Fed Baseball to Played in Skirts Next Year
 

Now that I have your attention.....

I overheard some conversation that FED will be mandating face protectors for HS batting helmets next year. Is this not a revolting development? We might as well start playing wiffle bal. l

THESE BOYS ARE NOT PLAYING FP SOFTBALL.

If you have heard this to be true, then by all means talk to your state association and the FED today, this is just bad, bad, bad IMO.

Comments?

I think that's been on the list for a couple of years now, along with helmets (I forget whether face masks are bing considered) for all fielders.

If it saves just one life . . .

I had a JC kid get smoked with a fast ball right in the face, left check bone - eye socket area. When the game was over he looked like he had a baseball implanted inside his face. Next time I had the team he had one of those extentions on the front of his helmet. I would wear one if I got hit like this kid got hit.

Another example of a beancounter (sorry to those of you whom are accountants, nothing personal) running the show. It's a fact of life in our litigious society that "The Finance Department" factors in making policy and will so even more in the future.

Fact: look at your Auto Insurance Policy lately. Or Homeowners, etc., etc.

I think that instead of taking personal responsibility [maybe I should use a mask while batting], it has become permissable to become irresponsible [No one told me I had to use a mask, wah!].

JMHO

Please, no
 

I don't want to argue the point, but how many baseball players have been killed or hurt permanantly by a ball in the face since dual ear flaps on helmets came out?

How many of them knew how to get out of the way of a pitch?

I would submit that face guards on helmets will cause more injuries than they prevent because they will cut into a batter or runner's field of vision, plus the misery of wearing a helmet all the time on a field. This is not Lacrosse, hockey, or even FP SB, where you have a lot of slap hitting, and girls playing it, and there might be more of a need for it.

Inherent in any sport is the risk of injury, and putting masks on batters and fielders is not going to save anyone, it just makes sure the FED is not sued by somebody looking for a money grab.

Well, Steve....
 

Here we go...

http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/AllSport.htm

High school spring sports have been associated with low incidence rates during the past twenty-three years, but baseball was associated with 44 direct catastrophic injuries and track 57. A majority of the baseball injuries have been caused by the head first slide or by being struck with a thrown or batted ball. If the headfirst slide is going to be used, proper instruction should be involved. Proper protection for batting practice should be provided for the batting practice pitcher and he/she should always wear a helmet. This should also be true for the batting practice coach. During the 2005 baseball season four high school pitchers were stuck in the head with batted balls. One pitcher recovered, two were non-fatal at the time of this writing, and one died. Two injuries took place in a game, one in batting practice, and one in a batting cage. A new rule in fast pitch soft ball will require players to wear batting helmets equipped with NOCSAE approved facemasks/guards. The rule will go into effect January 1, 2006.

The number quoted go back to 1982, not all catastrophic injuries result in death or permanant injury.

Direct injuries per 100.000 participants, 1982-2005
Fatal, 0.10; Non-Fatal, 0.17; Serious, 0.20

The majority of problems from this paragraph seem clear:

1. Head first slides
2. Practice, mostly BP
3. And this includes the lively metal bat era.

I could almost see making helmets w/o face masks mandatory for pitchers, but I would still be against it.

The number of HS kids hurt by taking pitches to the face is almost nil. And if nothing else, ask your local umpires how many serious injuries have happened in their games.

We have a program for youth sports in Ohio where the Ohio Opthamalogical Society will supply teams and even leagues with NOCSEA approved helmets with facemasks if the coaches sign an agreement to have all players wear them. This is open to any teams but I've only seen it in the rec leagues from 14 and under. I've had players wear them and complain they can't see and others who were afraid of the ball until they wore the helmet. Seems excessive for NFHS

At least 4 have been killed that I've read about.

Don't know ... can't ask them. Just know that they did not, in fact, get out of the way.

Submit whatever you like - do you have any printed stories relating the deaths of players whose deaths were caused by wearing a faceguard?
I don't think this is a lawsuit thing (although it could be). I think it's a reaction to the recent deaths caused by getting hit in the face with a ball going 90 mph. And I don't understand why ANYONE would be against this at all. What harm does it cause? Is that harm enough to balance out the risk of death?

c'mon jk...its for the children.

I believe this started after an AMA survey of emergency room treatment of baseball injuries that concluded that the vast majority of injuries were caused by baseballs to the heads and faces of fielders (including pitchers).

It doesn't take a whole lot of harm to weigh out the risk of death. The risk of death is miniscule. How many players were killed while wearing the current helmet that would not have been killed with the proposed helmet? Only 10 fatalities from playing baseball were reported to the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research from 1982 to 2002, although it is unclear how many of those relate to being hit by a pitched ball (let alone to the face) (http://ajs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/5/1189).

Now, how much damage to the game are we willing to accept in order to mitigate the risk of such an unlikely occurance? How much actual damage to the game does face protection cause? What kind of protection are we talking about.

Without a study of the affect of the new helmet on play, it does not make sense to make a change based on such an unlikely event.

I understand your point, but I'm still asking how adding a facemask "damages the game" or to jk's point, how many have been killed due to having to wear a facemask.

You say it doesn't take a whole lot of harm ... I see NO harm here.

Think about it - umpire wears a faceguard - not wearing one would be considered completely ridiculous by 100% of the people on this board. Catcher wears a faceguard - same reasons. Why in the world shouldn't the batter? After all, the catcher has a glove and knows where the ball is going... the umpire has the catcher in front of him. It's just as likely to hit the batter's face as the catcher's or umpires ... yet there's no harm to the game forcing the catcher or umpire to wear one - and they can see the ball just fine. I don't see even a miniscule amount of harm from the batter wearing one.

What harm is definately a fair question. Possible harm includes limited vision. Now, does it limit vision enough to warrent not mandating the equipment? I don't know. But unlike an umpire or catcher getting hit in the face, which happens every game or two, I have never in 10 years of umpiring seen a batter hit in the face. Clearly, it does happen, but in my opinion, the occurence is infrequent enough that I would rather see evidence that the additional protection would not interfere with play before it is mandated, rather than mandate it and then see if it interferes with play.

I have an idea! Why not dress up all NHFS baseball players like NHFS football players! Now no one gets hurt because there are pads everywhere. The full helmet can either have a plastic shield or for added protection, a full cage like a line backer! Don't forget those cups - another mandatory item! Oh yes, steel toe cleats so we don't hurt our little footsies! Of course, sliding will be better wearing an a$$ pad, won't it.

What are we coming to? Is this baseball or sissy-ball?

To Jump in here
 

A couple of responses,

One of our good friends said a major problem wwas "players getting hit by balls in the face." The key is when. I know of one who got killed in a game since 1982 with a thrown ball.

As to catchers and umpires: Folks the difference between a batter and F2 and the PU is somewhat akin to the difference between night and day. A batter has to move out of the way (remember that rule), umpires and catchers have to stay still behind home plate catching or looking at pitches. We don't move (at least I hope so).

I am somewhat symapthetic to the "if it saves one life argument it's worth it" line of thought, but if that's case, where else in our society do we apply such a cost/benefit analysis? Let's mandate the driving age be 21 for bicycles and 35 for motor cars then.

Unless I am senile in the years 1982-2005 on the HS level the chances of dying in a baseball game by getting hit by a pitch is at most 1 in 1 million participants. And that is if every death reported was in a game (not practice), and done only by being hit with a pitch. Let us compare say, the top 10 causes of death in males under age 18, anyone care to guess if the odds are this small?

Further, let's ban football, unless you limit it to non-contact, no helmet flag football and allow no practice or games when the temprature is above 65 and below 50. Now you have eliminated almost all risk in a much riskier sport than baseball. Let's also eliminate swimming, cheerleading and wrestling, and now
it's safe for athletes to play sports. Hooray!

If you want to assure fewer deaths, then outlaw the head first slide, and use soft baseballs, or hollow plastic bats. Now the chances of death in baseball are close to nil, but is it baseball?

I'm sorry, I wish we had details on every death in HS Baseball since 1982 somewhere, so we could do a real risk analysis. I doubt we ever will see such a thing, because the FED laywers who make the rules would never allow it to that open a process.

And if you use face masks, I woudl submit you have the possibility for more minor injuries because of the limited vision, and the freedom to allow people to use their head as a weapon (i.e. R2 says, "Hey I got my face covered, let me go in an take F2 out at home by getting him in the knees").

I'll get off my soapbox now, and thanks for reading.

Betcha people were called sissies for wearing batting helmets. Should we ban batting helmets, or make them optional?

Bobby Layne called football players sissies for wearing face guards.

Jacques Plante got called a sissy for wearing a goalie mask.

Hockey players used to think it was sissy to wear a helmet. Should we let them take them off?

Heck, players got called sissies for using fielding gloves. The rules makers had to add the " may wear a glove" rules to declare it legal.

Come on, Rich - you know what I am getting at!
This isn't LL baseball anymore. Hell, if someone wants to wear a face shield, fine but don't mandate it!

Baby boomers meddling again. If the incidence is less than one half of one percent or less as stated earlier, let the player decide. Statistically insignificant number IMHO. Is this becoming baby ball or baseball. If the FED wants to take a significant course of action, then increase the penalty for throwing at a batter when the head is involved. Say...five game suspension for the pitcher and three games for the coach. And let me warn both benches when warnings need to be given. If you can't tell the difference between a high hard fastball with intent or a poorly thrown curveball, you shouldn't be doing that level.

So FED adds a rule (or ruling) that ALLOWS the use of face guards and somehow it becomes a rumor that it's going to be mandated - and everyone goes nuts.

Not everyone.

Let's all ignore the practical
 

They play baseball in Japan with a rubber version of our baseball. It is the closest thing we have to a real (simulated) synthetic baseball. It is cheaper by the dozen and it doesn't deteriorate as quickly as a rawhide covered baseball. Saving a school some money is a factor.

The main reason it is used to play high school baseball in Japan is safety. Ever heard of a Japanese baseball breaking a car windshield? Young pitchers develop effectively because they are not encourage to throw curveballs. Talk about saving some money on real baseball medical bills. The focus is were it is suppose to be, on their young arms and fundamentals of the game. After high school, the kids make the switch over to the real thing. There is no emotional debate over the safety of metal or wood bats over there.

Is FED consider more expensive helmet/facemask requirements without first considering the adoption of a rubber baseball? They never blink an eye wasting money on the wrong equipment. Has anyone ever been killed by a rubber baseball? That fact alone makes owning the new $50 allstar 2200 pitcher's titanium helmet/mask combo a rather silly idea. They seem to be ignoring the real scientific evidence. I guess borrowing a good Japanese idea isn't very popular either. Lah me, toy-ota.

I agree. As umpires, we need to model the behavior we advocate. No more sissy face masks. Dump the chest protectors. Shinguards? Hah, I laugh at your shinguards. Oh, and sandals should do just fine.

To really drive the point home, I disabled my airbags and ripped out my seatbelts. The next time I go skydiving, no helmet or reserve chute for me. I ain't no sissy!

Paul,

I have no side to take in the debate over mandating safety equipment. I really don't care at this point.

I simply think it's stupid the way people are drawn to attack someone's manhood or courage because they may believe that protection against injury may be worth some inconvenience.

If you want to attack the idea, then do it with facts and figures, not bravado and testosterone.

I'm not sure my generation is responsible for this. I would more likely suspect Gen Xers, or whatever the generation that invented this "Time Out" crap as a deterrent to child misbehavior. It's the modern free-to-be-you-and-me-hug-a-tree-Cumbaya-singing-Volvo-driving-soccer-mom, and as Denny Crane would say, "mamby-pamby" bunch that is responsible for this movement.

I think it will change the game dramatically. You are going to see less hits, and more Strike-Outs.

The local batting cage I USED to go to, requires full caged helmets to be worn. Let me tell you, you can't hit the broad side of a barn, let alone a 60+ MPH baseball, with one of those things on.

I am a really good hitter, as far as making solid contact, with a variety of pitches. But with one of those caged helmets on, I could barely get a foul tip. After a while, I started connecting, but it was really tough, because you had to track the ball through one of the gaps in the cage. That means, the head is not strictly tracking with the ball, but also moving to keep the ball in that little window.

I would not be surprised if more batters get hit in general, just because they can't see the ball, or lose track of the ball.

I think this is another case of someone making policy, that has never had to use the policy. Kind of like the morons who design forms that have boxes too small to fit the information they demand, and then reject the form.

I meant no offense. I was referring to a universal "you" rather than a personal "you." I should have used the term "one."

I think Uxley could do that today and never notice the difference.

LOL... Steve, I too am a baby boomer, I would have to agree, it's those that just don't get it. You have to be responsible for your actions, not sit along the side lines with a lawyer waiting for the chance to pounce. As for the time outer's, that would be baby boomer Dr. Spock. From what I've seen, I would have to say, it doesn't work. Now my dad's belt... that worked very well!

[[/QUOTE]

We are umpires who are asked to administer the rules according to the leagues we service.

Who cares if a state mandates the use of face protectors or not. Will it change how we umpire? Will the games last longer because of this new change?

Therefore, how is this just bad, bad, bad

IMO, it's no different than any other change the FED put in place. Ie; the FPSR, bat restrictions, etc.

IMO, the only ones who should care are the players that will have to wear them as it might effect them hitting but that awaits to be seen.

As far as I am concerned, it might add an extra couple of minutes when checking equipment because we will probably have to make certain that the face protector has the proper LOGO etc. on it. If it's part of a "combo" then it will probably not add any extra time checking equipment. Other than that it's play ball.

If the FED put in some kind of rule/regulation that added an extra 1/2 hour to the game then I would care.

Pete Booth

It's concern for the game in general, Pete, not just caring about what personally affects us.

What a load.

First, Dr. Benjamin Spock was not a baby boomer. He was born May 2, 1903, forty some years before the beginning of the "baby boom".

Second, most of the things that he was blamed for were actually created by his critics who exaggerated his message and ideas.

Dr. Spocks primary message was to mothers: "you know more than you think you do."

His secondary message was that children need affection and should be treated as individuals. He did not dismiss the need for discipline, rather he suggested that it be balanced with positive attention. He disproved the notion that picking up a crying baby would, by itself, create a spoild child.

Unfortunately, what most people today know of Dr. Spock comes from critics repeating handed down myths instead of from reading his work.

Unfortunately, what most people today know of Dr. Spock comes from critics repeating handed down myths instead of from reading his work.

That's quite true. For some reason, many people think that Dr. Spock advocated a lenient, touchy-feely approach to child-rearing. He did not by any means. It might be that because of his opposition to the Vietnam war, as well as the fact that many kids seemed out of control, people assumed that he was some sort of ultra-liberal airhead. So Dr. Spock has wrongly become symbolic of ideas with which he would certainly disagree.

thanks guys, I'll remember that. I stand corrected. :cool: