This following along with the Head Shot thread that was already posted. I think it is only a matter of time, before you see all or most of the umpires using the Helmet.

I used the helmet last year and then switched back to the mask, because I was not impressed with brand of helmet that I was using. Now, I am going back to the helmet. I have been hit in the mask a couple of times this summer already, and have went home with headaches, so I am going back to the helmet.

I have only worked with 3 umpires who use the hockey style mask. While they all swear by it, I don't see a trend developing. Most ( if not all ) masks provide the necessary protection required to protect us from the knock to the noggin. Conversely, when I ask others about switching, almost all have no desire to change what is working well for them.

. . . .a matter of time ?
I think probably not.

Only my opinion.

What makes you think that?

Many many many people think the helmet looks very stupid.

It will happen that more umpires will use the hockey style masks. How long will it take? Perhaps about 15 to 20 years.

Why?

Most catchers I see are already wearing them. I see more pro catchers wearing them than not. Same for the amateur leagues. I don't watch NCAA so I can't comment.

As older umpires retire and are replaced by newer and younger umpires, those umpires will have grown up with the hockey style mask and will be aware of it's advantages. You'll see more and more umpires using it.

I'm one of the MANY who think that it looks stupid.

It is nice for the catcher, but too big and bulky for us to carry around when making a call...

I won't switch to the helmet, I would quit first....

One reason that more catchers are using it is because they are being required to wear it. My state association in Indiana has said that beginning next year, it is the only mask to be used for high school play.

This makes it easier to take off and on and when thrown, don't separate like the masket, helmet combinations.

It is great for catchers, just not umpires....

I tried the helmet. I know many umpires swear by it, but for me it felt heavy and hot. The minor improvement in a wider angle of vision wasn't enough for me to stick with it.

I use the Zero Gravity mask and I am spoiled by its light weight.

The other problem I have with the helemt is illogical and purely emotional. The first, and so far, only local umpires who wear the helmet are Smitty's. Any time you see a BU clean off the rubber between innings or wearing ball bags or giving the relief pitcher the out and runner situations, you know he'll be wearing a helmet when he's got the plate.

Still, I agree that 20 years down the road we will see more helmets than masks.

Yeah right . . .
 

Get back to me in 15 to 20 years . . .

In the 60's we were told that all golf clubs would eventually have "fiber glass shafts" . . .

In the 50's we were told that with computers we would all work a 30 hour week . . .

As I noted in another thread:

Seeing Ed Hickox wearing a 7 stitch hat under his hockey helmet made me realize that the helmet can be worn and not look "dorky" . . .

I laugh when an internet umpire predicts the helmet will take over for the mask . . .

It ain't gonna happen UNLESS someone "organizes" umpires and has the final say over safety equipment.

Trust me . . . I work every day in construction and I know how hard change is for some.

"I think it is only a matter of time, before you see all or most of the umpires using the Helmet."

A safe statement since it actually means nothing.

Of course I would never wear a bicycle helmet either.

Well the NF dosen't allow the two piece mask and helmet combo, so the your association is really going out on a limb saying that the hockey mask is the only thing that catchers can use.

Change
 

I wonder how the change from the balloon CP to the early under the shirt CP's compare with the introduction of the hockey-style mask. Is there anyone out there that goes back that far? Are there any similarities/differences?

Re: Change
 

Roland Wiederaenders does, and he just wrote a short history of uniform changes in umpiring in the last 50 years (you can read it for a fee: http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/4348), but he doesn't say if the inside CP had the same kind of conservative backlash. His general tone in the article indicates that he, at least, might have been slow to accept the change.

I've sent him an email for his comments.

-LL

Well
 

RW may be OLD, but there were a type of inside protector since the 1930's.


The real question would be: 'what was the affect when the AL umpires lost the raft in the 70'4.'

HOWEVER, these are two separate issues that have nothing to do with each other.

Re: Well
 

Really, maybe I don't remember so well. Wasn't the balloon protector used overwhelmingly in the 1960s or was this an AL/NL difference that I didn't get to see (watching AL games in my town).

Just a matter of time? Not in Alabama,Bubba.
High School umpires are not allowed to wear
the hockey mask,so why go out and buy one?

Re: Well
 

RW explicitely mentioned the transition from the balloon to the ICP during his active umpiring years. I'm interested in the psychology of the change, and I'm not sure yet if the two subjects are unrelated.

We all know, and RW actually establishes pretty forcefully, that the uniform we wear is a result of nothing more substantive than fashion. And so, I'd expect an argument over which shirt color, for example, is "best" to be a content-free snipe fest.

But equipment could have tangible differences that really matter, so I'd expect more. I don't understand much about how these things change, but isn't the adoption of the ICP the last major equipment change we have seen? Wouldn't the pattern of that change help us to understand whether a mask-to-helmet change could happen, and perhaps even to see if it is happening?

Dating the AL change to the 70s means that you would also be an eye-witness, wouldn't it? Did the AL umpires organization (union?) promote the change, as you say is necessary? How did the other organizations (NCAA, FED) follow suit? Were they ahead of the AL with the NL already?

-LL

Re: Yeah right . . .
 

There are many quotes that you can dig up that were wrong. It was said that computers would never be useful but for may be four people in America.
We sold the rights to the VCR to the Japanese because we thought there would never be a market for it.

Hey it's only an opinion, but I think that umpires who don't already use a hockey style mask will, for the most part, stay with the traditional mask. But in 20 years, those guys will be in minority and a lot of the newer guys will have grown up with the hockey style mask. It will reach a tipping point and then the change willl happen. Masks will be in the minority.

But hey, it's only a guess/opinion. I could be wrong.

The number of helmet wearers is steadily increasing in my area. My partner was slow to switch by phasing it in. Now he wears only the helmet. I was sold right away. The vision is great, it is cooler than a mask, and I have taken some pretty solid shots in the mask and do not feel a thing.

Ed H

Re: Yeah right . . .
 

Tee,

The construction analogy is a little different. In that line of work many of the changes in safety equipment/practices are mandated by OSHA or some other regulatory body. We don't have any of those specifically dealing with umpires or their equipment. Instead, the trends in equipment and uniforms over the last 20 years have been driven by the MLB umpires we see on TV. Now if MLB starts mandating that MLB umpires wear the helmet exclusively (or their is an en masse switch), I could easily see all of us amateur umpires switching to the helmet. As long as their is a mix of masks and helmets at the big league level, that's what we'll see in amateur baseball. There was a post I read on another board from a Short season A umpire that suggested MiLB might mandate helmets at some point and time. He also reported that at least one MLB umpire had been forced to wear a helmet after receiving a concussion a few years ago.


Lawrence

Obviously,
 

Gear junkys follow others, that's a given.

When I interviewed the leading equipment suppliers they all agreed to a letter: "By far baseball umpires are the cheapest of all officiating groups!"

While we do follow with shirt color, belt color (remember the maroon belts of AL umpires in the 70's) and patent leather shoes it will be a far stretch to go to hockey masks.

We have about 150 varsity level umpires in our local group. We have maybe another 35 to 50 beginners.

We have one umpire (BTW, a pro school grad who is universially considered our worst varsity umpire) that wears a helmet.

Don't get be wrong . . . seeing Ed Hickox wearing his 7 stitch under his helmet made me, for the first time, have an interest in trying the hard head myself.

Do I think it is a "fad" . . . sure I do . . . but some "fads" make it into common usage.

It is simply put this way
 

The umpires of tomorrow, sadly,scarily, are the ball players of today, the ball players of today are not ever using the traditional mask, and are used to the helmet, therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the helmet will replace the mask as the predominant headgear of the future of umpiring, this maybe 15-20yrs in the future, but it certainly seems most likely.

Re: It is simply put this way
 

There is an excellent example in the marketing world of how that logic failed miserably.

In the 1980's Apple Computer reasoned that if students, the business leaders of the future, were conditioned to use Macs, they would bring them into the business world with them. Apple then locked up the elementary and high school markets, at times giving away the computers. They even held a huge market share in the college arena. At one point educational use of computers was 80% Macs.

Who owns the business market, even today? PC's. In fact, Mac's share of the business market has fallen despite their brilliant strategy of locking up the youth.

The PC industry simply responded: "You're not a student anymore, here's what professionals use." And despite the fact that Macs outperformed PC's in many ways, the PC's won the battle.

Re: Re: It is simply put this way
 

GarthB,
Interesting.
Thanks for that.
mick

Re: It is simply put this way
 

Actually Jason Phillips of the Dodgers wears a mask with the earless batting helmet facing forward. I wonder if he ever dabbled at being an umpire back when he was a kid.

It seems that those opposed to helmets want to turn their use into a fashion issue (a fad). I don't see anything "cool" about their use, given the backlash (only Smittys use them).

For me it is purely a functional issue. I simply have a better/wider field of view using one. Things that were obstructed from my view with my old mask (for instance some batted balls hitting the batter) I can see with my h/s mask.

I wonder how the New View masks compare to the h/s mask wrt field of view. Really the only reason the h/s mask has a better view is that your face is closer to the bars. This concept is probably what is being used for the New View mask. Perhaps if conventional mask provide the same (perhaps better) view as a h/s mask, then the h/s mask may resemble a tired fad and disappear.

But you can only go so far before this concept becomes a danger. Check out this picture from a high-speed camera of a baseball being shot a mask at about 100mph.

http://home.comcast.net/~rnsbmalex/p...s/ballmask.jpg
Scary, eh. I remember Eric (can't remember his last name, from Florida) saying how he got a broken nose from a baseball in the mask.

Personally, I use the helmet because it is easier to use, IMO. I have used the mask and I've found that it doesn't hold up as well to foul tips and doesn't provide as well overall for me. On the other hand, the mask does provide much better ventilation and is easier to carry around. If I had to I could use the mask, but I just prefer to use the helmet for my own reasons.

TB Blue
 

UMMMM.. I think I might have been talking about kids, not professional ballplayers, but then again, that would have taken away from your stupid comment.

Also Regarding Apple, As a child of the computer generation, although Apple was very popular at school, most kids still had a PC at home during this same timeframe, (heck thier games were way better). As the Apple was too expensive to own for many people, where the vic 20, and the Commadore 64 was widly used, also IBM went after the apple market strong with thier products, and created an easier software compatibility.

However, Talk to most computer experts, and you will find out that the FAR superior product and computer innovation comes from Apple. Thier prduct is better because they don't comprimise the products abilities by making it simple. Eg. the original Apple O/S is more or less Windows. But a good Windows took 10-15 yrs (some say still haven't) to comeout on the IBM Compatibles.

So the apple example really shows how the general public would prefer to do what is easy rather than what is better. It sounds like the umpire community is just the same.

You guys are comparing apples to masks ( heh heh heh ).
When you say that the majority of this generation's catchers are wearing hockey masks - that is true. But if you are saying that because of that, the new generation umpire is going to wear helmets, I fail to see the rationale. First of all, they grew up watching " real " umpires wear masks. This is their indoctrination into umpiring - not what catchers wear. Secondly, on a baseball team, how many catchers are there? 2 , 3, 4 ? So why would all the other ball players decide a hockey mask is better - because their catcher wears one and their " real " umpires don't? Again, I fail to see the rationale. Or are we presuming that only catchers ( who by the way wear hockey style helmets ( smile )) will become umpires? I certainly hope not - nor do I agree. I still stand by the mask and believe that masks are here for a long while.
Just my humble opinion.

what we (I ) am assuming is ...
 

That the popularity of the hockey mask for the kids of today, will translate in to the umpires of the future. I grew up watching so called "Real" umpires and playing hockey. I saw playing hockey a lot of goalies with masks and a lot with regular helmets, I saw the number of helmet dwindle, I was a forward, so I wore a regular helmet, but when the helmet for umpiring came out I looked into them, they have better vision. PERIOD. That was a good enough reason for me. I think the protection difference is there and better for the helmet, but only slightly. I think the straight on shots are deflected better, and the throat protection is better. The weight/bulk of the helmet vs. mask was never really a big deal for me then or now, yes it is bigger to carry, and a little awkward for eg. line-up changes- where do you put the helmet?? but the overall effect is that it is better in ways that are important to me.

The stick or head in the sand, nothing could be better than something originally designed 80-120 yrs ago is simply silly. Is the hockey mask better for everyone, - NO, is it better for me - YES. Should that cause other traditional umps to be so scared and defensive as to describe anyone who dares use the equipment as a Smitty, or NOT A REAL UMPIRE - HECK NO. MAny people who try the helmet love it and never will go back, while others dislike it. When in this day and age of the tell everyone something sucks, but tell no one something is good, the number of people who try the helmet and stick with it vs. go back to the traditional mask must be hugely lopsided in favor of the hockey mask. I think the compassion to the pillow is a great one, I'm completely sure that the first USP wearing umpires were also shunned because the Fear of change is a great one.

Look at Hockey today (well last year anyway) there are 2 ref's in the show that still don't wear helmets, they sadly look out of place old and in my opinion stubborn. The world has agreed that helmets are better, and safer, but they are not required to so they don't. Is this because helmets are not better? or are they too stubborn to change?

Re: what we (I ) am assuming is ...
 

Originally posted by 3appleshigh [/i]
[B] " I grew up watching so called "Real" umpires and playing hockey. I saw playing hockey a lot of goalies with masks and a lot with regular helmets, I saw the number of helmet dwindle, I was a forward, so I wore a regular helmet, . . . . . "


Is this a baseball forum?




". . . . . . . the number of people who try the helmet and stick with it vs. go back to the traditional mask must be hugely lopsided in favor of the hockey mask. "



really? what do you have that supports that?



" Look at Hockey today (well last year anyway) there are 2 ref's in the show that still don't wear helmets, they sadly look out of place old and in my opinion stubborn. The world has agreed that helmets are better, and safer, but they are not required to so they don't. Is this because helmets are not better? or are they too stubborn to change? "



Is this a baseball forum?

I have trouble making the distinction between being better for hockey and being better for baseball. I understand what can be better for baseball. I'll go to the hockey forum if I want to learn more about their helmets.

Helmet Rules
 

I use an All Star Helmet for both Baseball and Softball, although it has an 8" Opening, I find that my vision is almost perfect in all situations of play for both. Although when it comes to tight plays or squeeze plays I generally remove it out of habit and also so some twip, e.g a coach, does not bellow about poor vision.

Spencer, welcome to the forum. Our condolences are offered for the recent London events.... :(

Yeah, but what kind of hockey mask is best to use in your opinion. The Diamond one on Gerry Davis? The All-Star? The Easton? I'm trying to get an idea because I'm thinking of getting one because getting hammered with my regular mask causes my jaw to lock at times and I believe a hockey mask would eliminate this. What is the brand that the major league umpires use?

They are using the All Star in the majors.

I have the Easton Stealth and I love it. I went with the Stealth due to the lining being nicer and not made out of the foam that are in the lining of batting helmets. The vision is so much clearer and I just feel more protected wearing the helmet that I will never go back.

Well,
 

"Although when it comes to tight plays or squeeze plays I generally remove it out of habit and also so some twip, e.g a coach, does not bellow about poor vision."

And IF you do not remove the mask at the EXACT same times you would a mask then you are one that is an advertisment for NOT WEARING a helmet.

No one argues that the field of vision for balls/strikes appears to be greater . . . the real issue is two fold:

1) There are umpires that do not take off the mask where normally it is taken off (ex: on ground balls to the infield when you are coming out from behind the dish or a can of corn fly ball),

2) When the helmet is removed the umpire is not wearing a hat (ex: in Alabma you are considered "out of uniform" if after you take off the helmet you do not have a hat).

These two issues can be over come. Non-professional umpires just don't seem to get it.

So I don't see your point, do you use one and encourage using one?

Well,
 

To Whom is this directed?

. . . if directed at me, my feelings have been made clear already in this thread for those who can read.

Re: Well,
 

Tim,

I'm guessing he's not an English Major either.

JM

Tony zi tigre
 

I guess you don't read so good, as my comments about those who try the helmet and kept with it had in it why I belived it was so, but then again how would you possibly see that with all that sand in your face. You simply proved my thinking that although I have never heard anyone that uses the helmet say that it is the only way anyone should go, I have heard the staunch conservative BIG DOG decree it so for the traditional mask.

The hockey vs. baseball had to do with an equipment change and a discussion on the evolution of the piece of equipment not a comparison of "the helmet being great for hockey = it is also great for baseball."

Also I have missed all your insulting little quips when people on here mention football or basketball, I thought this was a baseball forum, how dare anyone think that one sport could possibly learn from another sport - never never.

Now to the people reading for actual info, though I doubt may are left after this debacle of a topic, I use the Easton as well, I love it. I remove it on every play as I would if I had a regular mask. Although the vision is much better than a conventional mask, it is not as good as without a mask. It is the protection, and the vision out the corners of your eyes that make it a better choice for me.

Matter of preference...
 

I have used the h/s mask for five years now. I learned with a conventional mask and made the switch only to experiment with the possibility. I have used the mask in high school games and college games and have seen the benefits during both. I have an All-Star MVP 2300 with the double-bar plain steel mask. I have taken countless shots to the face over the years and the mask has held up perfectly. My main complaint with the conventional mask is the fact that when you get hit, the mask flies off erratically, not to mention the stars that you see afterwards.

Now, the controversy about not having a hat on, and being our of uniform I can buy to a degree. How many times have you seen an umpire quickly remove his mask to only have his hat come off as well? Now, granted it is for a limited time and he replaces it once the play is over, but the hat is still off. An umpire with a h/s mask is seen without his hat on in between innings and during live ball play (if he takes it off like you are suppose) which can be seen as being out of uniform. But, really what does having a hat on in between innings do for you. I have known many base umpires to go out into shallow right field in between innings and remove their hat before they take their position to start the next inning.

Overall, this is a matter of preference. If you feel more comfortable behind the plate, then you are inclined to make better calls and feel more confident. I would think that this is a state that all umpires want to be in regardless of what mask they use.


Play ball...

I have 2 helmets and allstar mvp and a nike gold diamond. I can wear either a shortbilled beanie under either or the underarmour skull cap. Since I shave my head I wear one or the other for comfort and protection from the sun. I prefer the underarmour skull cap, but I have 1 tournament director that doesn't like anything new and so out of respect for her I wear the short billed beanie under the helmet when she is the director. She also doesn't like any white on our shoes so I keep a pair of all black shoes for her also.

Thank You Lman
 

Thnak you for your condolences, tragic as it is we like our friends in the US, NY, shall live on and win.
On top of that, but on a less seriuos but bad news was the Olympic Softball dream for the children in the UK. read my article in here, titled Olympic 2012. Cheers

I think the nail was hit earlier on this issue. The majority of umpires in 15-20 will be wearing a helmet because that is what they grew up in and around as kids, especially now that the FED said it has to be a helmet.

I wear it mainly for the protection. I have taken some serious shots to it from a high 90's fast ball off aluminum bats. This is just as bad, if not worst than a major leaguer with a wood bat. I have never felt any pain as a result. \
Yes the field of vision is nice with the balls and strike calling but I take it off as soon as the ball is hit just the same as I would with a regular mask.

cowbyfan1,
Why could a ball, fouled back, off an aluminum bat be *worst* than a ball, fouled back, off the wooden bat?
Confusing.
mick

Re: Tony zi tigre
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 3appleshigh
[B]

After reading your post and use of the English language and the keyboard, I think my discussion with you is over. You still did not answer the question - what facts do you have to support your statements? None ? So you ramble about other things that mean nothing. I sign off on this topic as it is now officially dead to me.

Why does the ball carry farther off an aluminum bat than it does a wooden one when it is hit normally?? If it goes faster and farther forward, seems to me it will do the same backwards. So if a pitcher is throwing 95 and it is fouled straight back into my mask, don't you think it will be coming back at me faster if fouled off an aluminum bat then a wooden bat???

One more thing to add. Like Tee and a couple others stated before. A number of lower level guys like to copy what the MLB guys do and wear. I am seeing more MLB guys wearing the mask this year then in previous years combined. So if more of them are wearing it, then more people at the lower levels are apt to at least try it.

Well . . .
 

Jim:

you squeak through on this one:

Physics would say that a foul ball is unaffected by the make up of the bat. A foul ball and a fair ball impart different stresses on the ball.

So I would say you missed this one.

On "helmet" use in MLB you just slipped in there:

There is a "net gain" of one umpire in helmet this season. There are two new wearing and one went back traditional.

Pretty good for an OSU fan.

;-)

Actually
 

Jim,
It seems to me that, given the increased coefficient of restitution of the aluminum bat (over the wood bat) traveling in the opposite direction of the path of the ball, would actually slow the ball more than a wood bat would slow the ball (given equal force vectors).

I will concede the aluminum bat may well direct the path of the ball higher, but not faster, due to the trampoline effect of the hollow bat. ;)
mick

Re: Actually
 

Of course, if the ball travels higher, the vertical component of its velocity will be greater when it comes back down. :p

Other than that, it seems like physics U.P. there work the same as everywhere else.

Wow, I just got hit with a 92mph deflected fast ball.

Sure am glad they were using wood, because it could have been 92.5mph, if it was aluminum.(or vice a versa)

Shall we put things in perspective here gentlemen.

I have found, that most of the time that officials have been hurt from a deflection with a mask, they were not squared up and using the equipment properly. I can understand the helmet offering more protection, because it protects more area. So if it fits for you, go for it.

In the past approximately 2000 games I have officiated in, the mask has worked just fine, thank you.

Im still trying to bring about the use of fleciheimer (sp) shorts for baseball. Even though they will never be allowed in Alabama. But then again, if I were my hat under my helmet, maybe that won't notice my legs when I take off the helmet!!!!!

Now for the future, YOUR ALL WRONG. We will all be using a media designed helmet that will look something like a apache helicopter pilots helmet. Instead of a night vision scope, we will be looking into a graphical image that will show the perfect strike zone for the batter at bat. Speakers will be on the side of the helmet and automatically announce the result of the pitch. In MLB, the scoreboard will automaticaly register the pitch (wireless of course). We will be tasked with the mundane mechanic of properly signaling the announced strike/ball call. The helmet will have proper HVAC and room for a hat, (speacial for Alabama). Oh yea, the plate umpire will be wearing the new and imporved fleichiemer shorts, COOL.

Well,
 

Mark noted:

Of course we are all aware that the statement is only true until the ball reaches the maximum velocity of 14 feet per second per second. Then is will always be the same "speed."

"How" you wear a mask is just as important as to "iffin'" you wear a mask or a helmet thingy.

Re: Well,
 

14 feet per second per second is a measure of acceleration, not velocity. That's about all I remember from HS physics. ;)

Tony
 

As I said earlier, the reasoning for my theory is this

"When in this day and age of the 'tell everyone something sucks, but tell no one something is good', the number of people who try the helmet and stick with it vs. go back to the traditional mask must be hugely lopsided in favor of the hockey mask."

This is because in most posts I have ever seen on this topic, there is 1 or 2 who have swiched back and about 4-5 who stuck with it. Normally in something like this the numbers would be switched and the actual fact would be about 50-50. So here we have a distinct advantage on the possitive side in a mainly negitive environment, therefore my thought is the above statement.

This is a THEORY not a presentation of FACT, hence the use of the word MUST rather than the word IS. But you knew that because of your need for proper use of the english language. Lucky for you, you never type fast and always have time to proof read. Good on ya, mate.

Slowing my calls has improved the quality of my games, both on the diamonds and on the hardwood. ;)
mick

Re: Tony
 

well Tony
 

Please don't confuse anything you say with humble, because you are not. Not in the least.

Also assuming "must be = has to be = is" is plain wrong, read the words used, don't impose your own meaning. You do know what happens when you assume. Also neither of those phrases say that it is, they say what ones belief is. (It is dark outside it must be night. It is dark outside it has to be night. Nope it IS 12:00 noon, dark and cloudy.)

Also on a forum, attacking anothers english or typing mistakes is a sure sign of weakness, it bores most people on the forum and is plainly childish. I, on average have posted properly on here, but one or two silly errors, and I admit after reading later some of what I said was tough to read, does not require your childish retorts.

Our opinions differ, my theory was a look at what the public normally does (eg. have a bad meal tell 10 of your friends, have a good meal tell 1) and what I had seen in the previous posts on this subject here and on other forums, I then extrapolated the THEORY or maybe a hypothesis is better for you. I never claimed to prove the theory. Is this an exact theory HELL NO, but it does have some merit, even if you don't either a) like it or b) agree with it.

At least I contributed to th conversation at hand, you don't offer anything at all. Just a voice crying, pointing fun and saying your wrong. You have no facts that what I say is right or wrong. You don't even post a theory of what you think is the case. Just point your fingers and slink into the night. Remember "when you point a finger three more point back at you."

Also - Yes sir, slowing the pace often helps improve ones game, on the field and on the forum, but sometimes, when one is at work, things come up and things get posted before you can proof read or whatever. If I was using IM slang and the like, I can understand a shot here and there, but his remarks were simply a defence mechanisim for his short comings.

3apples high ho
 

If you are so busy at work that you cannot read all the posts, then you probably should not make statements that are not true until you do.
You indicate that I had not posted my feelings on the topic - that I only chose to "pointing fun ( whatever that means ) and saying your wrong ". Please refer to both pages 1 and 2 of the thread and see that I have offered my opinion on both pages and supported that opinion with facts on one page - something you were unable to do.
You can extrapolate any theory you want, but when you make statements like " hugely lopsided " your " facts " should support those statements - if you want to be considered credible.
And if you don't want to be considered credible, that's OK too. Just keep making mistatements like " you don't even post a theory of what you think the case is " when there is a very good post describing EXACTLY what I think.

Now high apples - I will go " slink into the night ".

I should have been true to my word and let this topic die.
My apologies to the others for extending this dead horse.

I'm slinking now.

Re: Re: Well,
 

To accelerate is to go faster. Push the gas pedal and you accelerate. Velocity is speed, as in how fast are you going. 14 fps is speed, ie how fast is the pitch. A pitch, once released, has no incentive to accelerate, no force behind it to cause it to go faster, and only resistance ahead of it to slow it down. In the short distance between the plate and home a fastball slowing down is imperceptable.

Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

No. Accelerate does not mean "to go faster." If car A is going 30mph and car B is going 60mph, car B is going faster but it is not necessarily accelerating.

Accelerate means to increase in velocity over a period time. What Bob said is correct. The measurement of 14 ft per second per second Is a meaure of acceleration. Bob did not say a foul ball accelerates, he just noted the proper use of a term.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

Almost right. Acceleration is change in velocity over time, and the "distance per second per second" units are correct measures of acceleration.

In fact, then, every pitch accelerates in two ways as it travels from pitcher to catcher. In slowing down, it decelerates; and in curving due to the force of gravity, it experiences centripetal acceleration.

Glad to help get that straight, for whatever it's worth. No, no, don't thank me...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

No. Accelerate does not mean "to go faster." If car A is going 30mph and car B is going 60mph, car B is going faster but it is not necessarily accelerating.

Accelerate means to increase in velocity over a period time. What Bob said is correct. The measurement of 14 ft per second per second Is a meaure of acceleration. Bob did not say a foul ball accelerates, he just noted the proper use of a term.

[/B][/QUOTE]Straight out of my Webster's New World - "to cause to happen sooner - to go faster, as in my example of pushing the gas pedal (accelerator) to cause the car to go faster. When you are at a stop light and it turns to green and you push the gas pedal you are accelerating. When you get up to the speed limit and put the cruise control on you are cruising at a constant rate of speed, meaured in miles per hour, or it could be measured in feet per second. Feet per second per second (feet per second square) is a measure of acceleration and you are correct, and so was Bob. I just missed the second "per second" when I read his post.

[Edited by DG on Jul 15th, 2005 at 10:30 AM]

I'm in my 17th year of baseball officiating which includes experience in high school varsity and summer collegiate leagues.

As the result of too many concussions the last two being a car accident and being checked headfirst into the boards in a hockey game my doc suggested I go with the hockey style helmet. I spent about a month checking out various helmets and then bought an Easton Stealth.

I've noticed that some of you are concerned about different associations considering the helmet to be out of uniform. I was the first in my association to wear the helmet. My assoc. is very uptight about umpires having a professional appearance but they have been very good with those that want to wear the helmet. I'm doing the Pacific Southwest Regionals for the Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken league tonight and they don't have any problem with it.

Here are some observations regarding the hockey style mask:

1. My field of vision is much better. I can see the entire field without any bars and that includes all but the most extreme fly balls.

2. Foul balls to the face are much easier to take with the exception of shots directly to the chin area. Most foul balls just skim off the thing.

3. The ventilation in my hockey style mask actually makes it a bit cooler than a traditional mask/cap combo.

4.I am going bald so I use a Nike scull cap similar to an Under Armour. The Nike cap is less garish. I like it because it keeps the sweat completely out of my face and helps with the cooling.

5. Initially I was concerned about what would happen when I needed to remove the helmet. As it turns out it's not really any different that removing a traditional mask and holding it. The cool thing about the helmet is I can leave it on because of the vision benefits. With that said habit has me removing it most of the time and holding it in my left hand the same way I did my traditonal mask.

6. I get compliments all the time on the looks. People even like the Nike scull cap. Most of the catchers are jealous because the Stealth is such a nice helmet.

7. If you have a big head then I'd go with the All Star in an XL. The STealth only comes in large and I'm starting to think it's too small.

8. I've noticed a lot of similarities in a lot of the manufacturers products. I starting to think that most of these helmets are made in the same place and rebadged.

9. Every year more and more umps around here are going to the helmet. I'd say that most of them make the switch when their traditional mask needs replaced. I know of about five umps that are making the switch next season.


I yanked out my regular mask the other day when I forgot my scull cap. I couldn't believe how cumbersome it felt in comparison to my helmet. I was also shocked that the vision was so much worse. I was very happpy to get back to my helmet.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Eric

What does your doctor know about baseball officiating? How is a helmet safer than a mask?

Why do I need to see the entire field? I wear the mask when the pitch is coming towards me, and then I take it off when there is a play. Are you saying that sometimes you don't take off the helmet on fly balls????

You wear one of these things?

http://dsp.imageg.net/graphics/produ...p468809reg.jpg

Having that on your head is a good reason to not take off you helmet.

Why would you not take off the helmet sometimes?

Yes sir,
 

Luke, these are all very good questions.

I would like the answers also.

T

Re: Yes sir,
 

How many times are these people getting hit in the face with foul balls or "missing" pitches due to the terrible field of vision of a mask?

I Don't Understand
 

I appreciate all the opinions here about the old v. new face protection. But I can't understand how the following can be true:

1. Better vision with a helmet: How can this be? In a helmet, just like a mask, you have one gap to look through to call pitches. How much extra sight can you get? If there is more, is it really a value worth wearing the helmet for?

2. You feel cooler? How? By enclosing your whole head and neck in a plastic shell, usually if not always black, as opposed to a wool hat covering the top of your head, with a mask with open bars across your face? Even if you sweat through the hat (which I do regularly) it will help conduct heat away if there is a breeze. Better airflow with a helmet, how can it be when your neck, ears, and the whole of your head is covered in plastic?

3. Every helmet I have ever seen has very poor inside padding. I wear doeskin pads made in 1990 on my mask, and not only have I had great protection, good doeskin or other mask padding help your face to breathe well, and it fits comfortably. Good mask padding will help you stay cool and keep sweat from your eyes. I just don't see how helmet padding is superior in this respect.

4. One of the reasons why the new Fed rules for catcher's helmets are so bad is hearing. Talking to catchers is a very hard thing these days, kids can't hear you (their teammates, and their coach either) as well as with the old mask/helmet combination that did not cover the ears. Can you hear things you need to hear as well as an umpire with a helmet as opposed to the mask? It is hard to see how this can be.

4. I wear a 7 7/8 hat. No helmet really fits me at all, and even finding a mask and hat combination is hard to do these days. I would think I would have to pay several hundred dollars for a custom shell to fit my head. Not everyone has this problem, but for a few of us it is an important one.

I have a few other questions/objections to the helmet, but until I find a helmet that fits as good and works as well as my mask, I'm not changing.

I'll address each of your questions one by one.

My doc is the ortho for a major universities sports programs. He knows a lot about all kinds of sports. He also reconstructed both of my ACL's. My doc is concerned about keeping my head protected due to the amount of concussions I've had playing football, hockey, and a really bad car accident. Are you saying I should disregard the advice of a competent medical professional?

The hockey style mask is designed to deflect the ball differently. The shape of the mask minimizes direct shots as the ball tends to glance off the mask. Think of it as if you threw a ball at the pointy part of a triangle. The ball striking the point directly is a rarity and every other time it just glances off the side and the impact is minimized.

Also, I've been struck in the side of the face and head when a bouncing foul was chopped behind the plate. No, I do not turn my head but sometimes that ball can hit a hole or pebble and bounce funny. Granted this is a rare occurence but these type of shots are not an issue with the helmet.



I always take the mask off for fly balls. However, I can see so well that I could call the game just as well if I left the thing on the whole game. The vision is better because the mask sits much closer to the face. Also you don't have to contend with the big forehead pad and hat bill of a conventional mask. The better vision of a hockey style helmet also handy for calling balls and strikes. I recommend you borrow a hockey helmet for a couple of innings and give it a whirl. I've let some of my local skeptics try it and all of them like the better field of vision.

Yes, I wear a skull cap similar to the one in the photo. I have to wear something as I'm bald and sweat is an issue. Another issue is the sun shining through the vent holes and burning my scalp. If I had a full head of hair I would not wear the skull cap as sunburn and sweat wouldn't be an issue. I wear the Nike version which doesn't have all the logo crap on it and as a result it's less garish.

There are two instances in which I sometimes will not take off my helmet. The first is when there's a hot shot to the second baseman and I'm watching the first basemans foot on the resulting throw out attempt. The second is when I have a squeeze play and don't have time to remove it. The better vision of the helmet really comes in handy in this instance.

Frankly the tone of your post was not appreciated. I was simply posting my experience with the helmet. I've put in a season and a half with it and can speak from a position of experience. My hope was that those who are curious can take the info that I've provided when making a decision about face/head protection. I especially found your comment about the doc disturbing.

I'm not saying everyone should wear the helmet and get rid of their masks. But I am saying that the helmet is the right choice for me and a growing number of umpires who appreciate its benefits.

Eric

Re: I Don't Understand
 

I will address your points below.

1. The mask on the helmet sits much closer to the face and the bars are thinner. You also don't have to contend with the forehead pad and hat bill of a regular mask. Believe it or not I can see the entire field through the center bars of my helmet when I'm behind the plate. I cannot see nearly as well through my regular mask (a lightweight +POS) You should give one a try, you will be surprised by the greater vision.

2. My helmet is well ventilated and has holes in the top and ears. The holes are big so the air can get through easily. A nice breeze really makes it through the vent holes and does a good job cooling you down. Initially I was surprised that I found the helmet to be as cool as it was. Also, My helmet follows my jawline pretty well so it really doesn't cover much of my neck.

3. I have an expensive helmet. It has sweat pads built into the pads that cover your head. (Cheaper helmets do not have this feature) The chin pad in my helmet is doeskin. I see your point though and to be honest the helmet isn't any better at soaking up sweat. I'm bald so I wear a skull cap to help with the sweat.

4. My helmet has ear holes so I can hear just fine. To be honest I haven't noticed much of a hearing difference. I haven't had any problems communicating with catchers either.

5. I wear a 7 1/2 so I have a similar problem. You definitely would not be able to use an Easton Stealth as they are only made in small and large sizes. I tried on a Battle Gear that comes in an XL and it would work for that huge noggin of yours. lol The only problem is the Battle Gear isn't quite as nice as my Easton as far as the inside padding and sweat protection. I believe All-Star makes an XL helmet for umppires that has all of the features of my Easton.

I hope I've addressed some of your questions satisfactorily.

Eric

ô¡ô

[Edited by Tim C on Sep 20th, 2005 at 09:04 AM]

Re: He11,
 

I wasn't trying to convince anyone, just give information. I think this is a great topic. Granted, I showed up late to the party.

I do wonder though why some are so opinionated without ever having called a game in a hockey style helmet. Personally I don't see what the big deal is either way. I also don't get the out of uniform stuff. As different forms of equipment are introduced the uniform standards have to adapt. I remember back in the early nineties I was the first person in my association and one of the first in my state to wear the navy shirt. My choice had some of the old umps grumbling. Frankly I hated those old Elbeco shirts and was glad for the opportunity to not wear them. Now most umps in my association have four different colors of shirts that can be worn and a bunch of us are going to get the silver that +POS was offering this year.

Eric

Re: I Don't Understand
 

1. You can see better out of the HSM (Hockey Style Mask) because the bars are slightly wider apart in the middle than a mask (yes, I measured it, with calipers) and edges of the mask at the left and right are wider. This gives you the "feeling" that you can see everything. When you view the field out of the HSM, your peripheral vision is not restricted.

2. Your statements about enclosing your whole head and neck in a plastic shell is just ignorant. There are four or six large vent holes in the helmet and the front and back piece should have atleast an 1/8" gap between them (if not more). The shell rides up off you head due to the excellent foam padding that only touches in spots and allows air to circulate through the mask. I have a nice doe-skin chin pad in my All-Star mask.

There are also big ear holes so hearing has never been a problem.

I have a 7 and 3/4 head and the XL All-Star fit me fine and could definitely fit your head. I got mine on e-bay for $50.

I just bought a HSM to give it a test run during my fall college scrimmages. It's the best mask ever, it's so light, you can see everything, i took a foul ball off the helmet and barely felt it. I know it looks weird and at first it feels unnatural, but it is definately worth it.

velocity vs acceleration
 

mbryon is correct when he states that acceleration is a change in velocity over a period of time. However, almost everyone here is confusing velocity with speed. Velocity is a vector, that is, it has both magnitude and direction.

Acceleration also is a vector. That's why when one twirls a model airplane around one's head by attaching it to a length of string, the speed may remain constant, but the model is being accelerated towards the center of rotation.

I could go on by throwing in F=ma, and relating how acceleration implies a force acting on a body, etc. etc., but I won't bore you any longer.

[Edited by dddunn3d on Sep 19th, 2005 at 08:20 AM]

Garth & BU cleaning Pitcher's Plate
 

Garth, I know you've been around a while and have a lot of good things to say. But somehow, you've implied, or I've inferred, that "good" (or maybe "appropriate") umpires don't use the hockey style mask, nor clean the pitcher's plate. I don't use the hockey style mask, but know many excellent umpires who do. Re: ceaning pitcher's plate, seems like I recall a previous dicussion or posting that implied we shouldn't as we're not "groundskeepers." Don't know about you, but I work at 1 or 2 fields a year that have them. I clean the plate when I can't tell dirt form plate - I know it helpes me, and probably my partner, coaches, pitcher, and baserunners, too.

Why I think everyone will be wearing helmets...
 

First, anyone commenting on the use of a helmet, who has never at least tried one, for one full game, is like someone who doesn't vote, complaining about how the country is being run. Talk to the hand !

With that said, here is a web page that describes in detail the differences between using a Helmet and a Mask;

http://www.reegind.com/helmet.htm

Now, I think there are two reasons why eventually everyone will be wearing a helmet;

1) Technically, it 'is' supperior to a cap and mask (see the web page). Those who demand equipment that gives them the best performance, will / have switched.

2) [keep in mind, I am not a lawyer, just my opinion here] Eventually, insurance companies will drive the requirement. I believe the reduction (or perceived reduction) in injuries will speak for itself. And to top it off, I think once everyone is wearing a helmet, they won't be required to take it off to make calls (as part of the safety ruling). Taking it off to make a call is all for show. It is absolutely NOT necessary. I also think that those hold-out associations that are stuck in the mudd, and won't allow umpires to wear them, will eventually get sued by an umpire who gets hurt wearing a mask that they did not want to wear, and being required to remove it to make calls.

Yes, I wear a helmet, and wouldn't step out onto the field without it. Fortunately, it is not held against me by my association, or fellow members. Performance is all they care about from any member. Change is tough. Good or bad, it can be difficult for people to accept.

Think about this: If helmets had come before masks, no one would think helmets look stupid. They would think the 'new' mask does.

WOBW ;)

Re: Re: I Don't Understand
 

this is always a point people bring up, but the current mask i use (aul3000 or whatever) is perfectly fine. i dont need to see 160 degrees to my left or right.

i understand you get a better peripheral vision with a hockey mask, but can anyone provide a good example of why you need the extra peripheral vision? i cant think of anything

[Edited by briancurtin on Sep 20th, 2005 at 02:10 PM]

Re: Re: Re: I Don't Understand
 

..I think that esteemed umpire Seymour Milfbutz had a good suggestion about that ;)

Let me get this straight ?

Umpires are asking why we would need better visability to perform a duty where we make decisions based on WHAT WE SEE ?

I guess I better take my helmet off...I'm having trouble seeing this one.

What do you need to see that is to your side?

Re: Re: Re: I Don't Understand
 

Basically your view is better because the bars farther apart from top to bottom and there is nothing in your peripheral vision.

Trying to explain it to you without you having tried on a HSM is next to impossible. It's like trying to explain why one mattress feels better than another. Or like trying to explain oversteer/understeer in a car to someone who hasn't driven. It is a feel thing. The view just feels more open and unrestricted. And I never felt my view was restricted in a mask...Until I put on a HSM. Now I had something to compare it to and the difference becameapparent.

I guess the point is that you are either willing to give the HSM a shot or you are not. I wasn't sure I wanted to one. I liked the traditional look of a mask and I wasn't crazy about not having a hat on at times. But there really is nothing to lose (except possibly eval points if you have a association that would do that sort of thing) by trying it. It is the only way you'll know if it is for you.

Some guys won't try it. They are apprehensive about change and are content with what they are using. And that's fine. Some will take the chance and realize that the HSM is superior to a mask (in their opinion) and will never go back. I am admittedly one of those. A few might decide that the HSM is not for them, in which case put it up on ebay and you'll likely make most or all of you money back.

All I can tell anyone is that the view feels and is better. Objects will come into your peripheral view slightly faster. I've given guys my HSM to try and they are amazed at the difference. But the HSM is a new technology and look and it isn't right for everyone. Only you can decide but you have to try one if you really want to know...

Re: Re: Re: Re: I Don't Understand
 

That dosen't explain why I have to see to the side. The pitch comes straight at me. Why do I need to see the on deck circles?

luke already covered it, but i honestly do not see the need for a wider field of vision. what do you need to see with your peripheral vision while you are tracking a pitch? nothing. uh oh, i didnt see the kid in the on deck circle make a face at me. im not really worried about that.

the vertical height between bars being larger is a good point, ill take that one, but the wider field of vision i do not see the need for at all.

I busted out my All Star helmet last Saturday night, just to give it a go. I've used it in the past with backstops that go over my head. If you've ever taken a ball off the little button in the top of your hat, you'll understand why.

Yes, it does give you a different view. And yes, you do see more of the field. Some may like it, and some may find it distracting. And it is cooler, because you're not wearing a freaking wool cap. (what dolt thought of using wool hats for a summer sport?) A good leather chin pad is a must. Plastic helmets tend to transmit a lot more shock than the fiberglass and kevlar models, so if you get one, get a good one.

What I don't like about them is the sound. When I call a strike, foul, etc. you're going to hear it in the next zip code. I'm loud. Yell in a hockey mask, and a lot of that sound comes right back into your own head. That sucks.

Yes, they still look goofy, and you do have to deal with helmet hair. And no, I will not wear one of those hair net things on my dome. I'm guessing that most of the helmet haters here have never donned one. That's ok, but you're missing something if you don't. It's different, and that's not always bad. I'd say I break mine out about 13.7% of the time.

What you need to see on the sides...
 

You know, I'm not going to try and list every possible thing an umpire might see in their peripheral vision.

Let me just ask you to do this...

At your next game, just think about what 'things' you are seeing in your peripheral vision. I think you will find the list to be rather long. Especially when the pitch is getting close to the plate.

Or better yet, try to take your opponents point of view ! What if you were arguing FOR helmets. What list would you come up with to defend them ? Amazing things happen when you try to see things from someone elses point of view.

Although I am pretty adement about using helmets, I do understand why some don't like them. I don't disregard their opinions, or not respect their right to their opinion. I just hope that they are treating the issue fairly in their minds. In this case, the person evaluating this piece of equipment has everything to gain, or everything to lose. As with any decision.

things side to side
 

eg.

1) a hot shot off a bat up either line, you pick this up 5 times as fast, and can get into position to make fair foul that much sooner, Granted it is only a split second sooner, but helps.

2) you can see the player at first or third take off in an attempt to steal, therefore being prepared for what may or may not occur.

There is a couple just off the top of my head no real thinking involved. I know the first one is a major key to me, as I often had a difficult time picking up the hot shot in my original mask.

Re: things side to side
 

1. getting into position sooner on a shot down the line has nothing to do with your mask and its view. if i was looking through binoculars behind the plate, id still see the ball going towards a line and get out there. you arent, rather i hope you wouldnt, make a fair/foul call from behind the plate, so i dont see this point as too valid in my mind as a point for why to wear a helmet. if i see a ball that isnt going to be played by short or second, i get a view on that line. if its not close to the line, get up the first base line and watch things there. maybe im doing things wrong, but that peripheral view isnt going to change things for me there.

2. i see the runner take off of first just fine with a normal mask. i never had a problem as a catcher, and i can see this happen as an umpire. of course it is not entirely necessary for a PU to see a runner stealing unless you were doing a one man LL game where runners cant take off until it crosses the plate, and you have to call him out/safe at 2nd. if you are thinking like there is just a runner on first, and PU is taking the runner into third, you cant leave the plate till the ball is hit (obviously) and i hope to god you can see the runner by then with any mask. i dont see this point as necessary for me either.

those points may be helpful for other guys though, im just saying that they arent for some

Improved peripheral vision can only help. There is no way it is going to hurt, that is for sure. If you can't understand how it might help, then stick with a mask.

The wider view in a mask gives the wearer a better feel for the field. As I said before, wearing the HSM is a feel thing in terms of view

You cannot truly understand and appreciate the difference unless you have called a game in a HSM.

HSM
 

I tell you right now, a hot shot up the line used to get me. I'm not proud of it, but it was true, I had trouble picking the ball up right from the bat on some occasion. In my first game with the helmet I saw a marked improvement in this area alone. With the extra view, the ball is in site more time, and therefore easier to pick up. Therefore better for me.

I like the better view of R1, it allows you to anticipate the play better, both for steals, see the pitch call the pitch make sure you are out of the catcher's way ect. it may not change anything you do at all, but you are more aware, also it sets you up better for possible pickoff plays, as you can see the runner and just how far his lead is, again may not change anything, but make you more aware and ready for possible balks, or rundowns or anything that may happen.

Also a good view of R3 is great to see if he is coming on a squeeze, stealing home or the like, again getting you a bit more ready for the possible plays/infractions.

None of these things will make or break a game or an umpire, these aren't things that you cannot do with a mask, these are things that the HSM make easier. Plus the added confidence of seeing much more will add to your being. The safty is obviously better, and the comfort in my opinon is far superior. The main down size is it is slightly more awkward in your hand, that's really it. And in my opinion, the mask is awkward as well, just less so.

So what I see are benifits in vision and safty, and a slight disadvantage in asthetics, it seems awfully silly that that would be someone's reason to not improve their abilities. And even more silly to bad mouth anyone who dares to use one.

To each his own, but don't make an arguement against the mask when you haven't even tried it, don't stick your head in the sand and simply say no. Is it for everyone, NO, even major league catchers don't all where one, but if they think it can improve thier game, why would you think that it cannot improve yours??

Re: HSM
 

ill tell you why i dont think it will "improve my game," because i have no problems with vision right now. i use an AUL300 (or 3000, whichever it is) and i have absolutely no problem seeing anything. if i did, i wouldnt use it, id find another mask or try the helmet. i can see the base coaches in my peripheral vision with a regular mask. i do not need to even see them, so i dont see why id need MORE of an open peripheral vision. i agree, and understand that it would not "hurt my game," but dont see a need for the change. if my car runs fine, and theres another one out there that runs fine as well, am i going to change? probably not. "if it aint broke, dont fix it."

if i run into trouble, i might look towards a hockey style mask

There are a lot more reasons than Improved Vision for switching to a Helmet.

http://www.reegind.com/helmet.htm

And by the way, my horse used to think he could see everything, until one day I took off his Blinders. |:o)

What I am trying to say is, when I used a Mask, I thought I had great vision also. Then I looked through a different window.

you have an endorsement deal there, Nick?

If you have never called a game in a HSM, you have no idea whether or not your vision will be improved by it, or as you say, whether you have a vision problem. You have no basis for comparison. All you know is a traditional mask. I've tried both and I can tell you there is undoubtedly a difference. I have lent my mask to a partner and I have listened to him rave about the difference in the view.

If you're not prepared to try a HSM, no problem. Stay with the traditional mask. All we are trying to point out to you is that for people who have tried both, HSM users feel there are significant advantages to the HSM.

No he doesn't. He is the owner of the company. I'm honestly a little surprised you didn't figure that out?

No Deal...
 

I just got tired of reposting the same info over and over.

If you've tried a helmet and didn't like it, fair enough. But there seems to a bunch of you that won't even consider it. And the folks that claim "I can see fine, there's nothing else I need to see" are just plain dopey. You are going to be the same guys watching the World Series on the 27" tube. Like it, or not, you're missing something.

"Them HDTV sets are just too much picture for me. I'll stick with the ol' Philco."

It's different. I don't care for the sound inside it. Way too loud for me. But I'll use it once in a while. But if you haven't tried it, don't dismiss it.





[Edited by kylejt on Oct 10th, 2005 at 10:45 AM]

Real Facts
 

I thought that everyone would enjoy some real statistics, so I've included the umpire mask summary from yesterday's (Sunday Oct. 2, 2005) baseball games.

TM = Traditional Mask
HM = Hockey Mask

TOR v KC - TM
CH v CLE - HM
PHI v WSH - TM
ATL v FLA - TM
COL v NYM - TM
NYY v BOS - TM
LA v TEX - HM
DET v MIN - HM
CHC v HOU - TM
LAD v SD - HM
ARZ v SF - TM
OAK v SEA - TM

33.3333333333333333% Helmet Usage.

Pretty impressive for a piece of equipment so many think isn't even worth considering !

[Edited by nickrego on Oct 8th, 2005 at 03:29 AM]

Tonight on ESPN Classic.....an ESPN
original film......"The Thread that Wouldn't Die".

Duck, don't kill the thread just yet!

Mizuno Tsunami for 2 years.

Love it. Such great vision, I can see Uranus!

Here in San Diego, we have many leagues and schools with the dorky rec center style overhanging backstops, and last year was glad to have the HSM when the foul ball came down on top of my dome!

No problem in this association with helmets, or the umps that wear them.

:cool:

Steve,

If you're seeing someones anus through your helmet, your obviously more interested in the MILFS than tracking the pitch!! <(:>

Sorry, but you did leave me an opening to take a shot! LOL

Tim.

Maybe he had one of those really big catcher's, where the only way to track the ball is from down below / between his legs.

We get them that big where I work all the time.

(justing fun'in ya Steve)