Helmet wearers

[LMan]

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

Another reason I like the HSM . . . if we are requiring our youth players to wear it for "safety reasons," then doesn't it seem consistant that the HSMs should be worn by blues as well?

Thanks for the laugh, that took the edge off my day.

[BretMan]

Jumping back up to the first post...

Jk, what did you mean when you said that the NFHS mandates this piece of equipment for their catchers?

I must have missed that memo...

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Jumping back up to the first post...

Jk, what did you mean when you said that the NFHS mandates this piece of equipment for their catchers?

I must have missed that memo...

FED 1-4-7,8

[UmpireBob]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

This last paragraph is ridiculous, bordering on stupid.

Mr. Fronheiser,

Why? Or do you like to just to ignite the flame thrower, then walk away?

First of all, understand that the question was rhetorical in nature, and not a position per se.

Second, do you always have to disagree with such a negative tone? I have noticed that you have a way of stating your position in simple, one line declarations which are either inflammatory, or border on being such.

I always thought that boards like this were meant to be a means of discussion and debate, where people can exchange information, views, and where people can learn from the experience of others. If you really have to resort to such words, then one must assume that your ego is only trying to cover for your lack of self-esteem. One who has confidence in his/her position on a topic should be willing to elaborate on it. I certainly am willing to concede a point, given that the contrary position has been adequately supported. When you state your positions in such a manner, no one learns.

Ever wonder why newbies are afraid to post questions here? It is because they are afraid of getting flamed by posts like the one I quoted above. These people are apprehensive enough because they are learning a new skill. They are just looking for good information that is reasoned, and which may be backed by experience. Stating positions like you did above, and on another post regarding shirts, in this manner, do not reflect reasoning or experience. They only reflect your stubborn adherence to tradition which may or may not have sound support. We'll never know, because you don't provide anything but a knee-jerk reaction. Enlighten us, Rich. You seem to have a great deal of experience. I'm willing to read your posts, and even claim that you are correct in your position. Just explain them, is all I ask.

This also applies to others of you who post here. You know who you are.

Stop and think for a moment as to why many youth baseball organizations, including FED, have mandated that the HSMs be worn by catchers. (Are they mandated by the NCAA as well? I don't know...I am asking.) It is because the insurance companies who provide liability insurance have dictated so. Why would they do this if they had not found these types of helmets to be safer than what has traditionally been warn? Otherwise, we'd still be seeing kids wearing skull caps and masks like most of us did when we were growing up. And typically, these companies do not mandate such things unless there is research to support their positions (there's a familiar theme).

If it's such a ridiculous point, then why are we seeing MLB umpires wearing them? You don't get much more traditional than the umpire schools, and the ranks of veteran MLB umpires. If we are starting to see MLB umps wear them, then there must be a reason. No, I am not saying that the ump schools are encouraging the use of HSMs. Most older umpires, simply out of tradition, balk at the thought of wearing an HSM. That is fine. They are entitled to their opinion. My point is simply that within a group of people who work in such an environment which is deep in tradition, where change occurs VERY slowly, we are seeing change in regards to hockey-style helmets. I think it is because some people have decided that they provide a safer alternative to what has been worn traditionally.

Respectfully,

Bob

[UmpJM]

Lman,

Huh????

How about 1-5-3 & 4, which state no such requirement?

JM

P.S. Congratulations on your prestigious award from last year. Did you know that you look a lot like me - in a kind of blurry, distorted way?

[BretMan]

That rule is refering to a helmet (with ear flaps) and a standard mask combination. That is totally different than mandating a hockey-style mask.

By your citation of this rule, is it your contention that HSM's are mandated (ie: required) by FED rules?

Or, do you mean to say that they are allowed (ie: optional)?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That rule is refering to a helmet (with ear flaps) and a standard mask combination. That is totally different than mandating a hockey-style mask.

By your citation of this rule, is it your contention that HSM's are mandated (ie: required) by FED rules?

Or, do you mean to say that they are allowed (ie: optional)?

Bretman,

Not sure if you're asking me, or someone else, but, by my read, HSMs are cetainly allowed, but certainly not required for the F2.

JM

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

First of all, understand that the question was rhetorical in nature, and not a position per se.

Had I known this was rhetorical, I wouldn't have responded. Sorry.

But it's ridiculous to say that we should wear something to be an example to the kiddies. Kids wear protective gear because they are playing the game and because we, as adults, make decisions for them regarding their safety.

BTW, I wear a helmet. Safety plays no part in that decision.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Lman,

Huh????

How about 1-5-3 & 4, which state no such requirement?

JM

P.S. Congratulations on your prestigious award from last year. Did you know that you look a lot like me - in a kind of blurry, distorted way?

sorry, I just realized I only have the 2005 (ahem) FED book here. So the citations have certainly changed. Thusly, I dont know offhand what the above cites say. My error for quoting from a 2-yr old rulebook.

1-5-3&4 in the 2005 book are totally unrelated.

Appreciate the kudos on my historic award. Never won anything in my life, then one day.......

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That rule is refering to a helmet (with ear flaps) and a standard mask combination. That is totally different than mandating a hockey-style mask.

By your citation of this rule, is it your contention that HSM's are mandated (ie: required) by FED rules?

Or, do you mean to say that they are allowed (ie: optional)?

No, not my intent. I was quoting in the context of contrasting a seperate mask-and-cap combo (traditional umpire) with a helmet of any type, HSM or not. In my (admittedly outdated) cite, Art 7 requires a 'head protector'....and then Art 8 states that "the catcher's helmet and mask combination shall meet NOCSAE..."

It doesnt say, "IF the catcher wears a helmet and mask combination, it shall meet NOCSAE"..it strongly implies that he WILL wear such a combination.

Art 8 further describes: ".....the commercialy manufactured catcher's head, face and throat protection..:"

All of that doesn't sound like a turned-around baseball cap to me, and that's the point I was trying to make, muddled though my attempt was.

So, what other "helmet and mask combination" is commonly used other than a HSM? Or am I so HSM-ignorant that I'm assuming that F2s' "h and m combos" are all HSMs?

[UmpireBob]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where in the hell is it required for players to wear a helmet (in the same vane) as the umpires wear? What rules set are you reading?

I will have to agree with Rich. Statements like this are the very reason many of the umpires that advocate them have very little credibility.

Peace

Little League and FED require catchers to wear helmets that meet NOCSAE standards. I do not know about Babe Ruth, or some of the other rule codes. Those rule sets do not require an umpire to wear such a helmet or mask, nor does OBR.

The point I was making in my original post, runs along the same logic as is taught in umpire clinics and schools. We are told not to wear watches, jewelry, or anything that we tell players not to wear, so that we can point to ourselves as examples. So, if we as adults (not just as umpires, but as a collective set who write and/or enforce game rules) are dictating that players wear such equipment, I am just saying that it provides a good example to wear the same equipment.

No, we are not required to. No, I don't wear an HSM all the time either. But I do think that we will see a day (not in the near future) where it will be mandated by the insurance companies for organizations to change their rules to require umpires to wear hockey-style helmets. What do I base this on? Look at history. They have mandated it for youth players in order to provide favorable rates for liability insurance (and most of the other "safety" rules we have seen implemented in youth baseball rules). It seems only a matter of time before they begin to implement it for adults as well.

Another example of liability? Look at the background checks that have to be done now.

The question of liability plays a bigger and bigger role in our lives, much to my dismay. It is, however, a question which requires the attention of those people paying the insurance premiums. And, the insurance companies know this.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

Little League and FED require catchers to wear helmets that meet NOCSAE standards.

What do mean when you say "helmet?" FED does not require a Hockey style helmet.

[jkumpire]

Gentlemen,

I am sorry for my inexact language. Fed requires a mask/head protector of some type, not necessarily a HSM. I am an old tradionalist, therefore any catcher's equipment not the old style mask and helmet combo I end up referring to as an HSM, even though there are different styles out there.

Personally, I believe these masks should not be mandated for FED baseball, it is overkill by the laywers. But, I lost that arguement years ago, so you live with what you have.

I am having a little trouble getting used to the helmet, if I have a game tonight I will let you know how it works. I am not sure I have it adjusted correctly.

Thank you for your assistance, and please keep the discussion going!

[BretMan]

Okay. Now that we have the right rule book.

And the right rules.

And the right terminology.

Just in case there's still any question: FED baseball does not require catchers in their games to wear a hockey-style mask!

[LMan]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

I am sorry for my inexact language. Fed requires a mask/head protector of some type, not necessarily a HSM. I am an old tradionalist, therefore any catcher's equipment not the old style mask and helmet combo I end up referring to as an HSM, even though there are different styles out there.

This is exactly my situation, but you expressed it better than I did. Any catcher's helmet is a HSM to me, esp since Ive never been to a hockey game and dont anticipate changing that situation im my lifetime. Sorry for the confusion.

I still would like to see a common FED H&M combo that does NOT resemble a HSM, however. What, specifically, makes it 'hockey style?'