Helmet wearers

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BretMan

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

Distinction without a difference, as far as I can see. But, jk and I have abjectly apologized more than Don Imus, ok?

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps this is just a question of semantics, but I would consider this a legal FED mask/helmet combo (manufacturer states it meets NOCSAE standards) which I would not call an HSM.



JM

[justanotherblue]

Thanks JM, I was going to add my pennys worth by stating that the Fed rule states that any helmet mask combo must have ear protection for the catcher, not an HSM only. Therefore it CAN be a traditional mask with a skull cap type helmet with ear protection that meets NOSCOE. As you pictured here. Nope, not HSM IMHO also. The picture makes it a heck of a lot easier to explain it.. so thanks and yes, I have seen catchers using this style of protection vs. the HSM.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

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.

You would be wrong. For one I will not speak for what LL or Babe Ruth does. I do not work those levels and do not give a rat's behind what they do. FED has no such rule requiring a player to wear a helmet in the style that an umpire would have to wear. A FED catcher can wear the traditional mask if they like.

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

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.

Let me say it was not a very good point you were trying to make.

Wearing a watch is a lot different than telling us what specific type of uniform to go out and buy. All that is required is a mask, it does not matter what kind of mask you wear. Would you like it if we told you what type of shirt you had to buy (not talking about color here)? Maybe you like a specific shirt because that you feel is comfortable for you that might not be required if we use your logic.

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

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.

Considering I have yet to see any evidence of such a bigger liability. I have been hit in the mask with a ball several times and I have never been hurt or slightly hurt. I have known more people that have attributed some other problems to their helmet, so I would really like to see how liability will play a role.

Peace

[RPatrino]

Umpire Bob,

I don't wear a watch or jewelry because I don't want to ruin my watch and because some jewelry is a safety hazard. If I wanted to wear jewelry or a watch I damn well would. What about the coach's we see that wear 10 lbs of bling and such? Don't the players look to their adult "ROLE MODELS" before looking at us to determine right from wrong? The clinics you talk about that instruct such nonsense must be Little League, right?

As to the liability issue, most associations I know don't carry insurance on the umpires in the first place. We have to buy our own.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Umpire Bob,

I don't wear a watch or jewelry because I don't want to ruin my watch and because some jewelry is a safety hazard. If I wanted to wear jewelry or a watch I damn well would. What about the coach's we see that wear 10 lbs of bling and such? Don't the players look to their adult "ROLE MODELS" before looking at us to determine right from wrong? The clinics you talk about that instruct such nonsense must be Little League, right?

As to the liability issue, most associations I know don't carry insurance on the umpires in the first place. We have to buy our own.

We don't wear watches or jewlery other than a wedding ring and the associaton purchases liability insurance that covers all members.

The only struggle we have over this is with one JV umpire who is upset that he can't wear eyebrow rings when he works.

[RPatrino]

Garth, I think your association is a rarity. I work for 3 different groups and in each on our contracts state.. "no insurance is included".

Originally Posted by RPatrino

Garth, I think your association is a rarity. I work for 3 different groups and in each on our contracts state.. "no insurance is included".

In my association insurance is covered.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A FED catcher can wear the traditional mask if they like.

I'm not sure what you classify as a "traditional mask"

Just so there is no confusion - here is the exact FED rule.

ART. 3... The catcher shall wear, in addition to a head protector, a mask with a throat protector, body protector, protective cup (male only), and baseball protective shin guards.

ART. 4... The catcher's helmet and mask combination shall meet the NOCSAE standard. Any helmet or helmet and mask combination shall have full ear protection (dual ear flaps). A throat protector, which is either a part of or attached to the catcher's mask, is mandatory. A throat protector shall adequately cover the throat. The commercially manufactured catcher's head, face and throat protection may be a one-piece or multi-piece design. While in a crouch position, any non-adult warming up a pitcher at any location shall wear a head protector, a mask with a throat protector and a protective cup (male only).

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A FED catcher can wear the traditional mask if they like.

Where on Earth did you hear this? Catcher's haven't been allowed traditional masks w/skull caps for years now.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Gentlemen,

Perhaps this is just a question of semantics, but I would consider this a legal FED mask/helmet combo (manufacturer states it meets NOCSAE standards) which I would not call an HSM.

JM

Remember our discussion about calling the NO EAR flap helmet prohibited by FED rules a batting helmet?
Do you remember the old LL batting helmets that only protected 3 sides of your head?

Although correct, I do not use the term helmet/mask combo on the ballfield.
I would call that a picture of a new baseball catcher's helmet or, to be politically correct, a fastpitch softball catcher's helmet.
I wore a similar one when I was a 12 year old many many moons ago.
If a catcher's helmet becomes mandatory, I will comply.
If a HSM ever becomes mandatory, I will quit.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Where on Earth did you hear this? Catcher's haven't been allowed traditional masks w/skull caps for years now.

It depends on your definition of "traditional." I'm sure Jeff just meant "non-HSM style", not necessarily "skull cap". The tyep as pictured in CoachJM's post are allowed.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It depends on your definition of "traditional." I'm sure Jeff just meant "non-HSM style", not necessarily "skull cap". The tyep as pictured in CoachJM's post are allowed.

Well, the helmet/mask combo CoachJM posted is far from "traditional," IMO.

I would think that if umpires commonly wore this combo that it would still be viewed as a "helmet" by the umpiring community, whereas a mask worn with a hat would be viewed as "traditional."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

The little kiddies have been wearing them for many years now.
Do you remember ever seeing them in green, yellow or purple 30 years ago?

but not for "shaving age" players. They have "traditionally" worn the mask/skull cap, or mask/hat backwards combos through the years.

[etn_ump]

Originally Posted by SAump

Guys can always repeat the advantages of wearing a HSM if they feel a need.
I also have read and believe that it may provide a larger field of vision.
It may also improve the limited physical movement of our eyeballs.
But I am tired of reading the lie that a HSM improves our vision.

The advantage of a larger field of vision would place you too close to the real action. An umpire would be better off a few steps back.
Any improvement of the physical movement of eyeballs would be needless to one who is looking at the action directly in front of him.
But the vision near the periphery isn't any better than the vision directly in front of one's nose.
I think the advantages I listed above are fluff. I wish some people would stop repeating them.Like any helmet, it protects the head. You win that one.

You vigorously and tearfully ask for some people to stop repeating them and then you repeat every one of them! The word MORON comes to mind.