Minor league coach killed by line drive

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I heard briefly on the radio yesterday that the autopsy showed the cause of death as being a crushed artery in the neck. Does this mean that a helmet wouldn't have protected him?



Tough to say, Mark. Would he have been better protected w/ a helmet? Absolutely.

It's not tough to say at all. A neck injury is not prevented by a batting helmet. So no, he would not have been better protected against this injury by a helmet.

[NFump]

He means overall. He would've been better protected overall with a helmet than sans helmet.

[DonInKansas]

So, for everyone's protection, everyone on the field will now be required to dress like this:

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by NFump

He means overall. He would've been better protected overall with a helmet than sans helmet.

No he wouldn't have been better protected. He would have been more protected but more and better are different things.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

No he wouldn't have been better protected. He would have been more protected but more and better are different things.

Have to disagree. In this case (helmet or no helmet) more and better are the same.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

should BASE coache's be required to wear HOCKEY style helmets?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by NFump

He means overall. He would've been better protected overall with a helmet than sans helmet.

That is correct. But let's examine what is now being reported.

"a burst or crushed blood vessel stopped blood flow to his brain"....a burst vessel does not have to be a direct strike to the neck (artery = to brain, vein = away from brain; "vessel" = either) either of those could well have been in areas where the helmet would have protected.

None of this discussion makes any hill of beans in the end result of things. The insurance companies dictate the desired protection rules.