|
Players Get Behind Their Masks. Or do they? THE FULL VERSUS THE HALF SHIELD DEBATE According to a three year prospective study in junior A ice hockey, the largest potential for injury was incurred from skating velocities of over 30 MPH and high impact collisions. The hockey puck was determined to carry the weight of 1250 pounds at its terminal velocity, the stick reached angular velocities of 100 to 200 km/h. The combination of speed, hard surface, rigid boards, collisions and potentially dangerous equipment resulted in significant injuries. In Ice Hockey the anatomic regions most often injured are in this order: face
Most frequent mechanism of injury. collision with other players 24%
Source: According to this study facial injuries have declined since the use of the helmet and facemask. Mouth guards are recommended to reduce dental injuries.Castastrophic ice hockey injuries are less prevalent in Finland than in North America. The study attributes this to large ice surface and less physical game. Sources:
Why things bite back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. Science News; Washington; Jul 6, 1996; Anthony Cait. According to a study done by Paul D. Reynen and William G CLancy Jr., which was published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, “one of the greatest changes over the last 30 years has been the use of the face mask and helmets.” Hockey helmets were first used in Sweden after and insurance survey that was done in 1961. The survey indicated that there were 100 closed head injuries, 1 death, 22 concussions and 3 facial fractures. By 1965, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association mandated helmets for all non-adult players. In 1968 two teenage hockey players died of closed head injuries while wearing helmets. In 1969 the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association requested that the Canadian Standards Association set standards for the helmets used. From 1975 on, all helmets worn by Canadian Amateur Hockey Association players were required to wear CSA approved Helmets. The study says that around the same time attention was being given to ocular injuries. In 1975 alone there were 25,000 facial injuries in amateur hockey in the United States alone. From 1976 on the amateur hockey association in the USA mandated that all players under the age of 20 wear a full face mask. In 1978 CSA, Canadian Standards Association established standards for facial protection in minor hockey. In the 1977-78 season the NCAA mandated full face masks. Helmets alone are required in professional leagues since 1981. What were the results of these changes? A reduction in ocular and facial trauma. Even with helmets there continues to be a high incidence of closed head injuries (concussions). The incidence of spinal cord injuries is up despite use of helmets and face masks. Sixty-five percent of the players in a study done revealed cervical spine injuries from head first contact with the boards. Twenty-five percent of the injuries were from a check from behind. All the players wore helmets and two-thirds wore face masks. It is considered that today’s larger players increase the energy involved in collisions. The helmet helps to decelerate impact, but the neck also plays its part in decelerating the torso. Even low impact velocities sustain compressive loads. In an interview of high school players in Minnesota 89 percent thought they were less likely to be injured with face masks; 64 percent thought they were more likely to engage in contact and 66 percent thought masks allowed them to be more aggressive. There also has been an increase in high sticking violations and the risk of serious spinal cord injuries is 3 times greater in hockey than in football. The consensus is that reeducation and better rule enforcement are necessary. In 1985 the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association mandated the rule against checking from behind. The findings of a study conducted in 1997-98 Canadian Inter-University Athletics Union hockey season of head and neck injuries among Ice Hockey players wearing full face shields versus half shields, determined that intercollegiate ice hockey players wearing half shields compared with full face shields, had the risk of sustaining a head injury (excluding concussions), facial laceration, and dental injury 2.52, 2.31, and 9.90 times greater, respectively. They found no evidence in the study supporting the speculation that full face shield use increases players' risk of sustaining a neck injury or concussion. Furthermore, the overall risk of injury to an anatomic region other than the head or neck was not significantly different between the 2 comparison groups. The significant results to this study revealed: The risk of concussion, facial laceration and dental injury was 2.52 times greater wearing a half shield. No evidence was found to substantiate that the full face shield increases a player’s risk of neck injury or concussions. Stick and skate related injuries are far higher in the group that wore the half shields. Seven out of 11 athletes wearing mouth guards and half shields sustained injuries concluding that the use of the full shield significantly reduces the risk of dental injuries. Considering concussions sustained by players wearing half shields, more game time was lost than players wearing full shields. Lose chin straps, and half shields worn incorrectly contributed to this. This study concluded that the use of full face shield presented a significant reduction in the risk of facial and dental injuries without increasing the risk of neck injuries, mild traumatic brain injuries, or other injury rates (overall). According to the study’s final assessment, “ sports governing bodies at the intercollegiate level of competition should seriously consider mandating full facial protective equipment for all participants under their jurisdiction.” The study can be found online at: In 1988 at the American College Hockey Coaches Association annual meeting, it was unanimously agreed that full face masks contribute to a feeling of invincibility and promoted rough and violent play. Do hockey coaches want the helmet off for better visibility? Despite findings that demonstrate the full is safer than the half shield, NCAA coaches continue to appeal to the NCAA for the half shield. WHY? Is rough and violent behavior the result of invulnerability from wearing a full shield, or a by-product of COACHING, and PEER PRESSURE? Face Off with your opinion. E-mail violentcntactnet@aol.com (c)Copyright 1998-2000 |