Hey, keep it up! Good for you.

I quit April 1st so I'm coming up on my 1 yr. Youre way over the hump bro, but I can tell you even 10 months later I occasionally still want one.

Throw that yoke off. Just move on accepting you will still want one. I dont know when that goes away, prolly different for every one.

I don't have my 2009 book yet, so I'm relying on the quote Bretman posted above, and contrasting it with the 2007 book (which I have as a PDF). Sentences in the two quotes of the same color are directly contradictory. The saving grace is very few people will actually read the SAG. :rolleyes:

I disagree.

Both sentences clearly indicate that a plastic face mask worn by a catcher must be approved.

At least my point wasn't so vague that nobody got it! :)

The rule you quote from 2007 was edited in the 2008 book, and reads the same in 2009, as I quoted above. Instead of saying, "FP catchers cannot wear the plastic face mask/guard", it now reads, "Fast pitch catchers cannot merely wear the plastic face mask/guard".

Somewhere along the the line, the rule was modified. Somebody purposely and consciously added the "merely" in there. That changes the context of the rule. The old rule flat-out prohibited this type of mask. The newer version suggests that the plastic guard, alone by itself, is not acceptable but could be worn in conjuction with an "approved" helmet.

We have a rule that suggests the "Game Face" type guard is acceptable, along with a Safety Guide that explicitly says it's acceptable. The Safety Guide also says that a "batting helmet" is acceptable headgear for a catcher.

If a catcher came out in one of your games wearing a batting helmet and a Game Face mask would you allow it?


The equipment rules specify that batting helmets worn by offensive players must be NOCSAE approved, as do face masks attached to those helmets.

They do not specify NOCSAE approval for catcher's face masks, catcher's helmets or for any helmet worn by a defensive player in the field. So what does "approved" mean for those?

To answer my own question, I take it that "approved" in this sense means equipment that is acceptable through custom and practice. We know what a commercially available catcher's mask looks like and if what the catcher is wearing looks like one in good working order, it fits the bill. Absent a rule-specified standard, the "approval" is at the discretion of the umpire or game administrators.

No, this isn't something I'm going to lose any sleep over or expect to have a huge headache with once the season get underway. It's merely an observation on the title subject- the 2009 rule book.

Why publish a Safety Guide that contains information that conflicts with the printed rules? But, enough on the subject. I'm typing this post on my laptop while enjoying a good soak in my hot tub. The battery is running low and I'm going to need to reach over and plug in the power cord... :D

Are you distantly related to Lewis Carroll? Or, maybe Bill Clinton?

Here's what I have heard on the topic.

The older rule that said a FP catcher could not wear a plastic face guard was editorially changed; the change doesn't (intend to) suggest that the plastic face guard might replace the mandated equipment, it is intended to now allow the faceguard to worn in addition to the required equipment. The former wording made that (both) illegal; while I don't expect to see a catcher wearing a GameFace or equivalent in addition to the required equipment, that change now makes it possible.

The Safety Guide wording is, quite simply, wrong; if you look at the wording for JO slowpitch catchers in the following paragraph, it is word-for-word, other than the last sentence regarding a throat protector. They (the editors) let the lesser slowpitch requirements be printed for both fastpitch and slowpitch. Thankfully, I don't believe anyone is foolish enough to believe that this would supercede the rule.

In re: a 2009 .PDF file, we were given a CD at the UIC Clinic with the 2009 Rulebook, Casebook, Umpire Manual and Clinic Guide. Since they exist, it is likely (and reasonably) only a matter of time before they are also commercially available.

I'm sure there are plenty of explanations to go around. You look at it as wrong, I think CYA. Just like folks who used to argue that "resin" was incorrect and it should be "rosin".

Just because it is noted where it is, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. For all we know, someone had the foresight of what may be to come. After all, a couple years ago a batter's helmet was developed and produced as a single piece w/NOCSAE approval. Unfortunately, that did not coincide with the wording of the rule. Who is to say we will not see an approved one-piece plastic helmet or plastic face mask strong enough to be awarded NOCSAE approval? :rolleyes:

The SAG is simply what it states, a GUIDE, not a rule. Of course, there already have been and will be folks who are going to want to cite the SAG as it applies to the game.

p.163 "Anyone who has played softball, or any other contact sport..."

:confused:

How to you tag someone without contact? ;)

"Spock, I said put your phaser on stun!!!"

To the best of my knowledge there has not never nohow been a NOCSAE standard for a catcher's MASK.

For the mask itself, that may be true. But in today's world, the catcher's headgear comes as a single unit and meet a NOCSAE standard.

A couple years ago at an ASA National equipment check-in, many of the catchers brought their helmet/masks and showed us the NOCSAE stamp, even though we did not request to see it.

And there are no NOCSAE requirements made by ASA, but that doesn't mean it gets ignored. While ASA demands an "approved" mask, I don't see where the standard of approval is noted.