It's the same as wearing a mouthguard in girls hockey. You dont have to wear one but if you choose to, you have to wear it properly. Otherwise you're violating the rules
Keagan Connell I understand a mouthguard rule, as wearing one improperly could be a safety hazard. But what are the safety hazards of wearing your visor incorrectly?
Happy Trails lol my thought exactly. Lets play some puck. This league man i tell ya. Heres an idea too. Take the damn red lines out of the "FACEOFF DOT" too.
As of a couple years ago, any new player in the league is required to wear a visor. Players already in the league at the time of the change (including Komarov)were grandfathered, so he doesn't personally have to wear one. Now this new rule change makes it so anyone who wears a visor must wear it correctly. Since Leo doesn't have to wear one, but does and wears it on top of his head, I don't have much sympathy for him. He can just go without and everything would be fine
My only complaint is that as a player that doesn't need to wear a visor due to grandfathering rules, he shouldn't be subject to receiving a penalty for the violation.
Gordon Graham yes. But that's a choice for him. The point is that's it's brought in to protect the eyes and if he can do it younger kids will also preventing the point of having it mandatory protection. If a kid just had it bolted on the side and had it over his forehead he would still be wearing a visor with zero purpose. League implements rules to protect players. They play enough hockey to adjust to a visor.
Gordon Graham worse part is he pushed up his helmet up making his helmet not fit properly which means he entered the ice without a helmet which is also a penalty.
It won't, NHL loves their star players making them money. This rule is just a tool for match fixing by calling unnecessary penalties. What a shady league.
This is what I call the pussification of hockey, so he's allowed to play without a visor but not allowed to play with a visor slanted upwards? wtf kind of bizarre logic is that?
the strange issue is that he doesn't need to wear one so are they just taking an issue because he isn't wearing it fully down ? as opposed to just not wearing it at all
It's this type of convoluted mess that the NHL will use to fix matches. This rule, as well as the new faceoff rule are tools to fix matches. The lineman can only look at one player in the faceoff circle.
the visor isn't even tipped up. it's going straight forward. it's just that the helmet sits up high on his head. He'd have to tilt the visor downwards then to satisfy the refs.
Refs should spend more time making actual calls, instead of BS penalties on a person who is exempt from the grandfather rule of 2013, thus he can wear it however the hell he wants.
How does it make any sense to wear a visor tilted up away from your eyes if you dont have to wear one in the first place? Its pretty simple. If you were in the league before the rule, you dont have to wear a visor. But if youre going to wear a visor, it has to be worn correctly.
A lot of folks are complaining about it being a dumb rule, but he was basically asking for a penalty because he is allowed to not even wear one. It's like he ONLY put one on just to complain about it.
It looks like Komarov had it on correctly, but he has a tall head so it doesn't sit over his eyes even when properly attached. He'll need a larger visor for it to go down far enough
From how it looks on the replay, Komarov seemed to be wearing his visor and helmet correctly when the penalty was called. Therefore, the penalty was called to make up for previous infractions and to send a message, making an example out of Komarov. In the future, Komarov should wear his helmet and visor positioned properly at all times, or get rid of the visor altogether if it bothers him that much. The Bauer 4500 helmet model he wears is one of the lowest profile helmets available and fits very close on the head. Pushing that helmet up his forehead would effectively negate most of the protection that would be needed in the event of any kind of frontal impact.
Tony K. Except Komarov is grandfathered in, so the rules regarding the visor, including this sub section on how to wear it, aren't applicable to him. That's the stem of the issue. The league said players over x years don't have to follow this equipment rule then penalize a player of x years for not following the equipment rule. It would be like penalizing Laine for goaltender interference because he sniped one clean from the point. It's perfectly legal, but we gonna punish you anyway.
Problem with this, that the commentators seem to be glossing over, is that he is grandfathered in. This sub section of the visor rule doesn't apply to him. It would be like giving Chara a penalty for having an oversized stick. Sure his stick is larger than league regulation, but his large size (Like Komarovs veteran status) provides an exception to the rule. So they are basically happy the refs are terrible, and blaming their poor ability to officiate from the top down on Komarov. Like they don't even know what goalie interference is. I can't name one team that hasn't won and lost multiple games from their inconsistent calls of goalie interference.
The only reason why this is absurd is because he isn't required to even wear one. It's not protecting anyone else. Everyone knows that. If you're old enough to pass the rule of not needing to wear one, then any infractions due to personal safety directly related to the visor should be nullified. Now if it had a chance to endanger anyone else I'd understand. But the rules are directly contradicting one another and it's absolutely ridiculous.
so wait, you have to wear a visor no questions asked unless your an old timer? doesn't make sense lol but they still haven't made neck guards mandatory?
Its stupid really. When helmets came around i was happy but visors are just stupid to be mandatory. A they make you look weird and b your hands get more damage from punching visors instead of someones face.
Just wondering if anyone knows if this penalty was ever called on someone else or did the NHL bring it in to punish one player who like to wear his visor that way. It sounds ridiculous but knowing the NHL it's probably true.
Like ya he wears it high but when they called it I don’t get what the issue was? It was the same as all the other players? Also I think there’s other things to pay attention to than a guys visor who doesn’t even have to wear one and whether a jersey is tucked in or not,they’re refs not the fashion police
They're trying to throw him off the game. They don't want Komarov and Kadri to keep bullying star players like McDavid, Crosby, etc. The league needs those players to look untouchable to sell more. What a pathetic attempt by the NHL, you don't even need to wear a visor, it makes no sense.
Pretty stupid, if he's grandfathered in, what's the big deal.. If he's routinely getting in fights...even that would still be asinine. I don't see it being a distraction to other players
stupid rule... you can`t wear a helmet how you like it when you got a visor, but if you play without the visor you can have the helmet anyway you want it?
Stupid penalty. Fine the visor companies for not making an appropriate visor that will be adjustable and descend low enough. Dude should have put on a cage to piss the zebras off.
LeafsForTheCup 2018 he's allowed to take it off he's grandfathered in.. but would prefer to wear one the way he does, not all the way down as it obstructs his vision
0:54 you'd have to be having a stroke or something to tell me that the visor isn't properly on. It's a bullshit rule, simple as that. A tool for match fixing.
Fair rule, helps protect players’ eyes from pucks and sticks. Komarov should’ve learnt his lesson the first two times the league reminded him. Only got himself to blame for it.
OptimusTy Good point, but I guess the rule won’t be used for them because visors aren’t mandatory for players that have played without them for so long ex. Lucic, Winnik, Thornton
NatureFavor They wouldn't haven't called it if he wasn't a leaf tho that's the leafs fault for being leafs so it was an excellent call by the referee for seeing" that.
Seriously, that's the kind of calls you like made...? visors and tucked in shirts? Are you a house-league ref? If it's Mitch Marner sure but Komarov doesn't have to wear one - he's grandfathered, so who gives a rats ass if the visor is stapled on top of his head. It is not required safety equipment for that specific player. How does it affect the play in any way.
