockey player like me.

But for a guy on the edge of making the NHL or not, there is no doubt they would remove it and take the risk for better performance.

[Peter Lynn]

I know it seems obvious that visor use could only lead to better protection. But while it's weird to think Don Cherry might be right about something, he actually might be. He's just not eloquent enough to explain his thoughts coherently (and to be fair, he doesn't really have the time during Coach's Corner that I do while posting on the internet).

Consider the theory of risk homeostasis. (It was developed by a psychology professor at Queen's University, though I first read about it in a Malcolm Gladwell article.) The idea is that individuals have a certain level of acceptable risk that doesn't change. If you raise the threshold of protection against dire consequences, people simply behave in a riskier manner, and the result is that accidents happen about as often as they did before.

The study I've seen involved a fleet of taxicabs in Munich. Half were given antilock braking systems, while the others just had old conventional brakes. The drivers with ABS took more chances and expected their cars would be able to handle it. The ones without ABS simply drove more carefully. The result was that accident rate was the same for both types of cab.

Now consider risk homeostasis as applied to visor use in hockey. It makes some sense that visor-wearers are engaging in riskier behaviour since the overall risk of personal injury has lessened (both to themselves and to other visor wearers). Anecdotal evidence among players indicates that the sticks have started coming up off the ice more often now that players are wearing visors. There may be something to the argument that there's less respect for other players, simply because players wearing visors don't perceive high-sticking as being as risky as players who don't wear visors do.

Of course it's the players without visors who are taking the brunt of this increased risk; they may be more careful, but their visor-wearing opponents aren't (a situation analogous to a Munich taxicab without ABS getting broadsided by a careless cabbie with ABS). If so, perhaps visors should be mandatory for all or prohibited altogether.

But if risk homeostasis is a valid theory, it would seem to make sense that the rate of injury would be about the same in an NHL in which no players wore visors than in an NHL in which all players wore them (although the types of injury would likely vary).

All things being equal, if visors don't provide an enhanced level of protection but do restrict the players' visibility and marketability, the question is: why bother?

[Stephen]

The visor makes a difference for some, it doesn't for others. The fact that some elite players can play with one does not in any way demonstrate that ALL elite players can play as well with one. Does a team have an interest in preserving the health of its players if it means its superstar's ability is going to be reduced?

[Spencer]

Okay, wearing full face cages? That's ridiculous. But I agree all players should be made to wear half visors by the NHL.

Since the League would never have the stones to do such a thing, is it not possible for an NHL club when it is scratching out contracts with its players to put in a contract that all players on its roster must wear visors? Call it 'investment protection'. If a player refuses, he doesn't have to sign with that team. Just a thought.

[Doug]

I understand your angle Damien but I have to disagree. Millions of dollars are at stake and in order to get those millions players have to produce. If a player not wearing a visor has better vision and in turn is able to put up better numbers then that player gets rewarded with a bigger contract. I have played with and without a visor (I use one now in my 40's) and I have to say that I had better vision without a visor. No sweat from hits, fogging up or scratches hindered my vision. I agree that it reduces injuries and I don't think the macho thing applies. I simply think that it should be a players decision.

I also think that younger players in the NHL will wear visors as they did in junior or college but to get a veteran player who has not worn one in years to put one on is not going to happen (see Mats Sundin). Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[Steve]

Peter: Looks like you've been reading. The one thing you're missing in the whole homeostasis theory is that visors cover the area of your body that if injured affects more than mobility or pain level... its affects your ability to see. Even if the injury is not extremely severe (i.e. Cobourn) the swelling and bruising of the eye alone will not allow you to see what they heck you're doing out there. The other injuries you're talking about might be a few more teeth get knocked out, etc. which is something that most players will be able to play through because its only pain. Also, visors will not affect marketability. Crosby is the most marketable player in the league and he sports a visor. Mike Vick was arguably the most marketable athlete in North American and maybe only second in the world to Beckham and his face is covered by the mask on his football helmet. As for Stephen's comments, I bet the Flyers would like to have Cobourn out there with "reduced vision" rather than where he'll be sitting tonight. And are they really elite players if their game is drastically reduced by wearing a visor? In international rules everyone under 30 must wear a visor and that hasnt seemed to affect a lot of the young stars that play for team Canada in these events. A prime example is visored Vinny Lecavalier starring at the 04 World Cup and Getzlaf doesnt seem to be slowed at all during this years World Championships. This whole "reduced vision" argument is just a relative term. If everyone has to wear one, everyone is back on the same playing field.

[Jason]

I'm not trying to gloss over the fact that visors can save injuries but this injury may of happened the same or worse if he had a visor. Saying Colburn would still be on the ice for sure would be a baseless assumption. This is the problem with soapbox types like yourself Cox, all you comments are baseless like usual