Helmet wearers

[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