Helmets for base coaches

It is the standard in MLB,MiLB,NCAA and American Legion. It is not a standard in HS but look for it next year.

Yeah, I figured it was coming. I'm glad to see it won't be in place for this year. I fully understand that what happened to Mike Coolbaugh was a tragedy, and I certainly don't want to appear to be making light of that, but this wouldn't have saved his life. Does it offer more protection? Sure, but I think it's unnecessary. The next thing we'll see is the design of fully body armor for the pitcher to wear.

Are you kidding me? I am a grown man with a high level of education and now they want to tell me to wear a helmet so I can coach a base? This is overkill and a waste of time. Surely there is a waiver of some sort we can sign to relinquish the umps, schools and all of society from being sued.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for safety but this is going too far. Espcially for adults.

I disagree with this rule. I sort of understand where it is coming from, but really it is not going to make a difference.

I just did a quick search.. found it interesting the helmet that Baseball Express is selling as "Rawlings Coaches Batting Helmet" is not approved by NOCSAE.

Hmm.. looking a little more: Major League Baseball players do not wear NOCSAE-approved helmets.

NOCSAE requires the double ear flap....


So back on topic, I think this is a bad decision. And I agree-- what's next?

Whats next ? who knows??.............as MST states NFHS will most probably add this rule within the next year or so....and if they do.........better buy a helmet....you may be all you say above........but once its in the NFHS rule book you wont coach wthout it....( I wont be able to let you)

It is the rule in NCAA this year.....

piaa_ump, maybe you can help me here.. How is being down at first base any different than being in many dugouts?

Around here, there isn't much difference at all. There are a few places that have a half-fence or even one that has a full fence in front of the dugout, but many have nothing at all. How are they protected?

I think it's a silly rule and from a health and safety standpoint, it is not likely to save any lives. That's the point of the rule, but it is not reality.

I'd like to see the dugout thing fixed as well - no point in having a rule you can't be out of the dugout and then have it wide open to rockets from 40 feet away.

About 4 or 5 years ago they passed a rule that all dugouts had to fenced in just for protection. I haven't seen that rule overturned so if there is a dugout that is not covered then it's breaking the rules.

That being said when I was in Kentucky there were a bunch of dugouts (not mine) that did not have a fence over the front.

I'm ok with this rule but after what Bulldog put about the helmets not being NOCSAE makes the rule even more ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
piaa_ump, maybe you can help me here.. How is being down at first base any different than being in many dugouts?

NFHS would not see any similarity....and its clearly the reaction to the coolbaugh incident (regretable and tragic that it is) and the NFHS assumes compliance to it rules regarding enclosed dugouts...and they ignore that out here in the hinterlands much of NFHS baseball is played on less than pristine fields..

In my career, I have umpired on many converted cow pastures...and some of the county fields which wish they could be cow pastures....dugouts?........how about a plank nailed on a few sections of sawed off telephone poles?.....

The idea that a helmet would not have saved Mike Coolbaugh's life is:
a) Not necessarily true. The coroner declined to say whether a helmet would have saved his life, and a Sports Illustrated article states "a preliminary autopsy released two days later found that the ball hit Coolbaugh about half an inch below and behind his left ear." A helmet with earflaps may well have saved his life.

b) Largely irrelevant. Coolbaugh's death shows that a full-grown adult, with substantial baseball experience, good vision, and good reflexes can be hit by a batted ball. If it is OK to require high school players to wear a helmet while coaching, why isn't it just as OK to require a adult coach to wear one? It seems to me that coaches only took notice of the requirement when they became inconvenienced.

Look. Batters get hit by pitches all the time, and usually a batting helmet does nothing, because the ball doesn't hit the helmet. These days, nobody would argue that batters should be allowed to not wear helmets with the rationale that most impacts miss the batter's head. The rationale that a helmet won't protect a coach against most batted balls, and therefore helmets shouldn't be required just doesn't stand up.

So why should we allow players to be on the field without helmets? Maybe we shouldn't, but there is an obvious reason why it is less important. Contrary to base coaches and bench players, a fielder's sole responsibility at the moment a ball is batted is to track the ball and provide a defense play if the ball is hit to him.

Posters here are probably right, though: Eventually all field personnel will likely be required to wear head protection.

The helmets pro base coaches and now NCAA coaches (and probably next year high school coaches) are required to wear do not have ear flaps. They are the skull caps catcher's used to wear. They would have done absolutely nothing to save Coolbaugh's life.

I guess if he'd been wearing one of these helmets at the time, then they'd be requiring the ear flaps. Unfortunately, it was a freak accident (had it ever happened before? Not that I know of). It is darn near impossible to prevent freak accidents, and this is an overreaction in my opinion.

quote:

About 4 or 5 years ago they passed a rule that all dugouts had to fenced in just for protection. I haven't seen that rule overturned so if there is a dugout that is not covered then it's breaking the rules.

Hmm.. never heard of that rule. Does that mean all the way to the top? If so, then I can think of all of one field that fits the rules.

quote:

and its clearly the reaction to the coolbaugh incident

As has been stated, the helmets they are requiring would not have done a thing for Mike Coolbaugh. As unfortunate as that was, it does not make sense to make a rule to "protect against it" when the rule in fact cannot protect it. These helmets do not protect the carotoid artery which is where Coolbaugh was hit.

Just as a note, AABC, which sanctions Stan Musial, Connie Mack, Mickey Mantle, Sandy Koufax and younger leagues, is now requiring base coaches to wear helmets. USA Baseball also requires the base coaches to wear helmets at the tournaments (Jr. Olympics) that they sanction.

quote:

the carotoid artery which is where Coolbaugh was hit.

It was the left vertebral artery, which you can easily verify using Google, or by just reading the article I linked above.

Let's face it this rule is in place, because of insurance companies, lawyers and all of those that must deal with and answer the tough questions that concern safety. Right, wrong or indifferent that is the bottom line reason that it has been and will be put into place. I agree, we have no way of knowing for sure if a skull cap would have made a difference in the case of Mike Coolbaugh, however I know the fallout from that incident has had an impact on the rules and that is usually what happens in these situations. A very freak accident takes place and some new rules are handed down.

Junior college coaches are wearing the skull helmets.not that big of a deal. they look like hats.

I am struggling to understand the objection to coaches wearing helmets. It seems at most a minor inconvenience. If it stops one tragedy in the next 100 years, is that not justification enough?

quote:

Originally posted by deldad:
I am struggling to understand the objection to coaches wearing helmets. It seems at most a minor inconvenience. If it stops one tragedy in the next 100 years, is that not justification enough?

1. Change is difficult.
2. Real men don't need protection.
3. The perceived related incident involved a strike below the area a helmet would protect.
4. Real men don't need protection.
5. People don't like being told what to do. (Remember the resistance to seat belts and motorcycle helmets?)
6. Real men don't need protection.

At times like this, I enjoy reminding those who complain the most (usually managers/coaches and administrators) that rules committees still, I believe, are populated primarily by manageres/coaches and Administrators.

The time to fight this was when the change was proposed and prior to adoption.

And, no, there is no waiver to sign that would allow a base coach to ignore the rule, no matter how highly educated he might be.

Regarding the NFHS rule that dug outs have a fence in front of them -

Can you post the rule number or case book reference?

Thanks in advance.

Grey

quote:

At times like this, I enjoy reminding those who complain the most (usually managers/coaches and administrators) that rules committees still, I believe, are populated primarily by manageres/coaches and Administrators.

And in my 9 years as head coach and 6 years as an asst. coach the select few who serve on these rules committiees has ever asked me my opinion, let me know my opinion counted or given me a forum in which to express my opinion. In fact I have never heard, seen or talked to any coach who has ever had this opportunity in their career.

quote:

Originally posted by OldFox:
Regarding the NFHS rule that dug outs have a fence in front of them--Can you post the rule number or case book reference?

There is no FED rule that requires a fence. In fact rule 1-2-4 specifically allows extending the dugout. And this caseplay shows that the dugout can be delineated by a simple chalk line:

1.2.4 SITUATION B: Team A and B are playing at a neutral site. Team A has 22 players while Team B has 14 players. The dugouts are not large enough to handle Team A’s size. Team A wants to extend the dead-ball area with a chalk line.
RULING: This is allowed. Team A must extend its dugout toward the outfield and on a line parallel to the foul line. Team B may also extend its dugout similarly.

We were told at our state convention last month (by the umpires) that they don't foresee us ever having to wear helmets in the coaches' box. I bought 4 of them in anticipation before that, so I'm ready if it changes!

JMW37-Since you already own them why wouldn't you go ahead and wear them?

I bought a couple but mainly for throwing bp; ball hits a pipe and bounces down on the noggin can hurt. I might wear it in the box; closest I'll ever get to coaching 3rd base in the big leagues.

quote:

Originally posted by deldad:
JMW37-Since you already own them why wouldn't you go ahead and wear them?

Like trojan-skipper, I use them in the cage where the ricochets can be dangerous. I just don't feel the need to wear them in the coaches' box.

quote:

I bought a couple but mainly for throwing bp; ball hits a pipe and bounces down on the noggin can hurt.

Know how that goes. I've been hit while throwing in the cage and my dad actually chipped a tooth once throwing BP in the cage. Exactly like you said, ball hits the pipe and hit him in the temple causing him to bite down..

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

And in my 9 years as head coach and 6 years as an asst. coach the select few who serve on these rules committiees has ever asked me my opinion, let me know my opinion counted or given me a forum in which to express my opinion. In fact I have never heard, seen or talked to any coach who has ever had this opportunity in their career.

There would then seem to be a communication problem between those manager/coaches and AD's on rules committees and their brethern in the field.

Truer words have never been spoken Jimmy. These guys seem to forget the representative part of their job on these committees.

You should talk to your state guys, NFHS sends out questionaires that are supposed to go down the chain for suggestions. They send some to umpires also but in a smaller number. I received one this year.

quote:

Originally posted by deldad:
I am struggling to understand the objection to coaches wearing helmets. It seems at most a minor inconvenience. If it stops one tragedy in the next 100 years, is that not justification enough?

No, its not enough justification to me(and Im not making light of that 1 tragedy). Why would being a "minor" inconvenience have any decision weight, and would a "major" one be too bothersome?

Trying to legislate "extreme" safety rules will never make life 100% safe. I know,I know, who's definition of extreme.
Still--- life is what happens.

I do predict that base umpires will be required to wear head protection in the near future....its coming....