Share This Page

Rossi: Players should follow Orpik, Staals, and choose to wear visors.

| Saturday, March 23, 2013, 11:23 p.m.

Hockey is no place for mandates.

The people in this sport famously fought against helmets.

There are socks made of Kevlar that are proven to reduce the risk of skate blades slicing tendons, but good luck convincing a majority of players to try them even for a practice. There is a better chance that players wear Batman-approved underwear than a majority of general managers agreeing to eliminate all hits to the head.

Visors, though, appear to be coming to the NHL.

At their in-season meetings Wednesday in Toronto, general managers discussed instituting a rule that would require players to wear visors. There will be obstacles, starting with required approval from the players' association, which is doing its job to resist any mandate for face shields and/or guards.

Still, do not overlook the significance of the union taking a poll of players this summer on the face shield topic. The NHLPA is run by smart men with their fingers on the pulse of the players, and there is a clear sense that opinions are changing.

More than 60 percent of current players wear some form of face protection. That group is growing.

Penguins defenseman Brooks Orpik recently joined the majority. An injury to Marc Staal of the New York Rangers convinced him there was “no good reason” to play without a shield.

Orpik said technological advances have created a visor that is mostly unnoticeable, one that does not feel heavy, does not turn foggy, does not need to be replaced every period.

Visors are not perfect, but equipment companies are closer to perfecting them than at any point.

It is not as though a visor has prevented Kris Letang from seeing the ice well enough to become a Norris Trophy favorite. Visors also hardly have limited Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin or Alex Ovechkin, players who have combined to win four of the last seven NHL scoring titles and MVPs.

Players at nearly every level of hockey other than the NHL are required to wear face protection.

NHL players, however, should not face a requirement. They should make the decision on their own — as Eric and Jordan Staal did Friday.

Neither had worn a visor — unless an injury required face protection — before their brother's injury earlier this season.

Jordan Staal always offered a simple reason for his decision to go without: He did not like wearing one.

Hockey players are unfairly labeled as stubborn. Really, they are creatures of habit, and, at least in the NHL, Staal's habit did not include looking at action through plastic.

Habits change.

The other 700-plus members of the NHLPA, at least those not already on board with visors, should look to the examples recently set by Orpik and Eric and Jordan Staal.

Common sense need not be mandated, but it must be part of players' world view.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.