Fed Baseball to Played in Skirts Next Year

[jkumpire]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

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.

[greymule]

If it saves just one life . . .

[Durham]

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.

[Rcichon]

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

[jkumpire]

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.

[jkumpire]

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.

[stmaryrams]

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

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

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?

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

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

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

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.

Submit whatever you like - do you have any printed stories relating the deaths of players whose deaths were caused by wearing a faceguard?

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.

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?

[LMan]

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

[GarthB]

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).

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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?

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.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[ozzy6900]

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?