Make The Visor Mandatory In The NHL

On March 16th, Manny Malhotra of the Vancouver Canucks was struck in the left eye when a pass deflected off the stick of Colorado Avalanche defenseman Erik Johnson. Malhotra, who wears a helmet without a safety visor, underwent surgery later that night. However, he may still lose his eye and his vision, and is scheduled to undergo a second surgery tomorrow in an attempt to save both.

Had Malhotra's helmet had the visor, he would not be undergoing these surgeries, and would still be on the ice. The NHL has thought about mandating visors before, grandfathering in players that did not wish to wear them who happen to already be in the NHL. Players in the minor leagues would be made to go with the visor immediately. Incidents such as this prove that they should step up their efforts to mandate the visor.

There was a time when goalies did not wear masks in net, considering such an idea as cowardly. In fact, Jacques Plante, the inventor and first player to wear a goalie mask back in 1959, was considered by his peers to be a wimp. Despite this, the mask caught on, and the last goalie to play without a mask retired in 1974. However, there is not an actual rule in the NHL rulebook requiring a goalie to wear a mask.

Helmets, on the other hand, were made mandatory starting with the draft class in 1979, over fifty years after they were originally introduced. In 1927, Barney Stanley, a former hockey player, presented the NHL with a prototype of a protective helmet. The first player to actually wear the helmet was George Owen in 1928-29. Although a few players would wear helmets, most notably Eddie Shore, most players refused, regarding such devices as cowardly.

This changed in 1968, when Bill Masterson died after striking his head on the ice. Masterson was hit by two players, striking his head hard enough on the ice to cause blood to pour out of his nose and ears. He was rushed to the hospital, where four doctors tried for thirty hours to save him before he died from a 'massive brain injury'. By the time the NHL made the helmet mandatory for all new players, roughly 70% of the league was already wearing them.

Hopefully, it does not take Malhotra to lose his vision for the NHL to make the visor mandatory. This needs to be done immediately so that such an incident does not occur again.

Best sign yet for football in 2011

In a ruling that signaled a major blow to the NFL, US District Judge David Doty agreed with the NFLPA in regards to the NFL receiving $4billion in television revenue, regardless of whether or not football was played this upcoming season. In his decision, Doty stated that the NFL violated it's agreement with the NFLPA, stating that "The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players."

By having the television contracts set up in such a way where the NFL, and the various teams, would be paid whether or not a football game was played, the owners guaranteed that a lockout would happen, especially when they had an out clause in the previous collective bargaining agreement. After all, why would someone pay the players to perform when they can just shut the gates and turn a profit?

Lost in all of this is that the players WANT to be playing football in 2011. The biggest issues are that the owners want a bigger piece of the revenue pie, and they want 18 games so that they can 'give the fans what the fans want'. However, amongst people that identify themselves as NFL fans, only 45% are even slightly in favor of the change, and a mere 18% strongly favor it. So, in other words, 82% of NFL fans don't want it, or are lukewarm at best to the concept.

Furthermore, expanding the NFL season to 18 games will further decrease the future health, and length of career, for the players. However, this does not seem to matter to a commissioner and a league that continually talks about 'player safety'. If they are so concerned with the future health of the players, why are they trying to expand the season under a flimsy excuse to disguise their profit motives? Why do they continue to promote and market DVDs of defenseless players getting blown up? Hypocrites.

Hopefully this ruling will force the hand of the NFL and the commissioner, so that there will be a season in 2011. With the NFL being at the apex of it's popularity, why risk a disruption over a few million dollars? It's short sighted, reckless, and hazardous to a sport that has become the most watched in the nation. Should a lockout actually occur, it will be interesting to see how the league recovers - if it does at all.