Face masks?
 

This article was in yesterday's online USA Today:

Kentucky becomes first state to mandate additional face protection in softball | USA Today High School Sports

What say you?

MTD, Sr.

Bravo!! Very proud of my state's high school association. We had at least two very publicized hits this past season. One almost ended the career (And could have possibly ended her life) of a college signee. The kid was apparently very much against wearing a mask, but changed her tune completely after she recovered. The other bounced off the facemask of a pitcher who was able to throw the very next pitch. Both videos were very frightening to watch. They mandated the masks for pitcher and the two corners.

We all know who here is going to fuss and fume about this....and I say foo on them- I always feel better when I see at least the P wearing one, and better when the corners are wearing them. I can't imagine someone opposing mandating a relatively inexpensive, proven available safety device, simply because it is "overreaching", and that it should be "personal choice".

Bravo to Kentucky, and I expect other jurisdictions to soon follow their lead, until NFHS wakes up and smells the coffee....and maybe USA JO also...

I would not be surprised to see NY (non-NFHS) to do so sooner than later - we mandated coaches helmets couple a years ago...

I wonder what will happen if a player wearing a mask gets clobbered and seriously injured or killed. Remember, there is no standard set.

Not big fan of the government sticking their nose into this or other sports situations.

And I tire of the cowardice demonstrated by coaches and parents who WANT such a rule mandating the masks. If it was that important to them, why is there a need for a rule or law to get them on their players/daughters during a game?

I echo Mike to the fullest.

It isn't necessary to mandate, as now it is optional (and not prohibited). If a coach, player, parent believe the facemask is in the player's best interest, then that group can decide for the player to wear one. Or allow the player to make the choice.

And as Mike said, when you mandate, you must make a safety standard. And at this time, there is not safety standard for a facemask.

I, too, agree with the minority. Why does it take a governing body to mandate what responsible parents and coaches should do? If batting helmets weren't required by rule, would they let girls bat without them?

Yeah, perhaps other states will take similar action, but I don't see this becoming a FED-wide requirement without a NOCSAE-approved device on the market.

Exactly. :rolleyes:

Does this mean that Dad can twist some wires together and weld them in his garage, attach an elastic strap and call that a mask?

Without a standard or definition of the requirement, this is what could potentially happen.....

Here in the deep South, that would be a coat hanger with duct tape:D.

Along those same lines as bending up a coat hangar, does anyone have the actual wording of the rule Kentucky is implementing because all I have seen says face protection and must be worn as intended by the manufacture. Well, this is face protection.

https://www.lowes.com/pd/Safety-Work...eld/1000042479

This does not give any wording of the rule, but the relevant paragraphs of the Release follow:

The Board of Control conducted its first organizational meeting of the 2017-18 academic year July 14-15 at the Hotel Covington in Northern Kentucky. Over the course of its two-day meeting, the Board took a progressive step in the area of student-athlete safety by approving a recommendation from staff to mandate the use of face protection in softball for pitchers, first basemen and third basemen. The Board’s action, which follows the recommended use of protective headgear in July of 2014, makes Kentucky the first state to require face protection in high school softball, and continues the KHSAA’s willingness to be at the forefront in regards to player safety, as the Association implemented a pitch count in baseball one year before it was approved at the national level.

The KHSAA submitted a proposal to amend the NFHS playing rules at the 2017 NFHS Summer Meeting (June 28-July 2), but the recommendation was not approved nationally. The new requirement will go into effect at all levels of play among KHSAA member schools with the upcoming 2018 season. A specific model or brand was not specified, but all face protection equipment must to be worn as intended by the manufacturer in order to comply with NFHS rules. It will also be recommended for immediate implementation to the Middle School Advisory Committee when that body meets during the 2017-18 school year.

“While I was disappointed with the NFHS Rules Committee action in not approving the proposal, it was not altogether surprising as there will always be disagreement when required equipment issues are debated. However, we cannot sit idly by any longer when obvious solutions exist to protect the young ladies in the Commonwealth who want to play this great and continually growing game where the talent and ability levels continues to improve,” said KHSAA Commissioner Julian Tackett. “The marketplace will guide folks through the many already existing alternatives for face protection, along with the rules book requirement across the board in all NFHS sports that require equipment to be worn as intended by the manufacturer.

“I am thankful our Board decided to act now rather than wait until the issue reaches critical mass and other entities find themselves in the position of needing to be reactive rather than proactive in this area. Our experience the last few years has left us with multiple anecdotal and documented reports of incidents within our state that leave us no option but to leave our national rules making body behind in terms of waiting for change. Our students deserve only the best protection decisions that we, as rules and policy makers, can develop. It is also unfortunate that our Board’s proactive recommendation from 2014 to the member schools was not universally implemented by the school systems, schools, coaches, parents and student participants as perhaps those groups felt the need for a higher body to make the rule a requirement. If that was the case, they need wait no longer.”


I know, TMI, but I suspect that is all we know to this point. A quick glance at the NFHS site did not yield the wording of the Kentucky proposal that was rejected.

Just a point about those objecting to government involvement, etc.

This rule was put in place by the Kentucky High School Athletic Association, not the state legislature or any other agency of the Kentucky state government.

At the bottom of this page are other threads with similar titles. I was reading one, P face masks, found a long post by Mr. Consistency from 8 years ago saying just about what he said here. :cool:
I was about to copy and paste it here, but I then had a worm infection block. :eek:
I have no way of knowing if they are related, but I won't be back to that thread.
Apparently, my computer had lots of junk and unsafe files.:eek: It took Microsoft's tech almost 2 hours of scans and cleaning. :(
YUK!

According the the news reports out of KY, there was already legislation in the works.

For those who do not remember, we went through the same thing with the masks for the batting helmets.

It took over 18 months prior to the rule actually taking effect. The rule (ASA) was initiated prior to a NOCSAE testing, probationary period to be completed after a standard being set after ASTM.

The serious parents and coaches went out an purchased whatever they thought would work and yes, there were some garage-developed pieces created and jury-rigged to fit their helmets.

In 2006, when the rule went into effect (requiring the separate NOCSAE certification, the coaches and parents were beside themselves when helmet were turned down as acceptable. Fortunately, what at that time was one of the largest Walmarts in the country was 5-10 minutes away and from what I understand, sold out what masks they had.

They all knew the rule, but could not understand why whatever they put on their DD's helmet wasn't acceptable since it was ..........are you ready for this?......I know you have heard it before.......here it is......ALLOWED AT HOME and all the other tournaments they played that year.

This was a 16U A National, but their confusion was understandable considering the other questions I fielded concerning what they were allow to get away with that season which included using an EH, 2 DPs (know idea how that worked), must slide rules and Steve M's favorite, a no jewelry rule.

Should USA Softball follow suite with the pitchers, assuming they hold to the same legal liability beliefs as in the past, we may see this whole scenario repeated.