Jump to content

MadMax

Established Member
  • Posts

    4,126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    229

Everything posted by MadMax

  1. MadMax

    Mic'd up

    This isn’t a public event, though. The OP is explicitly posing this within High School. Most High Schools may be public institutions, but there are minors involved, and they are not public access.
  2. Sure there is. It’s a non-critical joint. In fact, if I took a good examination of it, that actually might be the end joint, butted together, and really poorly spot-welded. Titanium is a PITA to weld because it oxidizes so rapidly. In the case of steel, this oxidation is much slower and it is reductive. We call it rust. Titanium oxidizes by transfiguration, and the outer layer becomes a hardened skin, unable to be permeated or bonded. In order to weld it, the welder either has to act very quickly or has to pass a charge through it to stave off the oxidation process. So, to fix that via welding, the joint has to cleaned with acid, then the mask needs a charge passed through it and re-welded. Or, a ferrule could be crimped around it, just to immobilize it. That might be the easiest, cheapest, most effective way to do it.
  3. I wouldn’t drill, I would lance, especially with that kind of foam you have. It lends itself very well to melting, and thereby self-cauterizing. Drilling would just tear it. How to lance? Get a propane or butane torch, an oven mitt, and a length of copper (or brass) pipe in the desired width of the holes you want to make. The plumbing section of a Home Depot, Lowes, or Menards is where I’d start, but if those pipes are not small enough, there are typically smaller pipes, or tubes, in the air compressor sections for use in repairing air compressor components, or in craft work. Lay out the pattern you want on the foam, and then superheat the pipe until it’s nearly glowing hot (oven mitt to protect your hand! I use welding or forge gloves), then start punching or lancing the pipe down and through the foam, in rapid succession until the pipe cools off enough and the foam begins to resist. Reheat and repeat. As far as how to laminate the two foams together, I would try a sprayable contact cement like Scotch (or is it 3M?) Super-77. We used that to great extent when pressing prints to styrofoam and gator boards.
  4. MadMax

    Mic'd up

    Are you asking as an umpire, or as a non-umpire (coach)? If as an umpire, several others have given you responses, and rules aside, things will go very badly, if not far worse, for you if it’s discovered you’ve got a recording device in an amateur game without full disclosure of such. Professional games are microphoned (either directly or via a shotgun microphone aimed at the PU) by MLB for their own purposes. Within that, those recordings are rarely shared with the public, and if they are, it’s done very strategically. Same goes for the NCAA, which has mic’d up PU’s in conjunction with the broadcast partner (SEC Network, ESPN, etc.) for specific games for insight into how those games are conducted. Of course, the NCAA and the broadcast partner retain those rights; coaches, umpires, and other participants are fully aware of what’s being disclosed. Within that, there is a representative of the NCAA monitoring those recordings in real time, and is not going to allow the broadcast partner to replay (or “air”) a portion that puts a coach or umpire (and thus, the Association) in a poor light. NFHS has no such provision. If, as @Mattsays, an assigning association of responsibility inquires or directs you to wear a recording microphone, then they are accepting the ramifications of it. But if you’re doing this, independent of their knowledge or authority? You’ve just stepped into a steaming cowpie of liability. Devoid of Association authorization, do you want to learn how to handle situations-in-review? Simple – talk less. If you’re asking as a coach, then so-help-you if you’re found to have a recording device inside the confines of the field (this includes the dugout), let alone concealed on your person so as to catch me or one of our colleagues in a “gotcha!” moment. In tournament baseball, I’ve had to admonish the occasional coach who wants to record his kid or prized player during their at-bat or while pitching. I tell them, sternly but still with a sprinkle of humor, that they can either be a coach or a photographer, but not both, and not on this field. I’ve shut down coaches who have been handed a smartphone or tablet by someone outside the fence, claiming “we have the play right here!”, with something along the lines of, “If you bring that over here, you’ll be ejected”. In these same tournaments, we often have the TD and his staff recording the game (with a GoPro or iPod Touch located just behind the backstop) to use for analysis and promotion. As an umpire, I’m fully aware this is taking place, but I have no “right” or latitude to go “outside the fence” and consult that video after a play; neither should a coach.
  5. That spherical shoulder cap plate thing is a shoulder pauldron (French), and while I don't like how Schutt used minimal velcro to make it re-positionable, I understand why they did it. The "gap coverage" plate is an ailette (again, French), and in my and @wolfe_man's technical opinion, is set too low by default, so we kill the rivets, move it up by about an inch or so, and then re-secure it with Chicago Screws. Once you figure out where you want the shoulder pauldrons to be, you can drill through the ABS of the shoulder arch plate and again use Chicago Screws to "permanently" attach them. Another route to consider is what I'm likely to do soon... get a whole bunch of adhesive velcro stock from eBay. Of course, Velcro is the trade name, but it's also known as hook-&-loop. Over time and use, the velcro on the underside of the carapace plates gets dirty and loses its tackiness, and starts to separate from the plates. So, we can take out the old velcro and replace it with more and newer velcro.
  6. They're getting closer, but not quite right (yet)... "Why do you say that, Max?" On which end is the advanced, closed-cell, shock-absorbing liner foam? Uhhhh...yeah. The backside. Why's it on the backside? Because catchers wear this "backwards", with the bill in the back... Uhhhh... yeah. Again, great for catchers, not for umpires. Besides, the bill is too broad for umpires. Non-issue for catchers. #StartConsideringUmpires #BuildForU(mp)s
  7. Yeah, what he said. ... although, I have this odd feeling that Keith took notes during one of my rants over the phone, and just paraphrased it. Anyhow, Keith is dead on that you don’t want to use closed cell foam alone. If it was that easy, Wilson would have done it already. Instead, you want to augment that closed cell foam and layer it with at least one other open-cell or open-lattice (think super big gaps) foam acting as a “sizing foam”. Then, you sandwich them between a durable netting or anti-scuff fabric on the outer surface, and a hydrophilic wicking fabric on the inner surface, and you’ve got the basis of your foam jacket. You’ll want to segment it. You could strategically locate thicker segments at critical points, or put reinforcement in where the means of attaching it to the carapace are to go, but it works to your best interest to map this all out and plan it to fit you... ... and the next one of us you’re bound to sell this to. All-American’s plastic plates are far denser and more survivable because they were molded here in the States. China’s manufacturing of plastics is lighter and thus more brittle because they’re trying to shave every ounce they can off a unit so as to pack as many as possible in a container for transoceanic shipment. I think critical step number one is locating and obtaining a technical wicking fabric with which to re-skin the foam jacket on that AA... that will be a big hurdle cleared.
  8. Who cares about the technology? I just want the grey pads!!
  9. FIFY. I've found, through experience, that there is a near-direct correlation between the teaching of a "perfect buttonhook pivot" and the mechanical mandate of the PU taking the BR at 3B on that triple, at the High School officiating level (I do NOT mean College or Pro training courses). If you execute a "perfect buttonhook pivot", two things are occurring that hamper – or if you're not an athletic body type and fleet of foot – or thwart your efforts to get to 3B: 1) you are doing that stupid trust-exercise-thing, and turning away from the ball, and 2) you're coming to a (near) dead stop on the infield, fixated on the runner and his touch of 1B. If you perform a Dash-&-Glance, wherein you keep your chest to the ball, you have much greater latitude to regulate your angle, speed, and position to adjust to the play. The route(s) I take, all while on the move, are in accordance to where the ball is, yet afford me the ability to turn my head at key moments to observe the touch of 1B by the BR, then to either gravitate towards 2B (if the throw is going there), or to adjust and route towards 3B while still being able to observe the touch of 2B by the BR. I'm not ceasing my movement until I read that a play is imminent, and I'm pretty much chest-to-ball for the entirety of the play. "Ah-ha! What about a ball hit to the RF corner? You can't go chest-to-ball on that!" Yeah... RF corner... Why didn't you go out on that? Anyway, even if it is something to RF and I didn't go out (BU), I can still adjust my routes and speed to put me in the best positions to observe the touch at 1B by BR, see the play upon and throw of the ball, and set myself up for the play upon the BR at either 2B or 3B... without doing a buttonhook pivot. (the above statement was not directed at _you_, @LRZ, just inspired by what you and @yawetag posted)
  10. I admit up front, I have been remiss in my duties as the gear geek many of you know me to be. Thus, I have not had a Cobra actually, physically in front of me so as to investigate it in detail. I've had (and modified) a +POS ZRO-G CP, so I'm basing my speculations on similar methodology between the ZRO-G and the Cobra, being that they're from the same source. This usually holds true, whether it be Wilson's CPs, Champions, Champros, Schutts, or Diamonds. By this logic, the DavisShield is an aberration. It looks like the carapace (hard plastic plates) is not separable from the foam jacket. That's a problem. He (Parsons, of +POS) likely did this to cut down on weight and bulk, but I also suspect it was to eliminate a lot of material cost that would otherwise be devoted to means-of-attachment (velcro, velcro tabs, etc.) between the two. If this had been a Schutt, or a Wilson Platinum, I'm headed right for the rivets to kill them, alter the angles and positions of the carapace plates, and then replace the rivet with a Chicago Screw. If that rivet on the Cobra goes through the carapace plate and the foam jacket, that complicates it. Replacing the leathery (probably vinyl) material joining the shoulder pauldron group to the shoulder arch plates should be relatively easy – for that, I'd just use an elastic or a nylon webbing. If nylon webbing, I'd employ the type used for seatbelts, since it's "limper" but 4- to 10- times as strong as single-ply nylon webbing. @grayhawk used elastic on his All-Star System 7 CP to great success. Arik, since you're reading this, I may have to finally bite the bullet and get a Dremel tool... this Cobra looks like it would need to have the shoulder arch plates shaved to create a larger, smoother neck opening.
  11. @mgford, I appreciate your review, despite the pall it casts over what a few of us gear-geeks think to be an intriguing CP. Your review is so much better, and more productive, than the guys that just post, “It sucks, get a WestVest.” Where are you located? As I read your remarks about it, and your dislike of the neck opening, I can’t help but start to ruminate on how to (try to) fix it.
  12. You’re not going to. Harness is the only difference. If there are discrepancies in pricing, it’s due to the catchers’ deltaflex harness... and that a retailer likely got a larger quantity of for-catchers’ masks than for-umpires. My existing FM4000 started life as a navy-padded catcher’s mask. I sold the navy deltaflex to a high school kid, stuck the pads on my navy mask (for high school games in eastern states!), and then put TWs and a black harness on it.
  13. Among even the football equipment manufacturers, Schutt has the kingpin position on wire cages / masks (which shocks me that they haven't developed a killer TM for baseball). You'll note from even their latest football helmets have extended wire mask shaping away from the face; what Schutt acknowledges that if you can redirect impact away from the shell, you're changing the vector of the impact, thereby reducing the concussive force the shell has to take. Schutt also has one huge ace up their sleeve, though, compared to other HSM manufacturers. They have D3O, which is the same magical, modern foam material that is in their XV chest protector, and has also been used extensively in their football helmets to great success. How is it that this HSM of theirs, and the XV CP, featuring such advanced, cutting-edge foam as D3O, be less than $100 each??!! Simple: Football is footin' the bill for it. It doesn't faze Schutt to allocate a rather tiny percentage of their D3O and other raw materials budget to a short run of baseball equipment when the vast majority of it is already paid for by football margins. A far more insidious topic is starting to appear, though, and it is perhaps indicated by Schutt's "sharing" of the XV (and other protective gear and apparel for baseball) with their partner, Adams – tariffs. Yes, tariffs. All these tariffs being placed on China are likely hamstringing volume imports for companies like Schutt, such that they have to find ways of getting an ever-increasing catalog imported with as few fees as possible. So, instead of affecting their highly lucrative football imports, they place the baseball gear under Adams' name and account. Each of the Japanese auto makers do the same thing with their "subsidiary" marks: Honda has Acura, Nissan has Infiniti, Toyota has Lexus and Scion, etc.
  14. Did @Majordave put you up to this, Webster???
  15. Kyle, this has to be one of the most succinct explanations regarding this topic we've had yet. There hasn't been anything beyond token research and testing on the merits, or demerits, of the two systems. Indeed, the HSM as we know it today grew out of the need to progress beyond this: Because youth catchers could not be trusted to properly wear masks and helmets, and stemming from Little League's push to champion their two-ear-flap development (they're the ones that started it), they took a twin-flap batting helmet, sawed off the front, and bolt-and-strapped an otherwise conventional mask to it. Kids hated it (I know! I was one of them!). It was hot, heavy, stuffy, had very limited sightlines, and was painful and problematic to take on and off. Also, kid catchers looked nowhere as cool as their pro idols. And let's face it, lookin' cool sells. Meanwhile, in the pros, the conventional solid-steel-wire mask may have been teamed up an ear-flap-less batting helmet (the visor'ed skullcap), but they too were heavy, cumbersome, and useless to wear during collision plays, because you really couldn't see anything out of them. That changed in 1996, when Charlie O'Brien had a moment of inspiration and approached Van Velden Mask Inc. (of Hamilton, ONT... @Razzer might know of this) to develop the archetype "hockey style mask". Their efforts became the All-Star MVP, which debuted on September 13, 1997. O'Brien maintained that the HSM afforded him better distribution of impacting force because of "vectoring", and that because a baseball, being spherical and naturally deforming, wouldn't strike with any more full-frontal-force than a hockey puck. Here's the complete article: http://puckjunk.com/2018/03/29/the-evolution-of-baseballs-goalie-mask/ The first All-Star MVP's construction borrowed the same laminate matrix – of fiberglass, Kevlar, and other plastics – and used the same planform (shell shape), complete with its own appropriate wire cage. The problem became mass production: hockey is a rather specialized sport, with a limited quantity of goalies needing such a premium-quality produced mask. Junior / amateur goalies were still utilizing conventional mask constructions like this: There's also a very on-point forum discussion about this here: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/why-dont-goalies-wear-the-hasek-style-mask-anymore.1899293/ ... with three poignant, relevant (to baseball) posts... So the NFHS, at some point, recognized that the HSM gave the amateur ballplayer the best of all worlds – it gave total head coverage, it did a better job at deflecting impacts, and it could be taken off and put on reasonably well without compromising safety. Remember how I mentioned the problem with mass production? There are significantly more amateur catchers & ballplayers than goalies & hockey players. So, in order to get ease- and cost-of-production down, the manufacturers were allowed to use ABS and injection-molded plastics (instead of fiberglass and kevlar), and to ease the cost of engineering development, they all used the same planform. Sure, a few companies here and there (All-Star, Easton, Mizuno, etc.) have forked off onto other planforms based on feature testing, not so much to develop better protection, but to create a better shape for vision, ventilation, and for throwing while leaving the mask on. Most companies (Worth, Louisville Slugger, etc.) have stuck with the same planform, though, and there has been no further development or enhancement. Since NOCSAE is not truly independent, but is instead made up as a consortium of representatives from all the vested manufacturers, if a planform is greenlit (approved), it tends to stay as such year-to-year, and gets circulated to all the manufacturers, unless a patent is applied. Point is, there's been no incentive to improve the HSM because to do so would mean that you'd have to have that new planform tested by NOCSAE (thus, by your peers and competitors) and approved, which is financial risk. Most companies, aside from the likes of All-Star (who has their own independent testing apparatus), Easton, Mizuno and Wilson (who has a very staunch copyright and patent law team employed), don't have the capital to invest in further developments, and are, at best, treading water, banking on youth baseball organizations needing to buy "anything approved" each and every year at the lowest bargain price point. Through all this, though, there hasn't been a definitive, exhaustive study of the forces involved. All that anyone's really cared about is whether or not a particular HSM model has the NOCSAE approval mark on it, and all that NOCSAE really cares about is the HSM's integrity, not the performance. To NOCSAE and NFHS's credit, though, the forces involved are contextually relative, and there is more concern about a bat slipping out of a batter's grip and smacking a catcher in the side of the head, or that same catcher turning his head in (improper) avoidance of a skipping pitch. Of course, as the skill level increases, so do the velocities and forces involved. NOCSAE and NFHS only has responsibility and focus on amateurs at 18 or younger, and for the most part, they have been able to survive at that relative status quo. However, there is one glaring absence in this entire topic: the Plate Umpire. To this day, nothing in the realm of helmets or masks has been designed for the Plate Umpire specifically. The majority of protective need for the plate umpire is frontal. Whereas catchers are taught or conditioned to drop their chins to block and deflect a pitched baseball, Plate Umpires are conditioned to keep their heads as stock-still as possible. A great deal of a catcher's HSM construction is designed from shell-inward, since an impact with the ground or the dugout bench is far more frequent and repetitive than a pitch, batted ball, or a bat itself striking the HSM's shell. Thus, the manufacturers have to devote a considerable amount of weight and balancing production cost into making a durable external shell. By contrast, a Plate Umpire's mask should never touch the ground, let alone be dropped on the ground, unless it has been knocked off his face by a ball impact. Therefore, there is a sparkling opportunity to devote more absorptive materials and structures to dispersing, absorbing, and deadening impact force for those rare events when it does occur... but not one manufacturer has approached it (yet) because in their view, Plate Umpires are too few and too specialized to be financially attractive to their profit margins. Wilson's termination of the Shock-FX HSM in favor of the Pro Stock is an ugly, itchy, festering sore-of-an-example of how a corporation regards catchers versus Umpires. I wouldn't vilify Wilson as much as I do had they streamlined the Shock-FX's production, limited or revamped it to be a for-Umpires model, and produced it and the Pro Stock concurrently. Instead, they ended it, full stop. To date, only one company has actively endeavoured to address frontal impacts, and that is Force3 with the Defender spring-suspension system. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best option going right now? Yes. Their HSM version unfortunately fell into the same pitfall that other HSMs fall into – because of how NOCSAE conducts their test and grants approval, the Defender V1's shell planform had to be an existing planform, and the spring suspension shoehorned and bolted into it in a less-than-ideal manner. Once the Defender "technology" has been submitted to patent, and the unit has received the all-too-valuable NOCSAE approval, now we are seeing drastic improvements in the Defender V2 HSM. Its design (and its cost) encourages a more refined use by catchers at all levels, such that the catcher should leave it on the majority of the time. Indeed, the "high-end" models from All-Star, Easton, Rawlings – and now Wilson with their Pro Stock – encourage leaving the HSM on as much as possible, due to their improved sightlines and optimized construction. The Force3 Defender takes it one step further and puts an active spring-suspension on it, further absorbing the impact before it reaches the shell. There's just one problem with this, when it comes to the Plate Umpire: We are scrutinized regarding taking the mask off for (all) calls and post-pitch / post-hit plays. Even if we are in ideal position, with "perfect" sightlines through the minimal cage of the best-of-market HSM, we still are going to catch flak from someone (coach, player... or evaluator) regarding our wearing of the HSM during the making of the call. https://www.mlb.com/news/lindsay-berra-old-school-catchers-masks-help-protect-from-concussions/c-62938052
  16. And this and these people are prime examples of The Establishment, a minority conclave that is one of the greatest challenges to us as umpires (and other sports officials). The games – whether they be baseball, football, basketball, hockey, softball, volleyball, quidditch, or competitive basket weaving – change. They evolve. The correlating rules are not static, but instead dynamic. We often confuse “absolute” for “static”, and “relative” for “dynamic”. The Rules are to be referenced and applied absolutely, but they themselves grow, evolve, and adapt in relation to the game they govern dynamically. The way in which these adaptations are made through a duly designated (or elected) governing body are done through a particular process (sometimes, we’re not privy to), and when they are implemented, they are done for the benefit of Rules across the the breadth and range of their applications. Now, can a state adopt these Rules wholesale, or piecemeal? Yes, certainly, they are empowered to do so. Can individual organizations (such as USA Baseball, or Triple Crown) use these Rules, and selectively countermand or negate specific sections (such as catcher’s two-piece masks, or Mercy Rules, or defensive conferences)? Yes, certainly, they have done so for years. If these organizations countermand, or selectively apply these Rules codecies, they are often doing so for the benefit of their own organization, most often in terms of efficiency and efficacy. Here’s what is concerning – if the State of Pennsylvania is ignoring or refusing to apply this Rule, is there a reason for efficacy or efficiency for them doing so? Better yet, did they poll their constituency – the umpires within their association – as to if the Rule should be applied or negated? Sounds like they didn’t, and it just became “someone not liking it”.
  17. You’re that starved for baseball talk?? Your example is woefully diminutive. I’ve worked 3 of the 4 you listed (finals, at that!), and I do not consider them to be a Mount Rushmore. Perhaps a gift-shop scale model paperweight version of the real thing. If you’re speaking in strictly amateur terms, then @JSam21‘s answer is probably closer to mark. In lieu of the Olympics (which is only carried sporadically by the Summer Games), I might suggest one of the Independent Pro Leagues – such as the Cape Cod Baseball League or the NorthWoods League – or perhaps the American Legion World Series in Shelby, NC. @noumpere is on the right track – just do the best with what games you are in, and put yourself in a good spot for the next one.
  18. For base shoes, I am oft considering models and styles that aren’t typically regarded as base shoes. Gleaming, polished, full-grain leather black shoes are wasted upon amateur (youth or adult) baseball here in Arizona. The whole adage of “you get what you pay for” is lost, too, because with amount of games we do, on the types of fields we’re upon, and the constant sun beating upon them and fading them, your investment will be short lived. I currently use a pair of Nike Alpha Lunar Turfs. Several (dozen or so) umpires here all used Nike Dual Fusion 6’s, which naturally ran wide(r), and did fairly well on ventilation. Another significant number of umpires all have the UA Ultimate Turf Trainers, which work quite well. But all of us, to an umpire, want the cushiest thing possible when we’re doing 3-5 games per day on what amounts to brown concrete and beating sun. Granted, you’re up north in damper conditions. Have you considered these (I already found the wide models for ya): https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F132408617771 https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F202337089204
  19. True to its name, the All-American was manufactured in the U-S-of-A. Thus, the ABS plastic is denser and the hardware more robust. Nowadays, anything plastic is made over in China / Indonesia, and they skimp on material quality in the efforts of making each unit as lightweight as possible so as to fit more into a container. As such, the Champion carapace plates are more brittle. All-American was a big rival to Riddell, Schutt, Douglas, Wilson and Rawlings in the heady, pre-CAD/CAM days of football equipment. While Wilson and Douglas employed sofa-cushion foam in their shoulder pads, All-American was one of the first to start experimenting with laminate foam. Laminate foams, especially in shoulder pads (for football) meant that the pads could be thinner, lighter, and perform more effectively on wicking moisture. Worth mentioning is that, at the time, the Riddell Power, the All-American, and the Wilson WV Gold were "mutual replicas" of each other. I do not know who arrived at the design first, but the Gold is a progressive step of evolution from the original WestVest design, which itself came from the Douglas (and Douglas still maintains to this day). All we know is that Wilson secured the patent, and as such, Riddell and All-American were issued C&D writs. Point is, these CPs were not being run in mass quantities to begin with, and there was alot more care and quality put into their production than what came later thru China. And in China is where the Champion P2xx's origins lie, since it has been optimized to be produced, en masse, to cover the broadest range of sizes at the lowest possible price point. As @wolfe_man noted, you'll need to get any seams or stitching repaired. You (and we, collaboratively) could possibly come up with a new billow that could be stitched in so that your neck isn't potentially rubbing against the plastic edges of the carapace.
  20. Well, it would seem that there have been significantly more than a handful of umpires in Little League who did not get Mr. Konyar’s memo, because in my experience and casual research, this is where most of these fabricated calls are made. This advice rings true, not only with batters and outs, but also with runners and various antics (helmets, etc.), players and their “choice” language, F3’s and where they stand, and also pitchers and balks (e.g. can’t call a Balk during a dead ball). If an Ejection is warranted, and is ultimately required, then do so. Otherwise, use other means (talks, warnings, etc.) that are certainly at our disposal. We can’t just make up a call because we’re the umpire.
  21. Alternatively, if this is a tournament using NFHS (Fed) Rules as a foundation or base, then enforcement and penalty varies per tournament. Example: If the state of Arizona has a Fed limit on pitches for AIA High School games, and we have a USA Baseball or Triple Crown or SouthWest Wood Bat tournament underway, then we are adhering to the pitching restrictions and limits of that tournament. The fact that it is played within Arizona doesn't override the tournament. Enforcements and penalties need to be inquired of the Tournament Director(s) (and not to be arbitrarily enforced / declared by the umpires).
  22. From a company who near-as-can-tell refuses to modify, improve, progress said chest protector over the past 20 years, and is stealing umpire's money relying on this: ... being seen in 85% of a televised baseball game broadcast. Bravo on your mod, @NicNag... too bad that a WV Gold doesn't have you in mind when and how produced. #ThinkBetter
  23. No need for voluntary testing. Ask our resident Hockey Goalie Geek @Razzer... he has decades between the pipes to go off of. I spent nowhere near the same time as a goalie, but I did face down pucks for a few seasons of intramural hockey. I disliked the “plow”, in much the same way I dislike the dangling throat guard in baseball. The bib collar is for slash protection primarily, impact protection secondary. Would it work for you in a baseball application? Sure. The likelihood of a PU taking a direct pitch to the throat is slim-to-none. A foul-off, ricocheting off the catcher, or the plate, or a HBP glancing off to find that one vulnerable spot is much more plausible. So, is this bib collar overkill? Probably... since it’s a turtleneck collar, do you want to feel, in the words of the dearly missed Mitch Hedberg, “like a weak midget is trying to strangle you” all game? I concede, conventional “shoehorn” throat guards are cheap and hideously bland, but this bib collar, at $30+ isn’t the remedy we need it to be.
  24. Oh sure, when you contrast a convertible jacket against those wretched sweatsacks from the other manufacturers, you’ll find yourself thinking the Smitty jacket is the best thing invented. We have to stop settling for “good enough” mediocrity, or selling out for substandard sh!t because some dude in the association is getting a kickback on locking the lot of you in to buying navy shirts and jackets from Georgie’s Garage Officials East.
×
×
  • Create New...