Helmet wearers

[UmpireBob]

I have an HSM, and I would much rather wear it than the traditional hat/mask combo. It is a cooler solution in warm weather. When I wear it, I take it off just like I do my mask, only because I'm trained to do so.

I don't wear it all the time due to the thinness of my hair. Last summer I wore my HSM during a LLB Majors tourney, three plates in a row. By the time I was done, I had a nasty sunburn on the top of my head. Yeah, I know that some of you are thinking sunscreen. That would be a viable solution if I were willing to shave my head, which I'm not. I go with a #2 guard, and if I could find a suitable sunscreen which would not turn my hair white, I'd use it.

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by UmpireBob

I have an HSM, and I would much rather wear it than the traditional hat/mask combo. It is a cooler solution in warm weather. When I wear it, I take it off just like I do my mask, only because I'm trained to do so.

I don't wear it all the time due to the thinness of my hair. Last summer I wore my HSM during a LLB Majors tourney, three plates in a row. By the time I was done, I had a nasty sunburn on the top of my head. Yeah, I know that some of you are thinking sunscreen. That would be a viable solution if I were willing to shave my head, which I'm not. I go with a #2 guard, and if I could find a suitable sunscreen which would not turn my hair white, I'd use it.

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?

This last paragraph is ridiculous, bordering on stupid.

[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

[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.

[JRutledge]

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?

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

[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.

[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 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.

[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."