That is not correct. The device must have full ear protection and be NOCSAE certified.

All right, so I'll agree with you if that's what you need. So an exposed skull is better and safer than a skull protected by a hard plastic shell. And for that matter, exposed ears are a safer way to go than ears protected by a hard plastic shell.

I like a mask better too, but I wouldn't argue that they are safer. That's just ridiculous. Do you argue for the sake of argument? The All-Star and Wilson top-of-the-line HSMs are also safer against concussions than masks. And the view is better. But I still don't like them or the way they feel, despite the fact they are safer. To each their own.

As an umpire I take the risk by wearing a normal mask. I don't think there is any increased risk by wearing a low profile mask for concussions however.

I will totally agree that bucket head's are the safest and for when the rare occasion a batter's back swing lets go of the bat and taps you in the noggin I will regret not having one. Bucket heads are the by all means the ultimate insurance in safety for umpires.

I think ultimately at least some percentage of umpires using them convert to the bucket after some freak beating to the head they take. Due to either poor plate mechanics or just a freak incident. Kinda like those guys that don't wear a throat guard until they take one to the throat.

But until then for me, the buckets are more to deal with and bulky, hot and look dumb in my opinion.

Catchers should wear them because they are at a much higher risk to take a back swing to the head. I see it probably 10-15 times a season at all level's I call.

On one last note (and being in the medical field myself) I'm willing to bet there is some degree of the insurance company(s) that provides coverage for the MLB Umpires Union that influences those MLB umpires that have had concussions, a proven neurological disorders and have a neurological history to wear the bucket head protector for compliance purposes.

This is all speculation, but maybe its some food for thought and another angle on this matter?

Yep,
 

Exactly. The "insurance issue" is the EXACT resason that umpire below the AAA professional level are no longer allowed to use the scissor stance.

Regards,

I don't know, I would think* that the flatter angle of the mask would be more prone to absorbing the energy of the ball striking the mask as opposed to deflecting it. Considering PBUC's warning to their umpires about these masks, and the fact I've had three major concussions in my life due to football, I'm not taking the risk.


*As in, I don't have any hard data to backup this theory.

I think that Brian's claiming that you haven't offered an argument at all -- you've just claimed that one's safer, with no evidence to support the claim.

In the scissors stance your chest is generally at a sharper angle to the ground than the box. This sharper angle causes your head to be up (distance from chin to chest) as opposed to the box. This angle of your neck gives your neck less of its natural 'shock absorbing' ability. Not only that but to be at this angle your neck is using more muscle thus increasing its resistance to other forces.

Here's an example you can do at home to demonstrate:

1) Sit at your computer desk straight up (or with your elbows on your desk to simulate the angle of your chest when working the box) looking at some point on the wall
2) While sitting straight/elbows on knees up look up at the ceiling.
3) Notice how far your head moved and how easy it was.
4) Now sit at your desk crouched forward, say with your elbows on your knees. This may be a similar angle of your chest if you were working the scissors.
5) With your elbows on your knees look up

Notice the difference in your head mobility. You weren't able to look directly up, were you? And it wasn't as easy.

This is the same principle as when you're hit in the mask with a ball. Sitting up or from the box your neck has more ability and movement to absorb the impact, than crouched over or in the scissors.

This extra resistance can cause more injury.

My .02
 

Maybe Tim will check back in, but I was under the impression that the ban on the scissors stance was due to the amount and severity of the back and neck injuries from the prolonged use and stresses of the stance and not the from the effects of impacts from the baseball....

Tim???

Gotcha ...thanks.

But I guess my answer to that contained the argument. I thought it was obvious in the first place and not in need of explanation why a full helmet is safer than a mask.

Your head was designed to be supported by your body. When you lean forward, your neck muscles must strain to support the weight of your head. This position leads to strain, stress, and injury.

You don't have to take my word for it. Insurance companies make money by managing risk. They've prohibited the stance in MiLB to reduce this particular risk.

And I read here some time back... I think it was Tim C. who said that you wear your mask fairly loose so that it dangles somewhat when you look down. It causes the mask to spin off when you get any kind of indirect shot, and it deflects a lot of the shock. I swear by that, and it takes away the sting of all but the dead-center shots, which are rare, anyway.

Ok,
 

A couple have already toned in but here is the example as given by MLB to their umpires:

Take a tennis ball and hold it straight out in front of you, elbow locked, and hold it for 2 minutes.

Take a bowling ball and hold it straight out in front of you, elbow locked, and hold it for 2 minutes.

The difference between the outcome of these two tests is the exact outcome your spine has when you work the scissors.

Regards,

Tee since we are on this subject matter (meaning safety) just curious if you have any info on the deciding factor when MLB abandoned the old traditional baloon in favor of the current CP.

Was it simply a matter of style? as it would seem to be much safer using the baloon than the inside CP.

The reason I ask is that if the PBUC is really interested in the safety of umpires then they would not have abandoned the old baloon in favor of the CP to begin with.

An umpire is much more exposed using the CP then the baloon.

Thanks

Pete Booth

The real issue, at least to me, isn't whether or not a HSM is safer. The issue is whether or not "safer" is needed. We could make the argument that standing behind a shatter proof plexiglass shield is safer, but then we have to determine whether or not it's needed. And since we know it's not............

You should be able to connect the dots.


Tim.

You think wrong