The Numbers Are In . . .

[Pensaump]

I'm having a hard time being convinced that the "new view" mask really makes that much difference.

A direct hit in the middle of your eyes is going to ring your bell no matter what. I have taken about 2-3 real "monster" shots using a Wilson Dynalite and in my opinion there is nothing that can stop a direct hit at high velocity.

I'm about to start using a "new view" mask here shortly. I chose it over the more common mask after looking at pictures between the two. My best guess is that it is easily less than 1 inch difference in depth.

A square hit is a square hit period, no matter low profile, bucket or regular.

My personal reason for choosing the new low profile mask was that from what I've read and heard there is quite a difference in the amount you can see. The ump-attire article even compared the new view masks "depth" as pretty much being the same as bucket helmets. I haven't heard anyone complaining about deflection related issues with bucket helmets.....?

Talking with a good friend of mine about choosing between the two types of masks and he made a good point. I mean we do have to "see" to "call" pitches right? So seeing better should be the ideal goal... at least in my opinion.. (and his, even though I just stole it!)

I honestly maybe get hit in the face mask about 1 in 7,500 - 10,000 pitches. Realistically I probably get a moderate hit to the face every 30 plate games or so. At best 1 "monster" hit a season, and to even get a hit where the angle of the bars would even help has to be the perfect storm.

So the way I see it, I'd rather have a better view of the pitch and "sacrifice" the "deflective properties" 99.99% of the time.

Am I on a lonely island by myself???

[Kevin Finnerty]

The HSM is safer, period. You don't need a study to know that. But is it worth the closed -in feeling, or the new-age look, or the cost? Maybe not. Every 100 games, I take a full shot to the middle of the mask, maybe five times. Anybody take more than that? And, I would say I have had one mild concussion in all the years.

This is a big-league concern.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The HSM is safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

Originally Posted by Pensaump

I'm having a hard time being convinced that the "new view" mask really makes that much difference.

A minor leaguer familiar with PBUC's statement put it this way. "Helmets protect better against impact to the sides and top of the head, but they have not shown, in practice, to protect any better from concussions due to shots to the front."

The figures I believe, only take into consideation the 230 some umpires in minor league baseball and for only the past two seasons. They are represented as percentages of those who use each type of mask, thus they are not skewed by the large majority of umpires who wear the traditional mask.

PBUC takes concussions very seriously and records each one. MiLB umpires, when first starting out, take a test to establish a baseline so that effects of concussions can be measured.

In regards to the new view masks: in practice, they have shown higher numbers of concussions per unit than either a traditional mask or helmet. PBUC has warned their umpires against wearing them for the last two seasons.

[ozzy6900]

The reason that I questioned the New View masks is that there have been several incidents in our organization, all have been with the New View mask. One of the injured insisted that his New View did not take the hit from the ball as his old standard mask did. I personally have felt the difference and will not use the New View at all.

I have no experience with a HSM other than I tried a friends and did not like the feel at all. There is no question that it will protect you better than just a hat, that is for sure!

[Emperor Ump]

I also believe a factor to be considered is that some people are just more prone to concussions. Troy Aikman would be a perfect example. Concussions ended his career. Yet there are many quarterbacks who both took harder hits and were with more often with no issue like Jim Kelly. He wad probably hit more often and harder than Aikman. (Yes, I realize Aikman played home games on turf which is harder-- just an example)

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The HSM is safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

I'll counter this with an equally worthless statement: The HSM is not safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

[jkumpire]

The FED's lawyers (errr..... Rules committee, present company excepted) have decided the HSM is safer, that is why they mandated its use for players.

So there is evidence that at least one major rules-making body has decided that HSM's are safer.

I wear a bucket myself, and I see it as 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. But IMO, the new view mask is not as safe. I've worn it, and taken shots in it. But a regular mask/HSM is a toss-up.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

The FED's lawyers (errr..... Rules committee, present company excepted) have decided the HSM is safer, that is why they mandated its use for players.

There was no such mandate last season and I see none in the rule changes. Where did you get this information?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

The FED's lawyers (errr..... Rules committee, present company excepted) have decided the HSM is safer, that is why they mandated its use for players.

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

[Tim C]

"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 . . . "

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,

[Emperor Ump]

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.

[piaa_ump]

Originally Posted by icallemasiseeem

not trying to be a smart-***, explain what scissors stance vs. box has got to do with it? are you saying that you are more exposed in the scissors? i have used both and have gotten hit in both but i am a relatively new umpire. thanks

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???

[Tim C]

" . . . not trying to be a smart-***, explain what scissors stance vs. box has got to do with it? are you saying that you are more exposed in the scissors? i have used both and have gotten hit in both but i am a relatively new umpire."

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,

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

I'll counter this with an equally worthless statement: The HSM is not safer, period. You don't need a study to know that.

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.

[Pensaump]

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?