Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
txump81

NFHS Rules: Catcher's Helmet

Recommended Posts

We are having a "discussion" (read argument) over a catcher wearing a skull cap and mask. (Relevant rule below).

 

Rule 1 Section 5 Article 4

The catcher's helmet and mask combination shall meet the NOCSAE standard at the time of manufacture. Any helmet or helmet and mask combination shall have full ear protection (dual ear flaps). A throat protector, which is either a part of or attached to the catcher's mask, is mandatory.

 

The argument for allowing the skull cap is that the metal "ears" that stick out are considered dual ear flaps similar to the metal throat protector.

 

The argument against the skull cap is that the ear flaps need to be part of the helmet like a batting helmet.

 

Has anyone else had this argument or received a clarification from any NFHS authority? Chapter officers are supposed to send to rules interpreter, but I wanted to see what the Empire has to say...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

I don't believe a skull cap meets NOCSAE standards. Therefore, it would not be allowed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did this discussion take more than 10 seconds? Can you see the catcher's ears with a skull cap? Yes? Then in what world would that be "full ear protection"? Come on, man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, txump81 said:

 

We are having a "discussion" (read argument) over a catcher wearing a skull cap and mask. (Relevant rule below).

 

Rule 1 Section 5 Article 4

The catcher's helmet and mask combination shall meet the NOCSAE standard at the time of manufacture. Any helmet or helmet and mask combination shall have full ear protection (dual ear flaps). A throat protector, which is either a part of or attached to the catcher's mask, is mandatory.

 

The argument for allowing the skull cap is that the metal "ears" that stick out are considered dual ear flaps similar to the metal throat protector.

 

The argument against the skull cap is that the ear flaps need to be part of the helmet like a batting helmet.

 

Has anyone else had this argument or received a clarification from any NFHS authority? Chapter officers are supposed to send to rules interpreter, but I wanted to see what the Empire has to say...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm incredulous that  this would even be under discussion. That your chapter officers  could not cite the rule is dissapointing. But you might have weak chapter leadership that cowtow to coaches  or cowtow to the big dog umps that don't know the rules. Hint, when you force an guy that pretends to be an umpire to go to the rulebook he will find a phrase that suits his purporse, ignoring the context or actual verbiage he read it in. It would be the first time he opened a rule book. Good luck in that neck of the woods but make TASO aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule cited is correct but did anyone participating in the discussion also check the case book for any clarification of the rule? Here’s the most relevant case play to your question and also see 1.5.4 B and D:

1.5.4 SITUATION A:  The home team’s catcher takes his position behind the plate in the top of the first inning with a skull cap helmet-and-mask combination. RULING:  This is illegal. A catcher will be required to wear head protection with double ear flaps that meets the NOCSAE standard. He will be told to get a legal helmet-and-mask combination. If he does not comply, he will be ejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Azul for the case book reference as I knew I had seen skull cap specifically addressed. I was suffering from a little CRS.

And to the rest...wow. Just wow.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, txump81 said:

Thank you Azul for the case book reference as I knew I had seen skull cap specifically addressed. I was suffering from a little CRS.

And to the rest...wow. Just wow.

"The rest" are reacting to the fact that a group of umpires would have any doubt about the issue. It's fine that you (or any individual) might ask this question, but in a group of experienced umpires this discussion should last mere seconds. This is black letter rule, and does not require subtle skills of interpretation.

The term 'skull cap' denotes coverage for the top of the skull only, so by definition it fails to satisfy the requirement that the cap/hat/helmet cover the ears. Whether the mask offers some or sufficient protection for the ears is moot.

It IS possible for F2 to use a mask legally, but it requires a NOCSAE-approved helmet-and-mask with ears covered. Those typically are not very comfortable with a mask over them (hard to get the mask off), and consequently virtually all catchers opt for the helmet instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

"The rest" are reacting to the fact that a group of umpires would have any doubt about the issue. It's fine that you (or any individual) might ask this question, but in a group of experienced umpires this discussion should last mere seconds. This is black letter rule, and does not require subtle skills of interpretation.

The term 'skull cap' denotes coverage for the top of the skull only, so by definition it fails to satisfy the requirement that the cap/hat/helmet cover the ears. Whether the mask offers some or sufficient protection for the ears is moot.

It IS possible for F2 to use a mask legally, but it requires a NOCSAE helmet with ears covered. Those typically are not very comfortable with a mask over them (hard to get the mask off), and consequently virtually all catchers opt for the helmet instead.

That mask NOCSAE helmet combo would have to be NOCSAE approved as a combination.

"1.5.4 SITUATION D: 

The visiting team’s catcher’s one-piece hockey-style mask breaks, causing the catcher to use a traditional Brewer mask-and-Acme helmet combination, which have not been tested together. 

RULING: The umpire requests that the visiting coach provides documentation that the Brewer/Acme components were tested together. He is unable to comply. The Brewer mask-and-Acme helmet combination is not allowed to be used. The catcher’s helmet-and-mask combination shall meet the NOCSAE standard of being tested together.
"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

That mask NOCSAE helmet combo would have to be NOCSAE approved as a combination.

My point was that it is possible to use a helmet-and-mask combo: some umpires seem to think that the hockey-style helmet is required for catchers, and it is not.

I've edited my post to accommodate your (correct) qualification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, maven said:

My point was that it is possible to use a helmet-and-mask combo: some umpires seem to think that the hockey-style helmet is required for catchers, and it is not.

I've edited my post to accommodate your (correct) qualification.

Yes, a budget strapped team might show up with this:

all-star-mvp1000-catchers-helmet-facemask-youth-6ef.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our little league has a bunch of those. They weigh like 5 pounds and are hot as hell in the summer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, gnhbua93 said:

They should get rid of that rule since there is a better option out there.

okay... I'll bite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, gnhbua93 said:

Don't bite. The ones who have to bite is the NFHS committee.

Then I'll just ask -- what's the better option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, noumpere said:

Then I'll just ask -- what's the better option?

I’m just going to guess it begins with a F and then ends with a 3...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Force 3 is not NOCSAE?

No clue... doubt it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

No clue... doubt it

With a little google work it appears that Force 3 has masks that are, as any bare mask would be, not NOCSAE. They also have hockey masks that are. I don't have an idea where you and @gnhbua93 are coming from regarding this better option that FED's rule has eliminated and thus they should bite it. Keep us in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 9:34 PM, txump81 said:

Has anyone else had this argument or received a clarification from any NFHS authority?

No, I've never had the argument because there is none to be had. The rule is explicit. And no, I've never received clarification from anyone because none is required. If someone argues the point, it's because they don't know the rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ElkOil said:

From F3's web site on the the product page for the HSM:

"The Defender Hockey Style Mask meets NOCSAE® standard, and able to be used at all levels of baseball with confidence."

http://www.force3progear.com/product/defender-hockey-style-mask/

 

No one doubts that the F3 (and most other) hockey-style mask is NOCSAE certified.  I don't think that's the issue.

 

gnhbua93 said, " They should get rid of that rule since there is a better option out there. "  Taken literally, he mans there's a better rule.  Taken not so literally, he means there's a product that works better that is technically illegal under the current rule.  I'm just seeking clarification on what he thinks the better option(s) is (are) -- then we can discuss whether others agree that the option is truly "better."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

With a little google work it appears that Force 3 has masks that are, as any bare mask would be, not NOCSAE. They also have hockey masks that are. I don't have an idea where you and @gnhbua93 are coming from regarding this better option that FED's rule has eliminated and thus they should bite it. Keep us in the dark.

Pretty sure @JSam21 was making a joke about the fact that @gnhbua93 (almost for sure) works for Force3 and gets a kick back from every mention he makes on the forum. ;):wave:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×