Tinted Visors That Meet RIsk Guidelines

Risk Mitigation & Insurance (Public Read-Only)
1

We previously posted on the old forum that the S1 Lifer tinted visor meets the requirements of the WFTDA Risk Management Guidelines.

Triple 8’s tinted visor also meets the requirements.

We have approved the wording on both these products, and wanted to make sure that skaters and officials knew that these are appropriate for use.

2 Likes
2

What I’ve struggled with is that while the S1 visor (and now Triple 8) are allowable, that doesn’t mean any visor attached to one of those helmets is. (And people can get their S1/Triple8 un-tinted visors tinted darker after-market.)

1 Like
3

The Triple 8 one has the logo on it, I am unsure of the S1 but I think it does. If the mounting looks different then that’s an indicator. Also, at any point if the tint is too dark for the venue you can ask them to remove the visor.
There are issues like this that we will have to figure out as we try to better accommodate skaters with visual disturbances.

4

That seems like a very different message than “these visors are approved”. If we have to assess whether an approved visor is acceptable in a specific venue’s lighting, what’s the point of saying that they’re approved?

1 Like
5

This is exactly why I think we should stick to the “eyes visible” metric.

4 Likes
6

Is there more clarification on 4.2 verbiage “the wearer can be distinctly seen”?

If I’m 3ft away from a skater wearing the S1 tinted visor but I can’t see their face behind the face shield, wouldn’t the use of the tinted visor go against risk management even though the visor is WFTDA approved?

3 Likes
7

To be clear, TRebel’s comment is not theoretical. She and I told a skater they could not wear the S1 tinted visor for a sanctioned game last weekend because we couldn’t see through it.

If Risk Management wants us to interpret “transparent” as meaning something other than “you can see what’s behind it,” they’ll need to say so.

If Risk Management wants officials to say “this isn’t up to us any more than the rest of equipment checks,” they could say that too. The new ruleset is regressing officials responsibility for this, adding the sentence “it is also the Head Referee’s responsibility to oversee the safety of all participants during a game,” so it becomes more in-scope for us – if this is not intended to be officials’ jobs, we double-need to say so explicitly.

It sucks to tell skaters “no,” so I’d love to not for one reason or another. :slight_smile: And, it probably also sucks for S1 to have developed this for our sport only to have the purchasers told j/k at game time.

4 Likes
8

We have been discussing this matter since it came up and we’re working on a solution to provide (for lack of a better word) more clarity.

4 Likes
9

We have decided to update the Risk Management Guidelines to remove the requirement that the eyes can be seen through the visor.

This means that:

  • Tinted visors are allowed
  • They must be transparent, so that means no mirrored or iridium visors
  • In some venues that are dark, you may not see the eyes through the visor, but as long as they are transparent (meaning not mirrored or iridium), they are acceptable

This will better align the guidelines with the statements of the visors meeting the requirements and the different venue lighting situations.

10

I posted the links to the updated guidelines on this thread: Risk Management Guidelines update re: tinted visors

(The Officiating area is public so I figured that was the best forum place for it to notify officials that these visors are ok.)

1 Like