Toronto Maple Leafs defenseman Bryan Berard's NHL career was never the same after he suffered a catastrophic eye injury in a game. Hockey's gatekeepers debated the issue of making visors mandatory in this 2000 story.
For most of its operation, the NHL was a league without mandatory visors. That’s no longer the case – although there remain a few players whose lack of eye protection is grandfathered into the collective bargaining agreement. In this major feature story from The Hockey News’ March 31, 2000 edition (Vol. 53, Issue 29), then-associate-editor Bob McKenzie broke down where the NHL and hockey in general stood why it came to visors.
(And here’s your regular reminder – for access to THN’s Archive, you can subscribe to the magazine at THN.com/Free.)
Visors were made mandatory in the 2013-14 season, but before that, eye protection was the choice of the players. And in McKenzie’s story, hockey’s gatekeepers chose to allow players the freedom to decide whether they wanted visors.
“(Equipment) has always been a fundamentally important issue for the union,” NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told The Hockey News in the wake of then-Maple Leafs star defenseman Bryan Berard’s serious eye injury, one that made him never the same elite player as he was before the injury. “The Players’ Association has made it clear that they want individual choice, that they don’t want legislation and won’t accept legislation. Ultimately, every player in the NHL is free to wear a visor.”
For the final dozen years of his terrific NHL career, then-NHLPA official Mike Gartner wore a visor in the wake of a significant eye injury. And while he empathized with Berard, Gartner took the same stance – namely, that players had the right to decide what eye protection (if any) they’d wear.
“It makes me sick what happened to Bryan,” Gartner said, “and the case for (mandatory eye protection) makes some valid points. But I honestly don’t see it changing in the near future. With helmets, the time came when there were only a few players left not wearing them. That’s not the case with visors. There are still a lot more players not wearing them than wearing them. It’s a personal choice.”
It took more than a decade after this story ran before the NHL finally mandated visors for all players entering the league. Although there was pushback at that time, the benefits of wearing visors could not be drowned out by the “cons” of mandatory eye protection.
“Goalie masks were unthinkable for 90 years, helmets were unthinkable for 100 years,” said then-Maple Leafs president Ken Dryden. “When it comes to the issue of visors, it’s not a matter of if, but when.”
NO CHANGE IN SIGHT
Vol. 53, No. 29, March 31, 2000
By Bob McKenzie
In the aftermath of Bryan Berard’s terrible eye injury, there were repeated references to the debate on mandatory visors for NHL players.
There was, however, one problem. Everyone was debating the issue except for the only two groups that matter: The NHL and NHL Players’ Association.
Equipment regulations, specifically those regarding player safety, must be negotiated as part of the collective bargaining agreement. There is currently no provision for mandatory visors. The current CBA doesn’t expire until 2004. And, in spite of Berard’s injury, there does not appear to be any groundswell of support, within the NHL or NHLPA, for mandatory eye protection.
There are two reasons for that.
First, the NHL knows equipment legislation is a hot-button issue with the NHLPA and the league is leery of getting into the argument because there’s little or no chance of winning. Second, and this is the bottom line, the NHLPA’s stated policy is players must have the freedom to choose whatever equipment suits them, even if there are associated risks.
That was made clear to commissioner Gary Bettman during the 1994 labor negotiations, when the NHL was pushing for the mandatory use of safety-certified helmets. Ken Baumgartner, a player rep at the time who wore an uncertified helmet, lectured the new commissioner on the importance of players being permitted to choose equipment they find comfortable and performance-enhancing.
The NHLPA’s philosophy hasn’t changed.
“(Equipment) has always been a fundamentally important issue for the union,” said Bettman to THN in the days following Berard’s injury. “The Players’ Association has made it clear that they want individual choice, that they don’t want legislation and won’t accept legislation. Ultimately, every player in the NHL is free to wear a visor.”
Even on equipment issues not as high-profile as visors, the NHL and NHLPA have difficulty reaching an accord. At the recent GMs’ meetings, there was talk of recommending a rule change on the tightness of helmet chin straps. That was in response to Donald Brashear’s helmet coming off when he was struck by Marty McSorley’s stick.
But NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow effectively cut off debate by saying it’s an issue the players would have to study. Goodenow’s stance, which he says reflects the sentiments of the NHLPA membership, could not be any clearer.
“We want the players to have the right to choose,” Goodenow said. “The players are aware of the dangers of hockey and the threat of injuries. They have the ability to make informed individual decisions about the option of wearing facial protection.”
NHLPA official Mike Gartner is a former player with an intimate understanding of the risk of eye injuries.
“It makes me sick what happened to Bryan,” Gartner said, “and the case for (mandatory eye protection) makes some valid points. But I honestly don’t see it changing in the near future. With helmets, the time came when there were only a few players left not wearing them. That’s not the case with visors. There are still a lot more players not wearing them than wearing them. It’s a personal choice.”
That’s what it was for Gartner, who suffered an eye injury in his fourth NHL season. For two weeks, he was without vision and doctors couldn’t guarantee it would return. Slowly, but surely, it did. It took four months, though.
Because of that injury, Gartner chose to become one of the few NHLers at the time to wear a visor. He wore it for the remaining 12 years of his career.
“And I didn’t like it one bit,” Gartner said. “It was hot, it was uncomfortable. I had to clean it and wipe it after every shift, but I also wiped off a lot of stitches. I still got cut around the eye, but the tape and stick marks I wiped off the visor suggested it saved me from a lot. For me, it was a personal choice.”
And that, the NHLPA maintains, is how it should be for every player.
Immediately after Berard’s injury, a reporter surveyed the Edmonton Oilers. How many of them, the reporter asked, were thinking of putting on a visor after seeing what happened to Berard? The answer was none.
Even on the Toronto Maple Leafs, not one player who wasn’t wearing a visor put one on after seeing Berard’s brutal accident.
Outside the hockey community, none of this makes any sense. Unions are supposed to push for safety regulations, not fight them. But the NHL is not your average workplace. It’s as much part of the entertainment industry as it is sports or work. Players are paid millions. If they can’t perform at peak levels — or believe they can’t — because of restrictive equipment, it’s a huge issue.
Some say a visor gets too hot. Others say it inhibits vision or it fogs up. Players who fight say it’s bad form, a violation of hockey’s code of conduct. Still others suggest there’s still a stigma attached to wearing a visor — that it’s not the manly thing to do.
“I don’t see a stigma any more,” said NHL executive vice-president Colin Campbell. “It used to be that way. But now, any player except (a fighter) can put on a visor and no one will think twice about it.”
Dr. Tom Pashby, the Toronto opthamologist who has pioneered head and facial protection in hockey, understands the pro player mentality, but laments it nonetheless. On the Berard injury, Pashby said: “The sad thing is I sort of think it could have been prevented…it is preventable.”
Pashby, who has been tracking hockey eye injuries since 1972, said Berard is (potentially) the 309th player to have lost an eye while playing. Of those 309, eight were wearing half-visors and none were wearing full visors.
“That tells you two things,” Pashby said. “One, wearing a half-visor isn’t a guarantee you won’t suffer an eye injury. But two, you greatly reduce the risk of eye injury by wearing a half-visor.”
Dr. Robert Devenyi, the Toronto eye specialist who is attending to Berard, called for the NHL to make full visors mandatory.
“It’s the easiest question in the world,” Devenyi said. “Everyone should wear a full visor. Period.”
That’s not going to happen in the NHL. Not now, likely not ever.
But Maple Leafs’ president Ken Dryden envisions the day when the half-visor does become part of a player’s standard equipment.
“Goalie masks were unthinkable for 90 years, helmets were unthinkable for 100 years. When it comes to the issue of visors, it’s not a matter of if, but when,” Dryden said.
In the meantime, though, it will continue to be what it has been - individual players choosing what equipment they wear and accepting the risks and consequences, however grave they may be.
The Hockey News Archive is an exclusive treasure trove of more than 2,640 issues and more than 156,000 articles exclusively produced for subscribers, chronicling the complete history of The Hockey News from 1947 until this day. Visit the archives at THN.com/archive and subscribe today at subscribe.thehockeynews.com