Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
You are using anecdotal information to draw a conclusion. Now that might work for you, but it does not mean that your conclusion is true or based on facts. In order to come to a scientific conclusion you need hundreds if not thousands of samples to draw such a conclusion.
It is fine to feel safer in a helmet. In the 10 years of umpiring and the hundreds of games I have done over my career, I have never been hurt like the umpire was on TV and I have never seen anyone get hurt with a mask. I think it comes down to what you feel. But until there is a comprehensive study, there is continued to be debate about what is safer or better to use.
Peace
|
Jeff,
Have you ever had three 90+ direct hits over a two day span? If so, what were the short and long term results?
It's a well know fact that head injuries aquired over a short span are cumlative (IE: three hits in a short span tend to cause more injury than three hits over a season).
Testing I have seen (Internal testing by a local manufacturer here in SoCal) between the HSM & regular mask indicate:
1. Direct hits have very similar results. Louder to wearer in the HSM.
2. Glancing hits are deflected somewhat better by the HSM
IMO the main reason to switch are view & side/top/rear protection. In many youth and HS fields the backstop is very close to the plate, resulting in an umpire potentially taking shots to the these areas.