If you could only save 3 things out of your house which was on Fire, what would you grab??
head crusher-megadeth have fun
The primary argument for facial protection is obviously just that, more protection for these athletes and team assets. The argument against mandating half shields is led by those who believe the added protection will lead to more incidents of dangerous stick infractions because players would presumably assume a false sense of absolute protection and carry the sticks higher. A secondary concern with a reduced level of player recognizability has entered the conversation at various points during the debate. The traditionalist belief is that helmets and shields take away from player marketability and also from their personalities showing through. While the secondary argument can't take center stage from a pragmatic standpoint, the fact that over 350 non-goalies (out of 670) on today's NHL team rosters wear half shields almost renders the whole point moot. Over 50% of the players wear shields and all but a handful of players grew up wearing some form of facial protection. The mandate should be grandfathered in just as the helmet mandate was in 1979. End of story.
