Helmets for base coaches

[spark240]

It's been announced that first- and third-base coaches this year will have to wear helmets. Of course this is the policy response to the death of Tulsa Drillers first-base coach Mike Coolbaugh, who died last July after being struck by a hard foul in a Texas League game. Some are not happy (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTPneo_qO8Ko4rVs78gTOr_eprJQ) about it.

Also, coaches will have to actually stay in the coaches' boxes (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ho3iUvbF52XAFSyNDloMk42odCeA), at least until the batted ball passes them.

I welcome the rule keeping coaches in their boxes. I'd have taken it a step further, and required them to stay in their boxes at all times when the ball is live. (Except for diving out of the way of the hard fouls!) I've found it slightly ridiculous that official boxes are chalked out on the field and many coaches seem to prefer standing anywhere but inside them. I do find it inappropriate when base coaches rush forward so close to the play that they practically become part of it. As for observing fielding positions, well, Connie Mack could do that from the dugout, so I reckon behind the line of the coaches' box affords a fine view.

The rule on helmets, though, is ill-advised. Like many things in life, baseball can never be made perfectly "safe," at least not without dismantling its essential nature. The rulesmakers' response to the Coolbaugh incident is a nanny-state response, maybe deriving more from public-relations than anything else. (In fact, since Coolbaugh himself was hit below the ear, he could have been wearing a flapless helmet, in accord with this rule, and it wouldn't have made any difference.)

Some of the coaches have pointed out that umpires are not required to wear helmets. I would add also that pitchers do not wear helmets, and they are in the line of fire from considerably more hard-batted balls than anyone! We can all recall certain terrible injuries to pitchers from batted balls. Some pitchers have had to battle real fears about this. As someone who has been hit by a ball or two, off bats considerably shy of the bigs, I know this is nothing to snicker about. But folks, this is baseball.

From a fan perspective, though, the worst part of this development is this:
Everyone seems to agree on one thing: Baseball shouldn't stop at protecting the coaches on the field.

What about the guys in the dugout? What about the fans sitting in the lower decks? What about the umpires?

"I know the fans along the foul lines and above the dugouts are pretty exposed," Hill said. "Every year someone gets hit. Every time a ball shoots over the dugout or gets pulled down the line, there's a sick feeling that happens to my stomach, and it's (the same) every single time. Every single time."

The newer, retro-style ballparks have been designed with much less foul territory, bringing fans closer to the action but also leaving them more vulnerable to line drives that zing into the stands with a split-second's notice. Gallego suggested extending the screen behind home plate down the foul lines.

No. No! NOOOOOOOO! :mad:

I already have a hard time finding unobstructed-by-netting views at some minor league parks! If this design became standardized--if fans were literally caged-off from the action throughout the leagues--part of the reason for attending games would be lost to me. I go to games to get closer to the action.

Of course I'm aware of the potential; two times, somebody sitting directly in front of me has been nailed, hard, with a foul ball. One tough lady left to have her cheek and jaw examined, before returning, with a big ice pack, to watch the rest of the game. She got a big cheer from our section. :cap: But considering the number of games I've attended, the fact that this has happened only the twice suggests that it's really not a danger crying out for remedy. While I don't have the data, I suspect that perhaps more people have been injured in car wrecks on their way home from those games I attended. Frankly, the awareness of the (small) danger of the hard fouls for me serves to help keep me in the game, closely attendant upon the action on the field. That's what I want. That's why I'm there.

Mike Coolbaugh's death was a tragedy, but things happen in baseball, as in life. The appropriate response of the rulemakers, and ballpark staff, is simply to remind everybody to be on their toes when the pitch is delivered. If you're not inclined to follow the game closely, there are plenty of places in the ballpark you can sit and have virtually no chance of being hit with anything. On those occasions when I have my smaller children with me, I too will sit behind the screen.

I guarantee the base coaches have been on their toes since last July. So should we all. That's enough.

[Old Sweater]

Yeah, I read that earlier yesterday. I think it was Marv Hubbard who said he felt like the batboy......lol

[Brian McKenna]

Coaching the bases - even in Little League - you need to watch out. Coolbaugh wasn't but 35 so it wasn't his reflexes. I've sat in some minor league parks well behind the base coach and I felt that it was dangerous.

The issue is - is there a downside to wearing helmets? Other than it is something new which will always be greeted with a few complaints - the answer is NO.

[PJ-34]

i think wearing those John Olerud helmets would be good enough.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Yeah, I read that earlier yesterday. I think it was Marv Hubbard who said he felt like the batboy......lol

Glenn Hubbard. ;) And, yes, he did say that. I read that in the paper yesterday. :)

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

I don't think it is a bad idea. I have been coaching in the past, and it is hard to watch the ball at the same time when you have to coach a baserunner.

[rockin500]

Coaching the bases - even in Little League - you need to watch out. Coolbaugh wasn't but 35 so it wasn't his reflexes. I've sat in some minor league parks well behind the base coach and I felt that it was dangerous.

The issue is - is there a downside to wearing helmets? Other than it is something new which will always be greeted with a few complaints - the answer is NO.
i think its a stupid idea. a helmet wouldnt have made any difference anyways last year with coolbaugh.

[Old Sweater]

The issue is - is there a downside to wearing helmets? Other than it is something new which will always be greeted with a few complaints - the answer is NO.


Same thing could be siad for players on the field or the fans in the first few rows. I think the little kids and the babies should be wearing catchers gear.

[EdTarbusz]

Same thing could be siad for players on the field or the fans in the first few rows. I think the little kids and the babies should be wearing catchers gear.

Really young kids, and especially babies, don't belong at the ballpark.

[Old Sweater]

Really young kids, and especially babies, don't belong at the ballpark.

I agree, nothing makes you more nervous then a little kid playing on concrete stairs.

As far as the coaches having to wear batting helmets is just another case of the "lightning strike factor" as far as I'm concerned.

[spark240]

Really young kids, and especially babies, don't belong at the ballpark.

Not in hard-foul territory, no. But the majority of the park doesn't qualify as even a minimal danger zone. As I noted, I wouldn't sit with small children in these areas. But in most parks, these are the best seats for watching the game... if they're not fenced off.

Coaching the bases - even in Little League - you need to watch out. Coolbaugh wasn't but 35 so it wasn't his reflexes. I've sat in some minor league parks well behind the base coach and I felt that it was dangerous.

I was trying to shy away from ascribing fault to the victim, but if it wasn't reflexes, it might have been attentiveness.

Neither a base coach nor a fan behind the dugout is in significant danger if he's paying proper attention. And remote dangers can't be eliminated.

I don't think it is a bad idea. I have been coaching in the past, and it is hard to watch the ball at the same time when you have to coach a baserunner.

Nobody has any business coaching a runner while the pitch is being delivered. That's asking to get drilled.

The issue is - is there a downside to wearing helmets?

Is there an upside? It is assumed that there is a safety benefit, but since the only casualty among base coaches was one that would not have been prevented, how is the assumed advantage to be judged? Oh, but a future inattentive base coach might get struck higher on the head? An undefinable possibility... if you're going to go there, you might as well require full catchers gear for everyone in the ballpark. I can imagine all kinds of freaky things happening.

Come to think of it, better to just call off the game. It's much too dangerous! :rolleyes:

[EdTarbusz]

Not in hard-foul territory, no. But the majority of the park doesn't qualify as even a minimal danger zone. As I noted, I wouldn't sit with small children in these areas. But in most parks, these are the best seats for watching the game... if they're not fenced off.

I don't think small kids belong in a ballpark, period. Mainly because they can be a real impediment to the enjoyment of the people sitting around them. My kid won't be going to the ballpark until he is school age and I know he can sit down and pay attention for a couple of hours.

[spark240]

I don't think small kids belong in a ballpark, period. Mainly because they can be a real impediment to the enjoyment of the people sitting around them. My kid won't be going to the ballpark until he is school age and I know he can sit down and pay attention for a couple of hours.

If a kid of any age is an impediment to the enjoyment of people around him, the parent's not doing their job. In the case of some of the teenagers I've encountered at ballparks, it's apparent the parents have been slacking for some years prior.

[ipitch]

Larry Bowa says he won't wear a helmet, even if they fine him every game.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-bowa29feb29,1,4997863.story

If Mike Coolbaugh had been hit in the chest, would they have to wear chest protectors instead?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Larry Bowa says he won't wear a helmet, even if they fine him every game.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-bowa29feb29,1,4997863.story


Bowa's wearing a helmet today.

[spark240]

Yeah, as Kruk or somebody said, Bowa will get over it in a few months.

I don't actually think it's a big deal, in itself, for base coaches to be required to wear the skullcaps. Maybe it looks a little dumb, and I certainly don't think it represents a genuine safety advance, but it's not a desecration of the game.

The problem I have is really with the mentality that this measure suggests, and which some of the resulting comments have expressed outright. This is the mentality that assumes, first, that the relatively modest dangers of baseball (compared to, say, skiing or racing cars) are problems to be eliminated, rather than simply characteristics of what the game is. And second, that the way to reduce dangers is with protective equipment and structures, rather than by acting intelligently. This is what a mean by a nanny-state approach: the idea that people who choose to participate (playing or watching) in an activity that has a slight risk of injury are dumb victims who ought to be protected from themselves and each other.

[Brian McKenna]

Larry Bowa says he won't wear a helmet, even if they fine him every game.


Then terminate him for insubordination and see if any others want to follow his example.

[ipitch]

Bowa's wearing a helmet today.

He didn't wear one yesterday. Maybe the fine was bigger than he thought.

[whoisonit]

The problem I have is really with the mentality that this measure suggests, and which some of the resulting comments have expressed outright. This is the mentality that assumes, first, that the relatively modest dangers of baseball (compared to, say, skiing or racing cars) are problems to be eliminated, rather than simply characteristics of what the game is. And second, that the way to reduce dangers is with protective equipment and structures, rather than by acting intelligently. This is what a mean by a nanny-state approach: the idea that people who choose to participate (playing or watching) in an activity that has a slight risk of injury are dumb victims who ought to be protected from themselves and each other.

Bingo. Nanny-state mentality indeed. It's the curse of this age.

What do we call the mentality that would ban children from ball games because they're anoying ?

[Old Sweater]

What do we call the mentality that would ban children from ball games because they're annoying ?

IMO< "Righteous" until the game can hold the kids attention.

[rockin500]

Then terminate him for insubordination and see if any others want to follow his example.
what a load of crap. its nothing but nanny statism at its worst.

as someone mentioned, whats next? a chest protector?

[Old Sweater]

what a load of crap. its nothing but nanny statism at its worst.

as someone mentioned, whats next? a chest protector?



bkmckenna would think so if the league enforced it. He likes all the rules forced down a persons throat, that they don't have no say in.

[sturg1dj]

Larry Bowa says he won't wear a helmet, even if they fine him every game.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,4997863.story

If Mike Coolbaugh had been hit in the chest, would they have to wear chest protectors instead?

well, he was hit in the neck...so if he were hit in the chest maybe they'd be wearing a neck brace.


but this is just something created to protect MLB. If someone else died, this time in the bigs, then MLB could be sued. Its like a factory having unsafe working environments, then after someone dies finally doing something about it. In factories around the country there are annoying safety rules that hinder productivity and are hated by employee. If enforced, however, they may save lives.

[Old Sweater]

Pretty soon though they will have the pitcher wearing a catchers mask on the mound. Look at how many pitchers have been nailed with a comebacker.

[rockin500]

Pretty soon though they will have the pitcher wearing a catchers mask on the mound. Look at how many pitchers have been nailed with a comebacker.
which is a far greater hazard than in the coaches box. They should have made it voluntary, not mandatory.

[JerseySoxFan19]

Then terminate him for insubordination and see if any others want to follow his example.
whaaa? you agree with this, i mean how often do these guys get thwacked in the head? i think if they want protection have them wear a type of cap with a strong material in it. i don't know something like a light metal?

[JerseySoxFan19]

IMO< "Righteous" until the game can hold the kids attention.
i agree, i'm still only a kid but i assure you i'm not the type that screams and whines for the whole game. don't come if u don't pay attention

[willisraverchk77]

well, he was hit in the neck...so if he were hit in the chest maybe they'd be wearing a neck brace.


Dude, that's the post of the day :rofl:

[Sashag]

I am sure that everyone is aware of this, yet no one has yet mentioned it as a factor, the Ray Chapman death of 1920, changed the game. More modernly, the Tony Conigliaro accident in 1967.

In 1941 the Giants and Dodgers started using batting helmets for the first time (reference; http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1941/june_6_1941_99877.html
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Batting_helmet ).

They were made mandatory in 1956, and the earflaps were required in 1983

It's interesting that doing a quick google search I wasnt able to find any quotes from players during the 67-68 era that were opposed to the implimentation of the batting helmets.

I am surprised that baseball has been able to get away with not requiring some head protection to the coaches, (and as someone mentioned, the umpires,) for this long. Coolbaugh's tragic death proved that something needed to be done to protect everyone in the game, it's just too bad it came too late. At the same time, this might have been one of those things where we as a society overlook until it actually is too late.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I am sure that everyone is aware of this, yet no one has yet mentioned it as a factor, the Ray Chapman death of 1920, changed the game. More modernly, the Tony Conigliaro accident in 1967.

In 1941 the Giants and Dodgers started using batting helmets for the first time (reference; http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1941/june_6_1941_99877.html
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Batting_helmet ).

They were made mandatory in 1956, and the earflaps were required in 1983

It's interesting that doing a quick google search I wasnt able to find any quotes from players during the 67-68 era that were opposed to the implimentation of the batting helmets.

I am surprised that baseball has been able to get away with not requiring some head protection to the coaches, (and as someone mentioned, the umpires,) for this long. Coolbaugh's tragic death proved that something needed to be done to protect everyone in the game, it's just too bad it came too late. At the same time, this might have been one of those things where we as a society overlook until it actually is too late.

Haven't you been reading what most everyone else has said? No head protection outside of a hockey goalie helmet with a neck guard could have saved Coolbaugh's life. Even with these protections, people can still get hurt. Richard Zednik got his throat cut accidentally in the NHL by a teammate's skate and nearly died. Does the NHL have to mandate that all forwards and defensemen wear some kind of neck guard to prevent accidental cuts?

[bob]

Yes i can see peoples point about it being a bit nanny-state to enforce helmets, but if i was a base coach i wouldn't say no to one. Afterall its the kind of thing that you see as being useless right up to the day you get smacked in the head, when it suddenly makes wearing one every time before that seem like a really good idea.
Pitchers should definitely wear at least some head protection as well, although i can see there being more arguments against that.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Yes i can see peoples point about it being a bit nanny-state to enforce helmets, but if i was a base coach i wouldn't say no to one. Afterall its the kind of thing that you see as being useless right up to the day you get smacked in the head, when it suddenly makes wearing one every time before that seem like a really good idea.
Pitchers should definitely wear at least some head protection as well, although i can see there being more arguments against that.

At the very least with things like this, they should make it optional, not mandatory. Let people decide to wear them on their own, even if they have to get injured to do it.

[Sweet Lou]

what a load of crap. its nothing but nanny statism at its worst.

as someone mentioned, whats next? a chest protector?
Nerf Ball, Dude! :)

[SamtheBravesFan]

Nerf Ball, Dude! :)

HEADS UP! *throws one at him*

[Sweet Lou]

HEADS UP! *throws one at him*Great, I wasn't wearing my helmet. (heads to the DL)
Even Nerfball is dangerous!

[THE OX]

I think helmets for base coaches is a damn good idea, and should be officially recommended (at least) by Professional Baseball. That might at least partially cover baseball's a$$ from lawsuits, and would remove the onus of "coward" from those coaches who had enough sense to wear them!

Maybe many of you younger members here on BBF don't remember Tony Kubek getting hit in the throat by a "bad-hop" grounder in the 1960 World Series, an occurrence which could have been life-threatening. If an infielder were to wear something in the nature of a catcher's mask with a neck guard, I'd applaud his intelligence rather than give him some idiotic macho bull**** about being a coward.

Maybe Coolbaugh's tragic death can have a positive result for players and coaches both.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I think helmets for base coaches is a damn good idea, and should be officially recommended (at least) by Professional Baseball. That might at least partially cover baseball's a$$ from lawsuits, and would remove the onus of "coward" from those coaches who had enough sense to wear them!

Maybe many of you younger members here on BBF don't remember Tony Kubek getting hit in the throat by a "bad-hop" grounder in the 1960 World Series, an occurrence which could have been life-threatening. If an infielder were to wear something in the nature of a catcher's mask with a neck guard, I'd applaud his intelligence rather than give him some idiotic macho bull**** about being a coward.

Maybe Coolbaugh's tragic death can have a positive result for players and coaches both.

It's not a case of manliness being assualted. It's a case of being forced to do something that you otherwise wouldn't do because something happening to you is like the equivalent of getting struck by lightning, even if you're doing all the right things to NOT get hurt. It's statistically needless. However, if people want to wear some kind of protection because they perceive there to be a problem, let them do it on their own, like John Olerud. Let players innovate their own gear like Charlie O'Brien did.

[Imgran]

Since most base coaches at the major league level seem to be trained infielders, or at least former baseball players in their own right, you could probably prevent most of the problems that do come up by giving the base coaches gloves and making sure that there are rules in place to prevent them from going out of their way to interfere with foul-territory catches.

[spark240]

If an infielder were to wear something in the nature of a catcher's mask with a neck guard, I'd applaud his intelligence rather than give him some idiotic macho bull**** about being a coward.

If I was running the team, I'd be concerned about my infielder's loss of vision and agility with all that hanging on his face. I wouldn't call him a coward, but I might wonder how serious he was about a career in baseball, and who I could get for him in a trade.

[sandlot]

This thread is a rehash of every sorry argument that's been put forward over the years against everything from using a catcher's mitt to building cars with seatbelts in them. My grandfather was very proud of his crooked fingers, which were repeatedly broken while catching baseball, but nobody would feel that way today. Hockey goalies used to pride themselves on the number of missing teeth; that wasn't long ago, but those days are also well and truly gone. Cricket players wear hard helmets with face masks when they're batting, often during extremely hot weather and they're standing in there for a lot longer than a baseball batter does. The list goes on and on. In the name of anti-nannyism, should we remove the pads on outfield fences, which were non-existent through most of baseball history?

At some point there is going to be a baseball pitcher who comes up with a face protector that doesn't impede his motion, and I absolutely guarantee that the first time he takes a hard-hit ball to the face, then just shakes it off and asks for a new ball, there will be a flood of orders to the manufacturer.

I can see no good reason why there should not be a clear plexiglass screen -- say, four-feet high or so -- in front of the seats along the first- and third-base lines. Hockey's had a screen for years. Line drives are dangerous enough, but every time I see a bat splinter and a piece flies into the stands, my heart sinks. Do we have to wait untuil somebody -- maybe a child -- is impaled before we act?

[SamtheBravesFan]

At some point there is going to be a baseball pitcher who comes up with a face protector that doesn't impede his motion, and I absolutely guarantee that the first time he takes a hard-hit ball to the face, then just shakes it off and asks for a new ball, there will be a flood of orders to the manufacturer.


That's the thing that happened wtih the hockey mask-style catcher's masks.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have some kind of screen, but there is still some kind of assumed risk when you go to a ballpark in general. What I think this opposition stems from is that most people do not like mandates that forces a person to do something regardless of whether they want to or not.

I still can't help shake the feeling that no matter how many safety measures are taken, someone is going to accidently die from something and then there has to be another mandate for protection. I just have that feeling.

How can there be a happy medium?

[spark240]

In the name of anti-nannyism, should we remove the pads on outfield fences, which were non-existent through most of baseball history?

Don't be silly. Padding on outfield walls has a simple, clear benefit--outfielders run into walls all the time--and there's no counter-argument.

At some point there is going to be a baseball pitcher who comes up with a face protector that doesn't impede his motion, and I absolutely guarantee that the first time he takes a hard-hit ball to the face, then just shakes it off and asks for a new ball, there will be a flood of orders to the manufacturer.

That would be fine. I don't see how that would harm the game. I wouldn't require pitchers to wear it, since the incidence of injury to pitchers (while much higher than the incidence of injury to base coaches) is not comparable to the incidence of injury to batters that eventually mandated batting helmets.

I can see no good reason why there should not be a clear plexiglass screen -- say, four-feet high or so -- in front of the seats along the first- and third-base lines. Hockey's had a screen for years. Line drives are dangerous enough, but every time I see a bat splinter and a piece flies into the stands, my heart sinks. Do we have to wait untuil somebody -- maybe a child -- is impaled before we act?

Well, first of all, hockey without walls would be vastly more dangerous, to spectators, than baseball is under any conditions. I think this is obvious.

I actually think line drive fouls are more dangerous than bat splinters for various reasons (although neither compares to the dangers people routinely subject themselves to in other types of recreation), but that's sort of beside the point.

If you feel unsafe sitting behind the dugouts or down the lines, don't sit there. There are numerous other areas of the ballpark, including behind the home plate netting, where you can sit. I do not want to watch baseball through plexiglass. If you don't intuitively understand my aesthetic reason for feeling this way, I probably can't explain it to you, but you can take my word that it's quite relevant to my enjoyment of the game. Why would you insist on taking that away from me?

[sandlot]

Don't be silly. Padding on outfield walls has a simple, clear benefit--outfielders run into walls all the time--and there's no counter-argument.Not silly at all. People are arguing here against taking steps that can prevent injury and even fatalities. So if there's a counter argument to protective helmets for line coaches, let's hear it.

As for the padding, of course there's a benefit, as there is for every protective device. That's the point. Now, you say there's no counter argument, but I'm sure we can create one: Adding padding changed the record book as it affected both outfielders' defensive skill/performance stats and hitting stats, as in the pre-padded era outfielders either had to risk injury hitting the wall or pull up short and take the ball off the wall, whereas in the post-padded ear they could go after balls they previously would have let go. The result would be more putouts and less extra-base hits. I'm not arguing this, but one could


(Pitcher's facemask) That would be fine. I don't see how that would harm the game. I wouldn't require pitchers to wear it, since the incidence of injury to pitchers (while much higher than the incidence of injury to base coaches) is not comparable to the incidence of injury to batters that eventually mandated batting helmets.Agree, but as I wrote, once one does it there will be many who follow. BTW, you are measuring incidence by frequency of his batters vs. hit pitchers, but we have to account for the fact that more than 100 pitches per side will be thrown in a normal game (=200+ total), but there will be far fewer balls struck and put into play. So the frequency of HBP would necessarily be relatively greater. Here, the padded-wall example comes back into play, because with the addition of a helmet, it may be that batters -- feeling a bit more confident and less defensive -- are more likely to crowd the plate, or not back off what they think is a breaking ball, or unconsciously slow their reaction time. So it could be that the frequency of getting hit increases even as the incidence of serious injury drops.

As for pitchers and face protection, the frequency of line drives might be lower for the reasons mentioned, but what about the incidence of severe injury when it does occur? I happened to have been watching on TV the day in 1957 that Herb Score got hit by a line drive off the bat of Gil McDougald. I was only 10 years old and I have not forgotten that scene in the years since. Score, who was a truly amazing pitcher, recovered his eyesight but he was so frightened of a recurrence that that he could no longer throw properly and I think he retired about a year later. What I'm saying is, frequency can be measured different ways and severity also has to be part of the equation.

Well, first of all, hockey without walls would be vastly more dangerous, to spectators, than baseball is under any conditions. I think this is obvious. Maybe obvious to you, but hockey rinks did not always protect fans with a transparent screen of the type seen now. Plexiglass (I think maybe it's called flexiglass) is a fairly recent creation. Before that, glass risked breaking and so did plastics. I can recall seeing college rinks where netting was used in the areas behind the goal. The basic protection at lots of rinks was just to get the hell out of the way.

I actually think line drive fouls are more dangerous than bat splinters for various reasons (although neither compares to the dangers people routinely subject themselves to in other types of recreation), but that's sort of beside the point.

If you feel unsafe sitting behind the dugouts or down the lines, don't sit there. There are numerous other areas of the ballpark, including behind the home plate netting, where you can sit. I do not want to watch baseball through plexiglass. If you don't intuitively understand my aesthetic reason for feeling this way, I probably can't explain it to you, but you can take my word that it's quite relevant to my enjoyment of the game. Why would you insist on taking that away from me?I also wouldn't want to watch baseball from behind the kind of plexiglass screen that you'd see in a hockey rink. I enjoy sitting close to the game and that doesn't need to be explained, nor would I want to take that away from you, but also I don't think that a clear, purpose-built unit with no obstructive elements would necessarily detract from our experience. Also we are (presumably) healthy adults, not children, nor elderly, nor handicapped individuals, who may have different attention spans and reflexes. They too have a right to be close to the game without being unnecessarily exposed to the chance of grave injury. Someplace there should be a balance point and I think we should find it before something occurs, not only to prevent the worst from happening, but because if it does happen, the solution that would be imposed might be a lot worse than anything we're contemplating now.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Removed By Me

[Old Sweater]

Everyone realize how restrictive life would be if you had to wear everything that may save your life someday.


OSHA Cowboy.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Everyone realize how restrictive life would be if you had to wear everything that may save your life someday.


OSHA Cowboy.

Which is why there has to be a place where there can be a compromise.

[Old Sweater]

Which is why there has to be a place where there can be a compromise.

I'm just curious what some of the foul ball "geezers" are going to be wearing this year.:)

[sandlot]

I'm just curious what some of the foul ball "geezers" are going to be wearing this year.:)Maybe old sweaters?:)

[Anderson]

Lame. This is like making hockey players where helmets, then face shields, then full out face cages. One freak accident and you change the game forever. What's next shoulder pads for batters and helmets for pitchers?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Lame. This is like making hockey players where helmets, then face shields, then full out face cages. One freak accident and you change the game forever. What's next shoulder pads for batters and helmets for pitchers?

Hockey players started to wear helmets more once the slapshot was invented and then the goalie mask was popularized by the great Jacques Plante when he had his nose broken by a slapshot. In those cases, those were very positive changes.

"Change the game forever"? This is just a PR move that could be dropped. Take solace in that it may be a while before someone comes up with safety equipment for players that doesn't impede their motion or vision.

[willisraverchk77]

Lame. This is like making hockey players where helmets, then face shields, then full out face cages. One freak accident and you change the game forever.

yep. a few yuears ago a girl was killed by a flying puck, and they wrapped the entire end areas with nets forever.

[MattD1972]

Lame. This is like making hockey players where helmets, then face shields, then full out face cages. One freak accident and you change the game forever. What's next shoulder pads for batters and helmets for pitchers?

Yes, complain to Bill Masterson's family, Scott Coolbaugh's Family, Brittany Cecil's family, etc, about the "Freak accidents" changing the games forever.:rant:

Yes, a helmet probably wouldn't have saved Coolbaugh. But, in the same vein, most observers on 8/16/20 said that Ray Chapman's head was in the strike zone. even with him dying, it took a long time for helmets. If, say, Herb Score or Bryce Florie died, it's quite likely pitchers and fielders would be wearing helmets. It's a sad fact in sports that safety innovations don't happen until someone dies. Prima-donna coaches like Glenn Hubbard and Larry Bowa need to get over themselves and accept that things have changed

[SamtheBravesFan]

Prima-donna coaches like Glenn Hubbard and Larry Bowa need to get over themselves and accept that things have changed

I seriously disagree that they're "prima donnas". They'll get over it. I understand the position that they are taking right now, though. The fact is that a lot of people are like that because they take the view (and rightfully so) that deaths are freak occurences that in most cases no amount of protection could prevent them. Either that, or they're REALLY scared of change. :p

I still believe that it should be up to the bases coaches on whether they want to wear the helmet or not. I brought up hockey helmets and hockey goalie maskes in the same vein. However, I know that it isn't so.

[Mild Sauce]

I don't see what the fuss is about, they had to wear hats on their head before anyway, now the hat is just hard. It's not a big deal. It's not like the helmet limits how they can turn their head or their ability to give signs. It's simply something on their head slightly more snug, harder, and that can potentially save them from injury or even death. Sorry if it doesn't "look cool", but big freaking deal. I really wish they'd stop being such crybabies about this.

[sturg1dj]

Everyone realize how restrictive life would be if you had to wear everything that may save your life someday.


OSHA Cowboy.

sounds like we have a bunch of libertarians on this site.....damn seat belts!!!!


in the end this goes under the same area as drug tests and background checks.....the business is protecting their investments

[sandlot]

Does anyone know of footage of the Herb Score injury is available anywhere? If it is and could be posted, we'd have a very different discussion.

[spark240]

Not silly at all. People are arguing here against taking steps that can prevent injury and even fatalities. So if there's a counter argument to protective helmets for line coaches, let's hear it.

I've said before, I don't actually care whether the base coaches have to wear helmets, per se; the issue for me is the thinking this represents. The skullcaps provide mainly an impression of increased safety. They implicitly further the (visible in this thread) assumption that safety is provided primarily by equipment, rather than by attention to the game.

... with the addition of a helmet, it may be that batters -- feeling a bit more confident and less defensive -- are more likely to crowd the plate, or not back off what they think is a breaking ball, or unconsciously slow their reaction time. So it could be that the frequency of getting hit increases even as the incidence of serious injury drops.

This is actually a good point, although perhaps not to me in the same way as to you.

I would argue that the known incidence, and relatively high severity, of head injuries to batters makes mandatory batting helmets a good idea even though it changes the game to a certain degree. Conversely, I think armor like Bonds used to wear on the elbow should be prohibited, because it offers no justifiable safety return for the alteration of the batting dynamic that it costs.

As for pitchers and face protection, the frequency of line drives might be lower for the reasons mentioned, but what about the incidence of severe injury when it does occur? I happened to have been watching on TV the day in 1957 that Herb Score got hit by a line drive off the bat of Gil McDougald. I was only 10 years old and I have not forgotten that scene in the years since.

And that's my point. You're talking about an incident from 50 years ago! Of course it was terrible. But it was an exceptionally rare event, as are each of the small handful of serious injuries that have been mentioned in the thread. Hundreds of thousands of professional games, many millions of pitched and batted balls, and we still have only a handful of really serious events to recall.

... we are (presumably) healthy adults, not children, nor elderly, nor handicapped individuals, who may have different attention spans and reflexes. They too have a right to be close to the game without being unnecessarily exposed to the chance of grave injury.

This area is already provided with the backstop screen.

[spark240]

sounds like we have a bunch of libertarians on this site.....damn seat belts!!!!

:)

Some folks here would be doing a lot more to protect baseball players and fans from injury if they were lobbying for seat belt checkpoints at the exits from stadium parking lots, rather than face shields and plexiglass walls.

However, wearing a seat belt doesn't mean you can not watch the road.

[sandlot]

I've said before, I don't actually care whether the base coaches have to wear helmets, per se; the issue for me is the thinking this represents. The skullcaps provide mainly an impression of increased safety. They implicitly further the (visible in this thread) assumption that safety is provided primarily by equipment, rather than by attention to the game.maybe, But you cabn argue just as well that putting on a soft cap gives a false impression of safety, but that every time you put on a helmet, you're reminding yourself that you need to pay attention to the game -- just as bucking the seatbelt is reminder that the inside of a moving vehicle is not a risk-free environment.

I would argue that the known incidence, and relatively high severity, of head injuries to batters makes mandatory batting helmets a good idea even though it changes the game to a certain degree. Conversely, I think armor like Bonds used to wear on the elbow should be prohibited, because it offers no justifiable safety return for the alteration of the batting dynamic that it costs.But isn't this personal choice, as is being argued elsewhere? If my whole career rests on my body's endurance, why would I not want to protect it? If I am the most feared batter in baseball and any pitcher who can is going to try to get me off the plate even if it means throwing a foot inside, why in the world would I not want to wear armor and reclaim the inside? And just whose standards are used to measure "justifiable safety return"? This whole debate was run through years ago on the question of runners wearing helmets, having special gloves made to wear when on base, etc. Almost every an advancement's suggested, it gets the same responses. But I repeat: Once someone has the guts to be first, and it works, the others will follow.

And that's my point. You're talking about an incident from 50 years ago! Of course it was terrible. But it was an exceptionally rare event, as are each of the small handful of serious injuries that have been mentioned in the thread. Hundreds of thousands of professional games, many millions of pitched and batted balls, and we still have only a handful of really serious events to recall.We have many, many more than a handful. They occur from Little League to the pros. You don't hear about all of them, but they happen. The point you miss is not that it happened 50 years ago (gasp! imagine remembering things that far back!) but that when you have seen this happen only one time, you will never want to see it twice no matter how many years pass. Score came back to pitch and wasn't even a shadow of his former self, and this was a man who could have been perhaps the greatest of his generation. The bones in the side of his face and skull were crushed, and McDougald swore that if Score didn't come back, he would quit the game. If you can find the images of that event somewhere, please look at them carefully and see if you still feel the same.

This area is already provided with the backstop screen.Yes, there is indeed a backstop screen -- and how and why did that develop? But it only covers part of the area. I'm saying that a see-through, unobstructive partition running along the baselines, perhaps two to three feet high, would not diminish enjoyment of the game and would add a a lot of safety. Why not try it someplace and see how fans feel? The only counter-argument that I can see is that it might affect chasing foul balls into the stands, which is worth debating. As an aside, I wish there was a way to keep fans from sticking their hands into fair area and interfering with fly balls, but this may be asking toio much.

[Urbanshocker13]

Japan Baseball has the net going down the lines, but I doubt that would ever fly in America. I don't see them really needed that much to tell you the truth. I too don't really like rules that save people from themselves, but I don't see the big deal with coaches wearing helmets. It can stop them from getting hurt and it's just a helmet who cares.

[sandlot]

Please take a look at the photos posted in the Between Innings "Unintentional Comedy" thread. The pictures tell the story.