# Hockey shields/masks **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076 "2013-02-22T14:07:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/1 "2013-02-22T14:07:47Z")
> **[Do pads and helmets increase rather than prevent football injuries?](https://www.straightdope.com/21344187/do-pads-and-helmets-increase-rather-than-prevent-football-injuries)** In it, Cecil claims that “Studies have found hockey players wearing only upper-face protection get injured more than those wearing full face masks, and also more likely to engage in illegal behavior.” I’d be curious to see those studies, because that’s the exact opposite of what I’ve been hearing. U.S. college hockey has been looking at doing away with the requirement for its (male) players to wear full shields or cages, allowing them to go with a 3/4 shield, under the theory (backed with data, I think) that they will take fewer risks if they’re less protected. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/2 "2013-02-22T21:27:02Z")
Continuing discussion of this column… Cecil states: > [@](#): > > The concept here is called risk homeostasis or risk compensation. It holds that everyone engaged in a dangerous activity has a personal risk-vs.-reward level they’ll stick to no matter what. In other words, if you force someone playing a contact sport to wear protective equipment, they’ll take bigger risks to bring the overall danger back to the level they’re comfortable with. This may be true, however, that homeostatis level can be adjusted. It takes a cultural/group mentality shift to work. For example, consider the risk homeostatis involved with major construction during the late 19th/early 20th century. The injury and death toll when building skyscapers was notoriously bad. I was just reading _Devil in the White City_ about the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893 (i.e. “World’s Columbian Exhibition”). The book actually discusses the construction work in rebuilding Chicago after the great fire and the developments in architecture that was occurring. It mentions statistics on deaths for building the Brooklyn Bridge (27 people died in construction, from [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge)). Think about the kind of free walking on skyscraper frames that construction workers engaged in then, and compare against modern safety regulations with harnesses, tie offs, etc. This is a cultural shift in expectations for safety in the workplace, even in “dangerous” construction jobs. Adding pads and helmets may not decrease injuries, just shift the injury types because the addition of pads and helmets make the players _feel_ safer, and thus try riskier moves. Or, as you argue, it may shift the risk from the player making the tackle to the player receiving the tackle. But an attitude shift in the players, coaches, and fans can adjust the homeostatis line. We may be seeing one of those related to concussions. ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/3 "2013-02-23T15:07:55Z")
Cecil mentions fencing as a sport in which risk compensation seems not to apply. As a competitive fencer (in épée), I’m trying to think of how I would increase my risk because of safety equipment, and I can’t really come up with anything. Obviously, a masked fencer will protect his head less and attack the head of his opponent more often, but masks are very well-made, are tested for puncture resistance before any sanctioned tournament (in the USA anyway), and the tips of weapons are far too wide and blunt to even attempt to go through the mesh of a mask of any quality at all (I’ve had my mask for 10 years and it has never failed a puncture test). The back of the head is exposed and could possibly be injured, but turning the back is illegal in fencing and will result in immediate stoppage and a penalty. Fencers might be willing to hit harder because of safety gear, but unlike the other mentioned sports, there is no advantage in hitting harder. In fact, it is disadvantageous to hit any harder than necessary to depress the button on the tip of the weapon, because a miss would mean you have a lot of unnecessary power propelling you forward and it would be difficult to recover, likely resulting in your being touched. Beginning fencers have trouble gauging how hard to hit, and I’ve gotten plenty of bruises fencing beginners, but at higher levels you often won’t even feel the touch. I don’t think that risk compensation applies to fencing because it can’t, not because fencers are more civilized or less risk-averse than the average person or something. At least, I can’t think of how it would. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/4 "2013-02-25T17:17:11Z")
I thought a touch on the face didn’t score, but perhaps that was only for kids’ fencing. In any case, Fencing is an illustrative counterexample, for the reasons you mention: increasing the dangerousness of the attack doesn’t increase the chances of winning. Homeostasis would apply only in cases where more aggressive (potentially dangerous) behavior is rewarded. Do we see more crashes in Nascar, now that cars are as safe as they are in a crash? Of course, crashing rarely puts you in the winner’s circle … ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/5 "2013-02-25T18:22:09Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I thought a touch on the face didn’t score, but perhaps that was only for kids’ fencing. When using the foil, it does not. With the epee it does. ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/6 "2013-02-25T18:22:50Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I thought a touch on the face didn’t score, but perhaps that was only for kids’ fencing. In epee and saber fencing, touches to the mask are valid. In foil fencing, touches to the mask are not valid, but do still occur by mistake of course. ---
**Author:** ![RedSwinglineOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9adbd/32.png) [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/7 "2013-02-25T18:42:47Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > [Do pads and helmets increase rather than prevent football injuries? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3094/do-pads-and-helmets-increase-rather-than-prevent-football-injuries) > > U.S. college hockey has been looking at doing away with the requirement for its (male) players to wear full shields or cages, allowing them to go with a 3/4 shield, under the theory (backed with data, I think) that they will take fewer risks if they’re less protected. > Powers &8^] From what I see, most facial injuries in hockey come from high sticks they never saw coming, and fast moving pucks they had no chance of avoiding. I think in this respect hockey injuries are not the result of “risky” behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hockey-shields-masks/651076/8 "2013-02-25T19:24:53Z")
> [@RedSwinglineOne](#): > > From what I see, most facial injuries in hockey come from high sticks they never saw coming, and fast moving pucks they had no chance of avoiding. I think in this respect hockey injuries are not the result of “risky” behavior. The idea is that the players keep their sticks down more when they’re wearing less facial protection. [http://www.uscho.com/2008/01/31/shielded-from-harm/](http://www.uscho.com/2008/01/31/shielded-from-harm/) That said, I also found this (via [http://www.uscho.com/2010/06/09/head-games-injury-prevention-in-mind-as-full-shield-debate-escalates/](http://www.uscho.com/2010/06/09/head-games-injury-prevention-in-mind-as-full-shield-debate-escalates/)): > [@](#): > > Though a recent vote of coaches at the Division I level showed unanimous support for [then College Hockey, Inc. executive director Paul] Kelly’s theorem, hard numbers don’t exist proving that there are less injuries when players use visors versus full shields. > > One study, in fact, refutes Kelly’s concerns. > > A 1999 study conducted by professors and staff at the University of Calgary that surveyed players in the Canadian Inter-University Athletics Union showed that wearing a visor increased the overall number of injuries to the facial region, but severe injuries, such as concussions and spinal cord injuries, were unchanged. It may be that '99 study to which Cecil refers. Powers &8^]