Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
I understand your point, but I'm still asking how adding a facemask "damages the game" or to jk's point, how many have been killed due to having to wear a facemask.
You say it doesn't take a whole lot of harm ... I see NO harm here.
Think about it - umpire wears a faceguard - not wearing one would be considered completely ridiculous by 100% of the people on this board. Catcher wears a faceguard - same reasons. Why in the world shouldn't the batter? After all, the catcher has a glove and knows where the ball is going... the umpire has the catcher in front of him. It's just as likely to hit the batter's face as the catcher's or umpires ... yet there's no harm to the game forcing the catcher or umpire to wear one - and they can see the ball just fine. I don't see even a miniscule amount of harm from the batter wearing one.
|
What harm is definately a fair question. Possible harm includes limited vision. Now, does it limit vision enough to warrent not mandating the equipment? I don't know. But unlike an umpire or catcher getting hit in the face, which happens every game or two, I have never in 10 years of umpiring seen a batter hit in the face. Clearly, it does happen, but in my opinion, the occurence is infrequent enough that I would rather see evidence that the additional protection would not interfere with play before it is mandated, rather than mandate it and then see if it interferes with play.