Last night in the ER...

I'm guessing most people that are buying helmets for their own kid (travel ball) don't know there's a MPH rating...and just run to Dick's or go online and pick up the one their kids wants.  

That being said, a kid on my son's team hit a guy in the helmet with a 94mph fastball earlier this season and cracked a helmet rated at 100mph.  Keep in mind the rating is that the helmet will protect you from a 100mph fastball....it doesn't say the helmet won't crack.  Between the helmet material and the padding, the kid that got hit at 94 and cracked his helmet was fine...just what the helmet is supposed to do.....the helmet....well, not so much

I hope your son is OK.

And thanks for bringing this up as this is something I never even thought of.  How do you even tell what the rating is on the batting helmet?

Hope your son is ok.  I never knew helmets had mph ratings.  Thank you for sharing that and I agree.  I wonder what the helmets issued for HS are rated?

I don't think there is an agreed standard or standards body for batting helmet mph ratings (?).  Rawlings gives mph ratings for some of its helmets, maybe other manufacturers do also?  I don't know if there is any information out there about how those ratings are derived (although I assume Rawlings feels pretty confident about them, or its attorneys would not allow them to give an MPH rating).  NOCSAE has a helmet standard, but I don't think it is expressed in terms of pitch speeds (https://nocsae.org/about-nocsae/faqs/). 

A good helmet is a must.  I'd get a wrap-around face guard as well.  A player on my son's team ended up getting stitches in his face this spring--fortunately his arm partially deflected the pitch first.

And I am very sorry about your son's injury.  Concussion recoveries are tricky--I hope his is quick and complete.  

The high school I went to a few years ago as head coach had helmets that were rated 80 mph and all except one of the 6 they had, had cracks in them.  I threw them out immediately and bought 100 mph ones.  Our AD asked why it was such a big deal.  He was football coach and I asked if he would give a kid a football helmet with a crack in it or that was not up to standards.  He got it.  I say always research them from 13U and up.  Check your kid's helmet and make sure it is not cracked.

Even without cracks, helmets have a shelf life.  From the NOCSAE web page:  

Consumers should be aware that in the case of batter’s helmets, some helmet models are permitted by the manufacturer to be recertified, others are not. If a manufacturer does not permit a batter’s helmet to be recertified, that helmet must have a label that tells the consumer when the certification expires, or how long the original new helmet certification is valid. Once the helmet reaches that period, the certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standard is no longer good. If the rules of play require the use of a helmet certified to the NOCSAE standard, using a helmet with an expired certification could be considered the use of illegal equipment.

If a manufacturer does permit the recertification of a batter’s helmet, NOCSAE ND001 mandates that “Helmets intended to be recertified shall have a recertification interval provided by the manufacturer. Certification life is limited to this time period. Helmets not recertified during the stated interval shall no longer be certified. Recertification interval required for warranty validation shall satisfy this requirement.”

https://nocsae.org/about-nocsae/faqs/

Elijah,

Wishing your son a quick and thorough recovery.  Head injuries can be tricky and scary.  You bring awareness to a good topic.  I won't make excuses but will offer perspective to the current circumstances and reality with this topic...

Most batting helmets sold today are sold only with the information that the helmet is NOCSAE approved and not with the specific MPH rating.  Most HS baseball programs have a much more limited budget for baseball as compared to football.  The incidents where a player is struck in the head ON the helmet AND still sustains a head injury are very few and far between.  Usually, injury occurs when the impact is on the unprotected part of the head (cheek, eye, mouth, neck, etc.) or a glancing blow off the edge of the helmet into those parts of the head.  

So, with safety and budget in mind, when the average HS coach/AD make their team helmet purchases, they feel safe in thinking that the "NOCSAE approved" stamp is the adequate legal and safety protection they need and they often don't look beyond that.  Additionally, helmets tend to be left in boxes in sheds in the off season where weather deterioration causes quick breakdown of the liners, rendering them useless.  Sometimes, rodents get to the liners, doing the same.  So, team helmets often have to be replaced yearly.  And each team needs 6-8.  I applaud Pitchingfan for pushing the issue and taking the extra steps.

Again, you are totally right with your concerns... just giving the current background.  I agree with you - there is more education and awareness that needs to take place and perhaps further consideration on adjustments to the safety standards. 

On the flip side - Reasonable safety precautions should be in place.  But, beyond that, at some point, the inherent risk has to be acknowledged and accepted in all sports.   As with everything, cost does weigh into the equation.  Where do you draw the line?  As example, it is clear that Pitchingfan takes thoughtful extra steps with regard to safety.   But does he make all his players wear heartguards?  Probably not.  Does he make them all wear jaw guards with their helmets?  Probably not.  It's never easy when it comes to "reasonable safety".  There is always more you can do.  How much is reasonable?  How much is enough?  How much is cost-prohibitive?  No easy answers. 

Elijah-

I hope your son recovers quickly.

However, I doubt that a 100mph helmet gives better protection against concussion than an 80mph helmet.  Baseball helmets protect the skull, not the brain.

Thank you, everyone, for your concerns. He is feeling it today. We are monitoring him.

Cabbagedad, the line is easily drawn. Rawlings makes helmets that are rated for 100mph. These helmets withstand impact from all pitches more effectievly than those rated at 90 or 80 or 68mph. My son faces 80mph+ each game, so wearing a helmet rated for 80 mph is a line. 90 is the next line. He could face a 90 mph+ pitching this weekend. 

I brought up this issue just before Jerry left the forum and I thought he was going to address it with PG. Understand, I am not trying to tell anyone what to do regarding this issue, but it amazes me that so little is know about helmet ratings. It is a money issue. Rawlings told me that no one bought the helmets rated at 100mph because they were heavier. I told them that I questioned the effectiveness of their marketing department. 

Game7, I don't have the knowledge to counter your statement. Even so, that doesn't affect the issue if you have a son facing 90 mph+ pitching.

I agree CabbageDad and made my son wear a heartguard and suggested to all parents and a few did.  I never bought into the jawguard or I would have made them put faceguards on all the helmets since I think they are safer but understand it.  I thought it was my job to make sure that the minimum standards were met and I consider the 100 mph helmet the minimum standards since I knew we would face at least one kid throwing over 90.  I also made sure the catcher's equipment was up to date and strongly advised every player to wear a cup all the time, which very few do these days, even catchers don't see the need all the time.

I cannot imagine letting a girl pitch or play first or third in softball without a faceguard on especially after watching the incident at Auburn.

Watched Crochet at UT take one to the face off the bat this weekend.  He had a metal plate put in and will miss SEC tournament and dr. told him you are good to go when you feel like it.

This is an issue that has come up in hockey a lot. Just because a helmet is rated up to a certain speed, it doesn't mean that you will not get a concussion. All it means is that the helmet is not supposed to break. 

   My 2018 got hit under the earhole at HF by a 86 mph FB. It lifted the helmet up over his head, which tore up his ear, needing  a fancy stitch job at a  clinic from a great Doc. When my son went down I didn't know if he was going to get up...there was a lot of blood. Turned out it was just stitches and a bit of shock, no concussion. He went back the next day and played great. I do know that one other player there got beaned and he didn't come back(concussion) at the same Showcase.

Pitchers are trying to go full out with their velo(often at the expense of control), and batters are trying to hang in there and not bail, as they have very limited opportunities to show their stuff. As they say, no one is there to see how you take a walk.

 OP, I Hope your son heals up with no issues. 

How many players leave their helmet or entire bag in the trunk of the car? The heat is bad for the helmet in the long run.

Hope your son is ok Elijah. Looking at Amazon and some baseball gear sites, I wasn't able to find mph ratings for any helmets. Can anyone point me?

Rawlings is the only mfr I know of that gives an mph rating for some of its helmets. S90 = 90 mph, S80 = 80 mph... Link: https://www.rawlings.com/product/S90PA.html

As I said above, I don’t think any standards body assesses helmets in terms of mph. The Rawlings ratings seem useful, but I don’t know how you’d compare them with other makes.  

Praying for your son, Elijah. 

My oldest got drilled  on a sac bunt attempt last year. The ball just kept going up and in on him  like a teeth-seeking missile. Now he and practically every other teammate wears jaw-guards. That doesn’t address the mph level issue, which I had never heard of. 

The industry standard is developed by the age on the helmet.  Less than 12 is rated for 70 mph.  12-16 is 80, high school and college is 90 and pro is 100 mph.  These are the standards but no complete standards other than NOSCAE which is very liberal.  The requirements are a certain material which is supposed to help a ball deflect.

Chico Escuela posted:

Rawlings is the only mfr I know of that gives an mph rating for some of its helmets. S90 = 90 mph, S80 = 80 mph... Link: https://www.rawlings.com/product/S90PA.html

As I said above, I don’t think any standards body assesses helmets in terms of mph. The Rawlings ratings seem useful, but I don’t know how you’d compare them with other makes.  

The MLB does which is why they went to the 100mph rated helmet. I am concentrating more on Rawlings because they already make a helmet that needs to be made available to us. 

Related question — why is it that batters wear helmets and no one else — including umpires do? First base ump went over backwards after getting drilled in the head at a college game last weekend. Got nine stitches. We don't let kids chase foul balls on the field without a helmet, why can a pitcher be out there without one????

smokeminside posted:

Praying for your son, Elijah. 

My oldest got drilled  on a sac bunt attempt last year. The ball just kept going up and in on him  like a teeth-seeking missile. Now he and practically every other teammate wears jaw-guards. That doesn’t address the mph level issue, which I had never heard of. 

 

I was one of the first to put a c-flap on my son. There were only a couple of MLB players that did it (at the time) and mainly because of previous injuries. We are from Atlanta and Dansby Swanson wore one. My son was fine with it but he stood out...for a couple of months. Now they are common.

There is someone talking to Rawlings about this issue. I am just waiting to hear the results of that conversation. 

@PitchingFan, did you order straight from Rawlings? You must have a good contact. 

It took jumping through a few hoops to get that level.  Dealers can order them but they normally do not stock them.  We got a deal with our dealer through his guy.  They are not cheap but still cheaper than football helmets so it was easy to push through when you are willing to ask why a football player's safety is more important than a baseball player's safety. 

Iowamom23 posted:

Related question — why is it that batters wear helmets and no one else — including umpires do? First base ump went over backwards after getting drilled in the head at a college game last weekend. Got nine stitches. We don't let kids chase foul balls on the field without a helmet, why can a pitcher be out there without one????

Iowamom, I'll take a stab at your questions.  Here again, i won't argue right or wrong but offer up some realities.  Batters wear helmets and no one else, of course, because batters are in the most dangerous and likely position to be struck.  Pitcher would be next.  Protective gear for pitchers (and corner IF's) has become largely accepted in the softball world but not baseball.  In softball, those three positions often find themselves within less than 40' of the batter as the ball is struck.  There has been quite a bit of experimentation with prototypes with major and minor league baseball players with protective "caps" for pitchers but there has been resistance from the players up to this point.  Other fielders are in far less danger because they are armed with a glove and focused solely on fielding balls hit toward them.  It would be extremely difficult to gain acceptance among players to wear head protection while in fielding positions, particularly in positions other than pitching.  Also, the protective caps are certainly limited in their ability to prevent serious head injury.  There is no facemask.  I have seen a men's softball 3b get several teeth knocked out, nose broken, concussion.  A helmet would have done no good unless it had a facemask.  Still, as a player, I would have a very hard time being told I would have to wear a helment and/or facemask to play a defensive position.  

We don't let kids chase foul balls without a helmet because they are not necessarily paying attention to the batter hitting the ball like the fielders are doing.

Again, this comes back, at least in part, to inherent risk.  If you go trail running and happen to fall on a rock, you can suffer serious, even fatal, head injury.  The odds are remote but possible.  No trail runner is going to wear a helmet.  Platform and springboard divers often flirt with striking their head on the board or platform (and sometimes do).  They are not going to wear helmets.

I know your son is  P.  I wouldn't be totally surprised to see something lightweight and minimally intrusive gain some level of acceptance in the coming years.  I could see it being a combination of the current padded hat and something along the lines of what girls lacrosse players wear, maybe with extended nose and cheek coverage.

Helmets or facemasks for baseball pitchers?  After a lifetime in construction I can attest that men resist wearing protective equipment.  Including myself, which is why I have to turn up the volume on the TV, lol.

Since I'm an older guy, if I had any sense, I'd be wearing a full set of catcher's equipment in the third base coaching box.

They make the hard inserts for pitcher's caps and we have tried them but they are very distracting and don't fit well.  I'm sure they will develop a better version to fit inside the cap.  University of Tennessee pitcher was hit last weekend in the jaw area.  He is supposedly going to try to pitch in regional with a faceguard on.  My son did it earlier in life when he broke his nose.  We borrowed a softball faceguard and he wore it because we made him.  He hated it. 

Iowamom23 posted:

Related question — why is it that batters wear helmets and no one else — including umpires do? First base ump went over backwards after getting drilled in the head at a college game last weekend. Got nine stitches. We don't let kids chase foul balls on the field without a helmet, why can a pitcher be out there without one????

Base coaches wear helmets from HS on up. It only makes sense for umps to do the same.

I agree that pitchers should as well, or at least wear a front insert, but some changes come hard.

The last couple of years that my son pitched from 46' mounds to kids using Little League bats I was holding my breath sometimes.  In HS I don't think about it much; but the idea of a P taking a line drive in the mouth or eye is scary.  Serious injuries to pitchers from batted balls are rare, but they can be awful.  I know it ain't gonna happen (can't even get my HS-age son to wear a cup), but I'd like to see pitchers use some kind of modified helmet with face protection. 

Yeah, yeah--it would be strange and uncomfortable.  Just like batting helmets and hockey and football helmets were at first.  Wearing a cup is a strange thing until you get used to it, too.  People adjust. Pitchers are 33%+ closer to batters than any player in the field except catcher usually plays.  Some risk in inevitable--meaning you can't eliminate it without changing a game unacceptably.  Seems to me that well-designed head and face protection for pitchers wouldn't do that.  (Again, I know this isn't going to happen.)  

I was surprised to see heart guards mentioned above.  So far as I know (and I haven't looked in a while) there is no evidence that they work.  https://www.chicagotribune.com...-20160408-story.html   Is there more recent info out there or a redesigned guard?

Update: He will play his first game this Tuesday. Still no update on my quest for a helmet rated at 100 mph. I was hoping for more at this point. 

BaseballMom2020:  I haven't bought helmets in years, but based on the link I posted above in this thread, most should carry a label indicating how long they remain 'certified' as meeting NOCSAE standards.  Four years seems like too long to me; but you could always stop by a local store and see how long the new helmets there are labeled as lasting--that would give you a sense of whether yours has 'expired.' 

I'm very concerned about this issue, but I wouldn't pay $500 for the helmet advertised at the link you gave.  I assume those are old Rawlings S100 models that someone had in a warehouse.  They may be in better shape than they would be if they had been banging around in a gear bag for years, but they are going to be fairly old.

I think the S100 is still available to MLB teams (?).  Rawlings probably stopped selling it to others because many, like your son, thought that helmet was uncomfortable. You might try writing to Rawlings to ask if you could buy an S100, although I expect it would take a while to get a response.

Easy for me to say since my kid is a PO now and no longer hits, but I wouldn't get overly concerned about the Rawlings mph ratings.  Yes, the S100 should offer more protection than lower-rated Rawlings helmets; but their mph rating isn't based on any industry standard.  An S100 isn't necessarily better than the top of the line model from a different manufacturer, even if that helmet doesn't carry a label saying it's rated to 100 mph.  (Although I agree that the S100 seems to be at least as good as anything else that was, or is, out there.)  

It would be great for players and parents if an independent standards body gave more comprehensive ratings.  For now, NOCSAE seem to be the only folks doing anything in this area.  I'd go with a well-known manufacturer and make sure my kid has a helmet that actually fits (how often do you see players wearing helmets tilted back so that their foreheads are exposed, or see helmet fly off when someone is running the bases?).  Not sure you can do more than that.

baseball mom2020 posted:

About 4 years ago I bought the Rawlings S100P which was readily available on line and rated for up to 100mph although my son complained the helmet wasn't comfortable."

This was what I heard from a Rawlings rep, as well. Some guys just did not like them because they fit differently or was a little too heavy. However, it is the standard for the MLB so my guess is they have made some adjustments. 

Your views on this change drastically when you see your son fall to the ground after being hit in the head with a fastball. It is time for Rawlings to make this helmet available to the public. 

Chico Escuela posted:

 "An S100 isn't necessarily better than the top of the line model from a different manufacturer, even if that helmet doesn't carry a label saying it's rated to 100 mph."

Not sure what you base that statement on. I don't have the data to argue against it, either. My guess is that if the other companies could make a claim of protection as it relates to mph, they would. As it stands, the only company that does is Rawlings and they didn't see the cost/benefit in marketing it when it was available to others that did not wear an MLB jersey. 

I am surprised this has not become a concern in the PG/PBR communities, especially when 90 is the minimum one has to pitch to get truly noticed as a pitcher. As mentioned before, some of these kids are trying to hit that max so it will show on PG. 

Elijah posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

 "An S100 isn't necessarily better than the top of the line model from a different manufacturer, even if that helmet doesn't carry a label saying it's rated to 100 mph."

Not sure what you base that statement on. I don't have the data to argue against it, either. My guess is that if the other companies could make a claim of protection as it relates to mph, they would. As it stands, the only company that does is Rawlings and they didn't see the cost/benefit in marketing it when it was available to others that did not wear an MLB jersey. 

What I meant is that in the absence of independent testing, I have no reason to assume the S100 is better than other helmets.  I also said that IMO the S100 seemed to be "at least as good as anything else that was, or is, out there."

But I'm going to revise what I said.  I just found this article, from the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0...baseball-helmet.html

This is from 2013, and I thought I recalled seeing Rawlings 100 mph-rated helmets for sale after that, but...   According to this, the original 100 mph design was six ounces heavier than a standard helmet, and MLB players hated it.  Rawlings redesigned the helmet using carbon fiber for the shell.  This resulted in a helmet that was only about 1 oz. heavier, but "about five times more expensive to produce."  I guess that's why the helmet at BaseballMom2020's link costs $500.

If the S100 is carbon fiber instead of plastic, then it ought to be a step up from anything else out there.  My guess is Rawlings decided that there wasn't enough of a market among non-professional players for either a) a helmet that was 6 oz. heavier than others or b) a helmet that cost $500.  The S100 appears to only be for sale today with one earflap--and I don't know of any non-pro league that would allow a one-flap helmet. 

I'd try writing and calling Rawlings.  There may be some 2-flap helmets in their warehouses, for MLB switch-hitters.  (Technically your son still might not be able to use this helmet, since it wouldn't be NOCSAE certified.)  You also could ask Rawlings to market the S100 to youth, HS and college players, but I don't know if that would be feasible for them.  Of course anyone would agree that it's worth $500 to avoid a life-threatening injury to their child; but when push comes to shove, Rawlings may have concluded not enough people would pay that for a batting helmet.  (Again, I'm not arguing that this evaluation of the risks is correct.  I spent a lot of time researching helmets a few years ago before my son became a PO and I might spend the money if he were still taking ABs in games.)    

Chico Escuela posted:

Elijah posted:

Chico Escuela posted:

 "An S100 isn't necessarily better than the top of the line model from a different manufacturer, even if that helmet doesn't carry a label saying it's rated to 100 mph."

Not sure what you base that statement on. I don't have the data to argue against it, either. My guess is that if the other companies could make a claim of protection as it relates to mph, they would. As it stands, the only company that does is Rawlings and they didn't see the cost/benefit in marketing it when it was available to others that did not wear an MLB jersey. 

What I meant is that in the absence of independent testing, I have no reason to assume the S100 is better than other helmets.  I also said that IMO the S100 seemed to be "at least as good as anything else that was, or is, out there."

But I'm going to revise what I said.  I just found this article, from the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0...baseball-helmet.html

This is from 2013, and I thought I recalled seeing Rawlings 100 mph-rated helmets for sale after that, but...   According to this, the original 100 mph design was six ounces heavier than a standard helmet, and MLB players hated it.  Rawlings redesigned the helmet using carbon fiber for the shell.  This resulted in a helmet that was only about 1 oz. heavier, but "about five times more expensive to produce."  I guess that's why the helmet at BaseballMom2020's link costs $500.

If the S100 is carbon fiber instead of plastic, then it ought to be a step up from anything else out there.  My guess is Rawlings decided that there wasn't enough of a market among non-professional players for either a) a helmet that was 6 oz. heavier than others or b) a helmet that cost $500.  The S100 appears to only be for sale today with one earflap--and I don't know of any non-pro league that would allow a one-flap helmet. 

I'd try writing and calling Rawlings.  There may be some 2-flap helmets in their warehouses, for MLB switch-hitters.  (Technically your son still might not be able to use this helmet, since it wouldn't be NOCSAE certified.)  You also could ask Rawlings to market the S100 to youth, HS and college players, but I don't know if that would be feasible for them.  Of course anyone would agree that it's worth $500 to avoid a life-threatening injury to their child; but when push comes to shove, Rawlings may have concluded not enough people would pay that for a batting helmet.  (Again, I'm not arguing that this evaluation of the risks is correct.  I spent a lot of time researching helmets a few years ago before my son became a PO and I might spend the money if he were still taking ABs in games.)    

Good points. I have already put in a call to a local Rawlings rep (referred by the parent). Hopefully, they have made technological improvements that would allow for a lighter helmet. 

Just seeing this thread.  Elijah, so glad to hear your son is going to be playing tomorrow!  Hope all goes well as he gets back in the saddle.

They know which products will do well on the market. They probably decided that most people didn't care enough to have the helmet mass produced. The difference between 90 and 100 was most likely not enough of a difference. The overwhelming majority of players will never see over 90 more than once, if ever. I understand the concern and the desire for more safety but the reality of it is that the helmets are being tossed in a bag with other equipment, thrown around the dugout and kept in hot/cold trunks and garages. It was even mentioned that the 90 helmet caused a concussion on a pitch slower than 90. So you never even know for sure. 

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a specialty market, but the companies that make the helmets are never going to roll out a product that won't make money. 

Sorry to hear about your son Elijah. Definitely a scary situation! Seen it a few too many times in my career. Heck, I've been hit in the face personally a couple of different times in my playing career. It's actually one reason I do my job now..

Anyway, questions about the helmets are very much valid and warranted. As I get further into my career, I've started to have a lot of questions about why we do what we do and how we do it. We spend time and money on reconditioning and re-certifying football helmets. Lacrosse helmets are supposed to meet similar requirements. But baseball equipment (helmets, catchers gear, etc) is largely left up to the parents to deal with. I'm beginning to question how appropriate that is as we continually evaluate risk mitigation from a school liability perspective. It will definitely take a culture change to bring about many of these changes. It costs money and people don't seem to like spending money. 

Bulldog 19 posted:

Sorry to hear about your son Elijah. Definitely a scary situation! Seen it a few too many times in my career. Heck, I've been hit in the face personally a couple of different times in my playing career. It's actually one reason I do my job now..

Anyway, questions about the helmets are very much valid and warranted. As I get further into my career, I've started to have a lot of questions about why we do what we do and how we do it. We spend time and money on reconditioning and re-certifying football helmets. Lacrosse helmets are supposed to meet similar requirements. But baseball equipment (helmets, catchers gear, etc) is largely left up to the parents to deal with. I'm beginning to question how appropriate that is as we continually evaluate risk mitigation from a school liability perspective. It will definitely take a culture change to bring about many of these changes. It costs money and people don't seem to like spending money. 

Thanks, Bulldog. He has recovered and is feeling fine. I obviously feel like the helmet issue has not been properly addressed by people in charge of baseball operations on many levels. I think Perfect Game and PBR should be leading in this regard.

If you are on this site, you will most likely have a son that will face 90+mph pitching. All major travel orgs have players that are in this category. If I led a travel org, this would be a priority for me because if one of my players gets hit in the head with a 90+mph fastball, I would want to be able to say that I had an option for that player before he was hit. 

I am not saying PG or PBR should make it mandatory for players to wear these helmets, but I do think that they should be working with Rawlings to make them available.

@PitchingFan, did you players complain about the weight of the helmets? I do not want to be that parent that tells the HS coach that my son will be wearing a different batting helmet than the rest of the team. I really, really do not want to be that guy. I would like to be able to take some info to him when I speak to him well beforehand so it will not be a surprise. Who knows, maybe my son's school will consider what you have done for your players. 

Glad your son has recovered and feeling fine.  You said It actually caught him right at the edge of the helmet at the ear hole. Looks like it hit about half and half.  So, do you mean it hit half the bottom or side edge of the helmet and half your son's head?

My kids did not complain about the weight because they had ones from 10 years ago which were bulky and had thick padding.  Some of them had been wearing their own which were newer but the old ones were almost as heavy and bulky.  I did not give them an option so they may have complained but not to me.  We made so many changes that year that the helmets were the least of the complaints.   If they had I would have responded, your safety is more important than your whining.  Most of our guys played football so they were used to big bulky helmets.  Actually my AD who was head football coach said he had some old football helmets we could re-paint.  He responded I know they will take a 90 mph fastball.

cabbagedad posted:

Glad your son has recovered and feeling fine.  You said It actually caught him right at the edge of the helmet at the ear hole. Looks like it hit about half and half.  So, do you mean it hit half the bottom or side edge of the helmet and half your son's head?

Thanks @cabbagedad. That is what I believe happened, yes.