Poor ad-visors

Many of you are already where that Mats Sundin suffered a horrific eye injury on opening night... Which seems to be a trend in the NHL - someone has either a terrible facial injury or a bad eye injury with thanks to a puck or stick to the face.

And players, trying to keep a macho attitude, don't want to be forced to wear one even if it's for their own safety.

Tom Jones in the St. Pete Times noted this morning that visors were on the table during CBA negotiations and the NHLPA board was receptive to the idea while the players themselves wanted to be pro-choice... (No link available, sorry)

Meanwhile, Jes over on Hockey Rants writes another one of his great pieces regarding the topic:

What kind of union doesn't care about the personal safety of its members? Oh, right, the NHLPA Guild ( 8-| ).It might be worth noting I brought this subject to light during negotiations this summer... And didn't expect anyone to really catch on to the point that face shields or masks were a huge issue that didn't seem to be discussed much at all in public disclosure of talks:

With all the other changes to the game that are ongoing during CBA talks, should face protection be one of the stipulations by ownership? Or tossed aside as a concession to the players? Ownership has an obligation to protect it’s investments from injuries, and if facial gear can be grandfathered in - it shouldn’t be looked as a bad thing.Now another player has been hurt because of a hands-off facial protection policy... The league and the players don't realize how much this hurts the game, and the players need to realize sometimes personal freedom playing a dangerous sport isn't worth it.