Skip to main content

One of the biggest moves to wood or new bat regulations is for safety.

I am still of the opinion that there will always be the chance that the ball will beat the ability of the pitcher to stop a come backer and there should be more emphasis on head protection than reducing the performance of the bat.

From AP:
Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, said Wednesday that he will withdraw his proposed two-year moratorium on non-wooden bats for high school baseball teams.

His bill, AB7, sought to ban both aluminum and composite bats until new safety standards were adopted. Huffman said he postponed the bill for months as he worked on safety changes with the California Interscholastic Federation, which sets statewide rules for high school sports.

The new rules released Wednesday will give California a jump start on implementing national standards for aluminum bats, which take effect in 2012.

The CIF announced in July that the composite bats that some high school teams use will also have to meet new national standards. The CIF also will encourage member high schools to require protective headgear for players.


Tougher metal bat rules in California
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
No way should this happen !!!!

All sports have inherent dangers----you just have to live with them


The key operative is "LIVE".

My guys laugh at me when ever we talk about it but the pitcher is most exposed and it is often than not the pitcher's parents are in fear for their sons when on the mound as the balls are shooting through the middle.
Both my sons are pitchers & my concern is for that line drive through the box. If you play the game long enough its bound to happen. They've been hit in the legs, back and have also made some remarkable plays. This past summer I was witness to play where I have no idea how the pitcher got his glove up. If not it would have hit right in the face. The ball actually took the glove off the hand.

I'm not an advocate of headgear but wood bats above 14U maght be an solution.
I really don't like the idea of headgear for pitchers. We truly can't protect against every eventuality without the game itself changing. Coolbaugh, the minor league coach was killed by a linedrive to the neck, so baseball reaction is to come out with HEAD gear that would not have even saved him. Players in lower level baseball have been killed by linedrives, pitches, and throws to the chest, throat, and neck. Head gear will not save any of these injuries. Unfortunately we can't make players wear a suit of armor. I feel safety should certainly be looked at closely but there is always an inherent danger in playing sports with contact, full speed and hard balls. I for one think the change in bats might be a good thing in that it goes back to a type baseball that was played at all levels before the early 1970's. With balls coming off the bat at 90-95 mph instead of 105 or more, a player's reactions should be enough in the vast majority of cases. But no matter what you do, there will probably always be some tragedies.
quote:
Originally posted by Homerun04:

My guys laugh at me when ever we talk about it but the pitcher is most exposed and it is often than not the pitcher's parents are in fear for their sons when on the mound as the balls are shooting through the middle.


I have never really lived in fear all the years son has taken to the mound, concerned yes, but not in fear and the pitcher that picks up on that fear cannot do his job properly. I do beleive they should be protected with proper eyewear, not head gear. I think that is why husband taught son the sinker early on, his greatest fear is his defense not getting teh loopy ground ball. Also, I do beleve that pitchers do specific things for quick reponse, I'll check on that.

I felt that with good mechanics and landing in the proper postion he was able to protect himself the best way he could. Wiht some adjustments he has gotten better.

Of course there is a danger, a broken bat becomes a projectile, a 95 mph ball coming in on the batter's hands is dangerous if they don't get out of the way, ny son has suffered more weird stuff this year at bat than on the mound. Probably because he just isn't as prepared in the box than on the mound. Eek

I do beleive in the case of very young pitchers who do not know how to land properly, should be considered candidates for this type of protective aid.
Pretty soon, we'll have legislation to prevent sunburn and mosquito bites.

As a parent of a pitcher, I never once gave any thought to my son being hit by a line drive. Neither do I run screaming when I hear thunder, nor do I fear my bathtub, where statistically, every member of my family is in greater danger than being hit by a line drive or by lightning.

We are all entitled to our irrational fears, everyone has them, including me. We are not entitled to press everyone else into fear of our personal irrational fear.
I tried and tried to say this is what you get when you put things in the hands of the legislature but I was ridiculed to no end for pointing it out.

There were many many posters who grilled me as I tried to tell them the ends do NOT always justify the means (having the government mandate wood bats based on a completely unproven safety theory...or even a dis-proven safety theory) and this is exactly the type of thing I was trying to say would happen. I couldn't begin to count how many posters were looking forward to that legislation passing, never once stepping back to look at the implications of such disastrous legislation for the future.

It will NOT stop here either since Pandora's box is now wide open.
Consider yourself grilled again. Haven't you been reading all the posts about the new bats and how much less distance the ball is going off the bat? That means the ball is going slower off the bat. That means a bit more chance to react and a little less potential damage on any given ball hit back at the pitcher.
Last edited by CADad
It may in fact come sooner than later:

Pitcher head injuries to trigger cry for protection

By Steve Henson, Yahoo! Sports
May 28, 1:01 am EDT

Summoning a blend of courage and lunacy only he can fully grasp, Matt Hiserman of the University of San Francisco will take the mound Sunday, his eyes locking in on a batter wielding the weapon that twice resulted in a baseball striking his head. Five years ago, a line drive damaged his sinus cavities, three months ago another fractured his skull and caused his brain to bleed.

There is a touch of “The Hurt Locker” in Hiserman, a man on a mission inexorably drawn to danger. And plenty of scared college kid in him, too. A month earlier, before throwing a pitch for the first time since the second injury, Hiserman retreated behind the mound for a moment and went into a crouch. He breathed deeply and wordlessly recited the “Serenity Prayer.”

What a pitcher can and cannot control regarding his personal safety is being examined more closely than ever before. No pitcher can predict whether a line drive will make a beeline for his noggin. But experts say anyone who takes the mound can minimize the chance of injury by wearing a protective helmet. Doing so is unthinkable in the pro ranks but is slowly gaining acceptance at the grass-roots level.

Hiserman has moved in the direction of protection, working with a sports equipment company to create an unobtrusive shield that fits under his cap and cover his temples and forehead. And helmets that shield a pitcher’s skull are gaining momentum in a handful of youth and high school leagues, primarily in communities traumatized by a severe head injury to a local pitcher.


more
Last edited by Homerun04
quote:
Consider yourself grilled again. Haven't you been reading all the posts about the new bats and how much less distance the ball is going off the bat? That means the ball is going slower off the bat. That means a bit more chance to react and a little less potential damage on any given ball hit back at the pitcher.


Well your post just goes to prove that once again, you never really read or listened to a word I said.

I said over and over and over again that we should wait for the new BBCOR bats before flying off the handle and getting the legislature involved.

I do appreciate you helping me once again clear that up and I appreciate you putting the dot on that I for me and validating exactly what I said at least a 100 times.

Now...about that helmet that the legislature is now trying to mandate...AFTER the fact of BBCOR bats and as a compromise to drop legislation mandating wood bats.

I guess some people just slow to learn.
quote:
Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
quote:
Consider yourself grilled again. Haven't you been reading all the posts about the new bats and how much less distance the ball is going off the bat? That means the ball is going slower off the bat. That means a bit more chance to react and a little less potential damage on any given ball hit back at the pitcher.


Well your post just goes to prove that once again, you never really read or listened to a word I said.

I said over and over and over again that we should wait for the new BBCOR bats before flying off the handle and getting the legislature involved.

I do appreciate you helping me once again clear that up and I appreciate you putting the dot on that I for me and validating exactly what I said at least a 100 times.

Now...about that helmet that the legislature is now trying to mandate...AFTER the fact of BBCOR bats and as a compromise to drop legislation mandating wood bats.

I guess some people just slow to learn.


Man, it must be tough to always be right. How long can an arm be to pat yourself on the back so many times. And how many times does one poster need to paint himself as the "victim?"
Let's look at a few items:
1.) The bat manufacturers could have done this long ago and didn't.
2.) The legislation and the potential impact on their $$$$ in CA caused an acceleration of the process.
3.) Head gear is recommended, not a requirement and no where is there legislation to make it a requirement.
4.) A rational approach for headgear issues and concerns of the type mentioned exists.
For those who choose not to wear it, if they are 18 or over they can sign a release. If they are 18 and under, their parents can sign the release. As we discussed before, an appropriate release is recognized in CA and can release liability for injury from future acts.
BTW the headgear is discussed in the article HR04 posted(did you read the article..the headgear is coming together as a result of combined efforts that include a pitcher recovering from 2 very severe head injuries).
Baseball is not the only sport dealing with head trauma issues. Concussions are not the only issue, as the recent discussion on head trauma and ALS type conditions recognized.
Football has a huge future issue, risk and liability dealing with head trauma and the residuals which include the ALS type potentials.
Whether we like it or not, science is understanding more and more and more about brain function and brain dysfunction.
Science is understanding more and more and more about impact of head trauma over the longer term.
As more is known and more risks are identified, there are some who will say I don't care, I accept the risk. As long as they know the risks as they are currently understood, then they can sign the release of all liability and have their son stand on that mound.
Others who either don't understand or accept the risk, can explore wearing the protection.
As more risks are identified, the decision making process can adjust.
Just as you don't want government interfering with "your" rights, I don't feel I need to accept your views and woe is me tactics as impacting a broader spectrum of players and parents and discussion of these issues.
The young man in Ohio who was discussed in an earlier thread will have medical bills into the many millions of dollars. Taxpayers are going to fund the vast majority, in all likelihood.
These are some of the broader implications to baseball/sports and head injury. More than a few are just beginning to be understood.
This site can be a great place for the discussions to occur from many different perspectives.
I respect your views about bats, manufacturers and the like, even though I continue to disagree with most of them.
I don't agree with stifling discussion out of "fear of change" or what comes next.
Just 2 or so years ago the NFL took the position of no risk and no responsibility for head injuries or concussion effects. It literally took slicing open the brains of deceased players and examining the entire spinal cord/column of another to convince the NFL that its medical director was out of touch and they needed to change.
Bat manufacturers may need to change again. The game may need to be changed, as new information becomes available. Science on head injury residuals is anything but static.
It seems fascinating that a hitter can wear an elbow pad and shin guard, but the idea of a helmet to protect a pitcher's head and brain function creates such a dialogue of resistance.
I have yet to see anyone person who was always right. That guy on Jeopardy a few years ago was close but even he ended up wrong... (that was a joke).

"It seems fascinating that a hitter can wear an elbow pad and shin guard, but the idea of a helmet to protect a pitcher's head and brain function creates such a dialogue of resistance."

Honestly, I don't care one way or the other. I think it is up to the individual as to what they wear. If he feels comfortable with a full faced motorcycle helmet, he should be able and ALLOWED to wear it. If he feels comfortable with nothing, that should be HIS choice. Last I checked, there isn't a law mandating elbow pads but I guarantee we aren't far from it in today's society.

I am also of the opinion that it is fantastic that modified pitchers headgear is being developed. I 100% applaud that effort and someone is going to make a mint off of the finished, player approved product. Gotta love capitalism. Make something people want and they will buy it.

As we can see by this thread, the problem is putting this stuff in the hands of a bunch of idiots who don't know the difference between a baseball and a Ginsu knife....A politician is the LAST person you want making baseball rules.
quote:
As we can see by this thread, the problem is putting this stuff in the hands of a bunch of idiots who don't know the difference between a baseball and a Ginsu knife....A politician is the LAST person you want making baseball rules.


I went back through this thread to try and understand the point you emphasized above.
I cannot find what baseball rule a "politician" made and don't find the "stuff" that was put int the hands of a bunch of "idiots." What is it that happened that troubles you that was a politician or an idiot politician making a baseball rule?
What I read was that HS baseball acted, the bat manufacturers responded, the legislator withdrew his legislation and no laws were enacted.
Last edited by infielddad
quote:
I went back through this thread to try and understand the point you emphasized above.


EDIT: Just wanted to make sure that you know the "idiot" comment was in no way directed at any participant of this thread. Went back and re-read it and realized that it could have been taken that way. I am not fond of politicians at all and that is who the comment was directed towards.

From AP:
Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, said Wednesday that he will withdraw his proposed two-year moratorium on non-wooden bats for high school baseball teams.

His bill, AB7, sought to ban both aluminum and composite bats until new safety standards were adopted.

___

This has NO business in the courts in any way shape or form.

Fact is, BBCOR has been in the works for some time. This legislation came about AFTER BBCOR was decided upon.

I am quite sure this legislator will spin it just the way you just did. Roll Eyes

# CIF will propose to NFHS Baseball and Softball Rules Committees that they develop standards for protective headgear for baseball and softball pitchers, defensive infielders and base coaches in 2012.
# For the 2011 season, CIF will encourage member schools to voluntarily require protective headgear for baseball and softball pitchers, defensive infielders as allowed by NFHS rules, and base coaches.
# CIF will consider making these protective headgear provisions mandatory for California Schools by 2012.

http://democrats.assembly.ca.g...20100811AD06PR01.htm

I pointed out early on that AB7 wouldn't stop at bats and I was ripped for not jumping on board. I specifically mentioned mandated head gear would be next and I was called crazy and told I was over reacting. Now this.

I will throw it back to you.

Where does it stop? What is too much for you? Give me that answer and I guarantee at some point politicians will step well over that line and then...perhaps then you might sit back and say "wait a minute".
Last edited by 1baseballdad
Glad the idiot part wasn't intended for anyone on this thread. The "slow" part pretty obviously was intended for anyone who happened to disagree with you, including me.

There are probably people on here a lot smarter than I am, but the odds are that I'm a lot smarter and better educated than you. I have quite literally been a rocket scientist after all. Smile
Last edited by CADad
quote:
Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
I wish I had something to add to this topic but I don't, unfortunately Big Grin


ClevelandDad...that really made me laugh and trust me, I needed it! Big Grin

Honestly, the part that sets me off has nothing to do with anyone's opinion here on bats, balls, helmets or anything else. I have said it before. It is sometimes good to agree to disagree and everyone has their own take on just about every issue that comes down the pike here on this site...as it should be. It's why I enjoy it so much.

What bothers me the most is this getting involved in the courts rather than the baseball community resolving it themselves.

Honestly, with the shape the country is in, do we REALLY want politicians "helping" baseball? I think my opinion is pretty clear there. angel
quote:
Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
quote:
Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
I wish I had something to add to this topic but I don't, unfortunately Big Grin


ClevelandDad...that really made me laugh and trust me, I needed it! Big Grin

Honestly, the part that sets me off has nothing to do with anyone's opinion here on bats, balls, helmets or anything else. I have said it before. It is sometimes good to agree to disagree and everyone has their own take on just about every issue that comes down the pike here on this site...as it should be. It's why I enjoy it so much.

What bothers me the most is this getting involved in the courts rather than the baseball community resolving it themselves.

Honestly, with the shape the country is in, do we REALLY want politicians "helping" baseball? I think my opinion is pretty clear there. angel


1baseballdad, I happen to agree with you. Politicians are involved with WAY too much already. They really need to stay out of peoples personal lives. This includes sports.

The government may be responsible for making laws that protect the rights and saftey of one person against another (ie. you can't murder someone, or steal from them), but to regulate my personal safety is, in my opinion, stepping over the bounds. Although others disagree with me, legislating me to wear a seatbelt is another one of those areas. I will hurt no one else if I don't wear my seatbelt. That should be my personal decision. Same in baseball. If I am a pitcher and get hit in the head, I am hurting only myself (aside from the emotional impact on those close to me) and that should not be legislated.

Once again, how far can this be taken. Should the government legislate that certain foods are unhealthy and therefore I cannot eat them? Should they legislate that I should run X number of miles a day to stay healthy? I don't think so. Car accidents kill more people than anything else. Why does the government not ban driving cars? They are certainly a safety hazard.

My son is a pitcher and I do not fear his getting hit in the head. It is a risk I am willing to accept. I definetely am more concerned about him driving a car and the risks associated with that than I am concerned about him getting hit in the head on the pitchers mound.
Just for the fun of picking on TR, back when you were younger and they didn't have batting helmets in MLB did you say that the sport has inherent dangers and they should just live with them?

Now don't give us any guff about that being before your time.

Realistically, the chances of being hit in the head by a batted ball are much lower but it is still worth going to wood bats or the equivalent to minimize the risk. Given the way things work (leather vs. hard shelled football helmet, hockey headgear, batting helmets, etc.) headgear for pitchers will eventually be mandatory and nobody will think anything of it but that is well off in the future and unlikely to affect any of our kids.
Last edited by CADad
TR,
All sweetness and light like usual.

Lot's of my questions are foolish. Yes you did what? Did you say there shouldn't be batting helmets in baseball? Did you say that too few hitters were killed or seriously injured to justify the use of batting helmets? Would you like to have your son face Arnoldis Chapman on a day when he was struggling with his control without a batting helmet?

By the way I'd like to know just how I showed my ignorance. Please enlighten me.

You seem very, very confident in your opinions.

Here's a little quote from Charles Darwin:

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Last edited by CADad
quote:
Originally posted by CADad:
Just for the fun of picking on TR, back when you were younger and they didn't have batting helmets in MLB did you say that the sport has inherent dangers and they should just live with them?

Now don't give us any guff about that being before your time.

Realistically, the chances of being hit in the head by a batted ball are much lower but it is still worth going to wood bats or the equivalent to minimize the risk. Given the way things work (leather vs. hard shelled football helmet, hockey headgear, batting helmets, etc.) headgear for pitchers will eventually be mandatory and nobody will think anything of it but that is well off in the future and unlikely to affect any of our kids.


CADad, yes, times have changed. When I was a kid, we started out with no helmets and moved to those ear cover things that looked like wrestling ear guards.

However, my point and I believe 1baseballdad's point is that the government shouldn't be the one making those decisions. If the baseball organizations want to do that, it is their perogative. Personally, right now, my son would probably not wear head protection while pitching on his own. However, if the rules came out that he had to, I believe that his love for baseball would override his thinking that it was stupid to do it. His next game, he would be out there with the head protection on.

All that being said, I think it still comes to a point where you can only do so much to protect the players. As others have stated, sports are inherently dangerous. You can't go out there wearing body armor (unless you're a catcher). I even saw a catcher take one in the neck the other night in the MLB. Even with all the gear, including a protruding piece to protect the throat, a foul ball ricocheted off his shoulder and hit him in the neck. He was OK, but obviously not totally protected - even with as much gear as he has on.

I don't think any of us would want to see pitchers out there in catcher's gear.

Either way, let baseball decide, not legislators.
bballman,
I understand your point. Government interference is usually not a good thing. However, the government has gotten baseball to take action over the years through the threat of invalidating the reserve clause or the threat of congressional investigations.

As far as bats go we have a situation where there are bat manufacturers who have a bit too much clout and government did have to step in and threaten legislation to get baseball to take appropriate action. Baseball did not do it on it's own.

Baseball like most institutions does not like change. Let's hope common sense prevails. Pitchers in catchers gear is obviously not common sense. An insert in the cap that would make a pitcher safer without affecting their ability to pitch would be common sense. I don't know if there is such a thing or if there will be any time soon so I'm not going to worry about anyone trying to legislate headgear for now.

I'll get even more people mad at me by using the analogy of unions. Unions exist because companies were exploiting and abusing their employees. Unions were necessary. Unions then abused their power and many became downright crooked. We cracked down on unions. It goes back and forth. IMO, unions are a necessary evil. It would be a wonderful world if the companies would simply regulate themselves and there was no need for unions. Costs would be lower and we'd all benefit. That isn't the real world.

It would also be a wonderful world if the bat companies would all just regulate themselves but they are in it to make money and it just isn't going to happen. Therefore at times we have the necessary evil of government intervention. It sure would be nice if we never needed it. That isn't the real world.
Last edited by CADad

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×