|
Nailed It!
All four suppliers made the comment that the extended vision is silly since an umpire can see everything he needs to see with a normal mask. The "excuse" of "better vision" commonly means that the umpire will no longer remove the mask (helmet) as has been the rule for decades (See Gary Cederstrom) when making calls other than balls and strikes.
The biggest selling point so far has been to umpires that work in a very confinded space where a foul ball can strike an overhead or near placed screen and send that ball back quickly and hit the umpire.
I am going to reserve personal comment on the vision issue until I do my "six game" tryout next spring.
But I will add the following:
Vic Braden is a leading tennis instructor. Vic has done research that shows non-professional tennis players play their best when:
1) The are trying out new equipment or,
2) When they are playing after a long layoff.
The reasoning is that players have no preconcieved idea of "playing well" so they are more relaxed and free with the tennis swing.
Wearing a helmet is much like this. On first blush, when you wear it the first time, you have a "different" view (notice no value judgment as to if the view is "better" or not) and you notice it. As time wears on the helmet wearing umpire accepts this as a value.
I am beginng to believe, not unlike what Nick Rego has posted, that we will all be wearing helmets in the future.
The difference is, as I see it, that it will be a forced change by lack of masks being available rather than an issue of either safety or added vision.
Another important note is that Leter's Upstate now has available a new helmet for 2006, made by All-Star, that will retail between $60 and $70 which is the helmet that many umpires will move to at change time.
Tee
[Edited by Tim C on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 02:19 PM]
|