Saving Face

Chase Priskie exercised his patience and waited for his name to be called at the 2016 NHL Entry Draft.

After going undrafted in his first two years of eligibility, Priskie, a college hockey defenseman from Pembroke Pines, Florida, felt his nerves settle in the sixth-round of the draft when he was selected by the Washington Capitals.

A freshman at the time, Priskie watched his name pop up on the draft board from his home in Hamden, Connecticut and with his Quinnipiac teammates by his side. Suddenly, he had to make quick and drastic changes to his summer plans.

His life in Hamden was put on pause. For the first time in his young hockey career, Priskie was set to make a handful of adjustments as he headed to an NHL rookie camp.

Dr. Michael Stuart, the chief medical officer of USA Hockey and a professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, has been a part of the premiere research on facial protection over the last two decades. He is also a member of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) medical committee and a hockey dad as well.

His three sons, Mark, Colin and Mike, all played hockey at both the collegiate and professional levels.

While Mark (pictured right), a recently retired defenseman that played 673 NHL games over his 13-year pro career, did not wear any form of facial protection at the professional level, his father explains why the different levels of protection are required at separate levels of play through one of his studies in the American Medical Journal, A comparison of facial protection and the incidence of head, neck, and facial injuries in Junior A hockey players. A function of individual playing time.

“Full protection is better than partial protection and partial protection is better than no protection,” Dr. Stuart said. “In fact, there was an almost-five times higher risk of eye injury to players without a face mask to a visor and there is no risk of eye injury to players wearing full facial protection, so if you look at injury risk to the eyes, hockey — despite pucks and elbows and sticks — is one of the safest sports on the planet, provided you wear full facial protection.”

That being said, injuries in hockey remain commonplace due to the sport’s aggressive nature.

While external injuries, like eye injuries, facial lacerations and broken bones in the face, are nearly 100 percent preventable with the full face mask on, visceral injuries are not.

Bill Riga, a member of the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey Rules Committee and an associate head coach at Quinnipiac University, was a former player himself. From his college days at UMass Lowell to a brief professional stint in the Western Professional Hockey League, he recognizes -- from both a player's perspective and an executive standpoint -- that foul play is part of the game no matter what type of facial protection is being used at any level.

“I did play games without a face mask and I did get hit in the face, and I got a huge black eye for not wearing a face mask,” Riga said. “I also got concussions wearing a face shield too."

The debate over facial protection seems simple at first glance. The more protection a player wears, the less likely his face will be injured in play.

However, an important aspect that is much overlooked within the typical debate is through the gladiator effect.

The term comes from the theory that the more protection a player wears, the more invincible he feels on the ice, like a gladiator in full armor. With a full cage on, players are more prone to act recklessly on the ice, whether it’s in the form of high-sticking or overly-aggressive use of body checking.

Karlis Cukste, another Quinnipiac defenseman and an NHL draft pick of the San Jose Sharks, originally hadn’t heard of the gladiator effect before. But once it was brought to his attention, it simply made sense based on his own experiences.

“It's actually interesting. The first year I went to Sharks camp from wearing a full cage, I would catch myself going hard in the corners, lifting my stick up and [other players] would be like, ‘What are you doing? You almost hit me,’” Cukste said. “So the difference between the actual play is different.”

He isn’t the only one to recognize the phenomenon from a reckless-stick standpoint either.

Both Bellows and Priskie were immediately keen on the invincibility factor, even before it was brought up in conversation.

“I think the biggest [reason] for wearing a visor in college is (to have) more stick control,” Bellows added. “I think when you play with guys from juniors or guys that played pro, they have way more stick control between less high-sticks and playing with the body, rather than going for a hook or slash.”

Priskie concurred: “You definitely see less erratic stick play when you’re wearing the visor. Guys are more under control and there aren’t as many high hits or high-sticks like there are in college hockey because in college hockey, when someone high-sticks someone they get it in the face mask and it’s no big deal. But in pro hockey when you draw blood it’s a four-minute penalty."

“It’s just a much more controlled game in the aspect of, there aren’t sticks flying everywhere and guys aren’t invincible as I would put it. Anyone is tough with a cage on, so I think that’s the biggest thing for me.”

Boston Bruins defenseman and former captain at the University of Vermont, Kevan Miller, agrees with the claim as well.

“I believe the gladiator effect is definitely a real thing,” Miller said. “Wearing a cage makes you feel more protected than a visor, consequently, players put their head and face in positions they would otherwise avoid. This is true when giving and receiving hits, blocking shots, and in scrums after the whistle.”

Despite the firsthand experience from some players, Dr. Stuart is adamant that the gladiator effect is not 100 percent true from the scientific perspective.

“First of all, I agree with the gladiator mentality. You have to be careful about adding too much equipment because the concern would be that players that have false sense of security, reckless abandon and use their head as a weapon,” Dr. Stuart added. “... But the reality is that there is zero — zero — scientific evidence to prove that facial protection increases a risk of concussions or cervical spine injuries. Now it doesn’t mean it doesn’t increase the risk, but there is zero evidence to say that.”

If the injuries are virtually imminent, why does the NCAA stay on course with the mandated full face mask rule?

As Priskie completes his collegiate career at Quinnipiac, he will look to go pro following the 2018-19 season. Once there is no more college hockey left to play, Priskie will join the Capitals organization and put on the half shield for good.

Like all college hockey players, he knew the circumstances of wearing a full shield when he made the decision to become a student-athlete.

Further, Priskie believes that getting rid of the full cage may ultimately better promote college hockey due to a more seamless transition into the pro game.

But for better or worse, he is ready to drop the full cage in the next stage of his career.

“Overall, I’m just a big fan of visors and I think it’s more of a personal opinion on the matter,” Priskie added. “I know guys that have worn visors that love it and guys that have worn visors that don’t like it, but moving forward into pro hockey you don’t have a choice.”

What the players say:

Kevan Miller:

“It was frustrating at the time I was playing college hockey, however, looking back it doesn’t make much sense to me. I can understand why the NCAA mandates it. I believe it is all insurance based and players getting stitches and teeth knocked out can be expensive on insurance costs. On the other hand, players with the gladiator effect are making the sport more dangerous. Concussions are a real issue in today’s sports and a much bigger problem then stitches and missing teeth. Eventually the NCAA will have to address this.”

“I didn’t find it very difficult to transition from cage to visor. You need to protect your face a little more than you would with a cage but that becomes a natural reaction. I think the biggest adjustment was my own stick against players with visors rather then cages.”

“I have been very fortunate to avoid any major facial lacerations. Small cosmetic things here and there, but for the most part, I don’t wish I was wearing a cage at all.”

Corban Knight:

“I really don’t think it’s a big issue in today’s game. The transition from college to pro, I don’t think guys really think about going from a cage to a visor. If anything it’s just nice to get into a visor again."

"For me, I’ve lost a couple teeth and had quite a few cuts on the face, but it’s the same thing, you don’t really think about that when you’re playing. Obviously after the fact, when your face is throbbing or you’re icing your face you may wish you had a cage on, but at the same time, it’s not really something where you wish you had the cage on or anything like that.”

"I think maybe [I wish I had a cage] a little bit with blocking shots and stuff. You feel a little more confident that if one gets away from a guy and comes up high, you have your cage to protect you. But at the same time, when you’re on the ice you’re not really thinking about that stuff, you’re just playing hockey. I don’t really think that’s something that I think about or has ever really affected me.”

Chase Priskie:

"Guys that played in junior leagues that wear visors, they seem to know how to control their stick and it just seems like when you go to those camps you’re only playing against like 30 guys, and they're all — I would classify them as — elite players, so they have control with their stick anyways. But you definitely see more from college players that they’ve got higher high sticks than you do with major junior players who wear half shields all the time."

“I just think it kind of develops bad habits with guys running around with their stick in the air. First of all, you can draw penalties and secondly, if you don’t have your stick on the ice there’s no way to collect the puck. So I just think it kind of develops a bad habit in general.”

"It is what it is and hopefully we’ll see in years to come that they can acclimate well enough dental plans that we can institute visors and I think that a lot of it is, once you put visors into place, you’ll see a lot less high-sticking penalties and hit to the heads just because you’ve got to play a more controlled game."

"In my opinion, I think that the college game models the pro game so well in terms of speed and size and strength that the sooner they get into wearing visors it just promotes college hockey that much more in the aspect of it’s more of a seamless transition because you don’t have to wear a visor and that’s part of the sell, where a lot of major junior teams can sell that we’re going to better prepare you because you will be playing in a visor and it’ll be more comfortable in that aspect."

Ethan De Jong:

“Another reason why I like the cage is — I’m not really a fighter anyways — but I can get in dirty, throw a few cross checks and they can’t really do anything about it, so that’s definitely a plus side there and you can definitely be a little more free with your stick out there.”

“The visor is obviously easier to see out of, but I like the cage more. I think it’s better style too.”

Kieffer Bellows:

“I just think every high-end league in the world has them and the NCAA should be wearing visors.”