Rigamarole # 7 - The Great Visor Debate

Much like the issue of the unnecessary dangers associated with touch icings, the issue of mandating the use of visors is one that continues to loom over the NHL. It is difficult to understand how a problem with a solution so fundamentally simple can be ignored but for some reason, the league and its players seem to not want to acknowledge the proven fact that visors prevent serious eye injuries.

It is a site that is becoming all too familiar: a player sprawled on the ice, kicking his feet in agony as he desperately clutches his face. For the Maple Leafs, they have seen far too many examples of this. Over the past five seasons, Bryan Berard, Darcy Tucker, Owen Nolan, and Mats Sundin have suffered through eye injuries. When Sundin went down with just seven minutes played last night, it brought back some chilling memories and the seemingly ubiquitous visor debate that is recommenced after every similar eye injury.

Why is it that every part of the body is protected except for the part that you only get one chance with. The shoulder, knee, hip and elbow can all be healed far easier than an eye. More often than not, an injury to the eyeball results in permanent damage. For whatever reason, the notion exists in the NHL that if you wear a visor, you are pansy. Only the sissies wear visors. I guess it is manly to lose an eye. I don’t think there exists a more asinine, pigheaded and ignorant view toward any other issue in professional sports.

The time has come for the donning of visors to be mandatory. As far as I’m concerned, refusing to wear a visor is as absurd as a business person refusing to use a computer. For the players, playing the game is their profession and by not wearing a visor, they are not maximizing their efficiency as employees just as business people refusing to use computers are doing the same. For putting eyesight at risk, the players need to wake up and realize it just is not worth it anymore. But hey, all that was just rigamarole.