Catcher's Mask

[DevildogUmp]

So, Indiana's rules interpretation video for this year that all umpires and coaches are required to attend came out today. The powers that be in Indiana were nice enough to inform us that catchers are no longer restricted to one-piece masks, that 2-piece masks are allowed as long as both ears are protected. Has anyone actually ever seen a 2-piece (mask fully detaches from helmet) catcher's mask that meets NOCSAE standards? I don't see any in the lists provided by SEI. According to the standard, it is possible; however, the mask must have a statement "WARNING: THIS FACEGUARD DOES NOT COMPLY WITH NOCSAE REQUIREMENTS UNLESS IT IS ATTACHED TO A HELMET SPECIFICALLY LISTED BY THE MANUFACTURER AND WHICH BEARS THE NOCSAE CATCHER’S LOGO." and I don't see that fitting anywhere on a catcher's mask. I can just see a coach saying "the state said it was good as long as the helmet covers the ears" ignoring the part (because the official video doesn't cover it" that the mask and helmet must have been tested together to maintain the NOCSAE approval.

[The Man in Blue]

A manufacturer technically could submit a mask-helmet combo to NOCSAE for certification.  The certification would only apply to that specific mask-helmet combo.  You could not use the mask with a different helmet, or the helmet with a different mask.

That said, never seen it.  

 

[kylehutson]

There was one about 10 years ago that met NOCSAE standards. It looked like a batter's helmet with a facemask on the front.

[JonnyCat]

The only one I've ever seen to be similar to what you describe is the All Star MVP1000, youth helmet. While the face guard is not fully detachable, it's not really bolted in place either. It is NOCSAE approved, however.

[wolfe_man]

The way I read this "change" is that IHSAA does NOT truly approve 2-piece face masks.  In reality, they still desire the F2 to wear a HSM/helmet, but want to appear that they are relaxing things a bit - when in truth they aren't.

I don't know any HS-aged F2 that wants to wear those "old ugly things" that they wore way back in Little League.  This isn't a step forward, but backwards.

[834k3r]

Since we're on the topic, NFHS has made a big deal of eye shields on catcher masks. Anyone actually seen one? I've looked on the web and come up with nothing. I have no idea what one even looks like.

[wolfe_man]

1 minute ago, 834k3r said:

Since we're on the topic, NFHS has made a big deal of eye shields on catcher masks. Anyone actually seen one? I've looked on the web and come up with nothing. I have no idea what one even looks like.

In 8+ years of doing this, I've seen ONE.  At the travel ball 15U level.  I think it's a good idea to keep dust out of your eyes without having to wear sunglasses, but I understand NFHS is all about safety and can't have something coming loose or breaking and hurting F2.

 

[DevildogUmp]

11 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

In 8+ years of doing this, I've seen ONE.  At the travel ball 15U level.  I think it's a good idea to keep dust out of your eyes without having to wear sunglasses, but I understand NFHS is all about safety and can't have something coming loose or breaking and hurting F2.

 

I don't know if it a safety thing in regards to the eye shield coming detached. If that was the case, why are clear eye shields installed by the manufacturer allowed? 

SITUATION 1: The catcher has purchased a new hockey-style catcher’s helmet. The helmet (a) was purchased with a tinted, attached eye shield, or (b) the catcher later purchased a clear eye shield and had it installed. RULING: In both (a) and (b), the helmet is not legal for use. Eye shields attached after manufacture are not permitted. Legal eye shields, attached at the time of manufacture, must be clear without the presence of any tint. (1-5-4)

[johnnyg08]

5 minutes ago, DevildogUmp said:

I don't know if it a safety thing in regards to the eye shield coming detached. If that was the case, why are clear eye shields installed by the manufacturer allowed? 

SITUATION 1: The catcher has purchased a new hockey-style catcher’s helmet. The helmet (a) was purchased with a tinted, attached eye shield, or (b) the catcher later purchased a clear eye shield and had it installed. RULING: In both (a) and (b), the helmet is not legal for use. Eye shields attached after manufacture are not permitted. Legal eye shields, attached at the time of manufacture, must be clear without the presence of any tint. (1-5-4)

I believe it has to do with being able to see the catcher's pupils in the event they need to perform an evaluation. They can do that with a clear, factory installed shield. 

[DevildogUmp]

7 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I believe it has to do with being able to see the catcher's pupils in the event they need to perform an evaluation. They can do that with a clear, factory installed shield. 

But the catcher can wear tinted glasses or goggles under their mask. I am not trying to be difficult here, I just don't see the logic in what is banned and what is ok (I know, welcome to FED rules).

[johnnyg08]

2 minutes ago, DevildogUmp said:

But the catcher can wear tinted glasses or goggles under their mask. I am not trying to be difficult here, I just don't see the logic in what is banned and what is ok (I know, welcome to FED rules).

I understand. Your question is reasonable. I think the philosophy is that the glasses can be easily removed from the catcher's face...at least easier than a tinted shield. 

[wolfe_man]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I believe it has to do with being able to see the catcher's pupils in the event they need to perform an evaluation. They can do that with a clear, factory installed shield. 

Yes, that is the reasoning we were given as well. If clear, I can see his eyes if he is concussed supposedly. I'm with our friend from IN though and agree that you can remove a helmet just as easily as a pair of sunglasses (probably much easier if F2 is still wearing the mask OVER his sunglasses). 

I brought up the safety thing, because FED does that in so many places.  If installed by the manufacturer (read "expert") it it less prone to failure in FED's eyes. An amateur (read "non-expert") is a risk when installing it and it is much more prone to having problems, so FED bans it.

[SeeingEyeDog]

I asked this on the other thread but, this thread is a bit more active so, I'll ask it here, too...

How is an umpire expected to know which catcher's masks come installed with an eye shield and which have had the eyeshield installed after market? For cheek guards on batting helmets, we were encouraged to look for screws driven in at odd angles, missing screws, multiple screw holes, etc...I'm just not familiar enough with eye shields to know what we should be looking for.

I have a sunshield on my All-Star Mag which doesn't require hardware. They offer similar sunshields for their HSM for catchers...yes? I don't think those come installed, but are easily installed after market. Would those be illegal, too?

Isn't this all covered under the "...legally and properly equipped?" question. It's a rule. We enforce rules. When we see violations, we render judgement. The ultimate responsibility with this rests with the player and their coach...correct?

~Dawg 

[wolfe_man]

16 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Isn't this all covered under the "...legally and properly equipped?" question. It's a rule. We enforce rules. When we see violations, we render judgement. The ultimate responsibility with this rests with the player and their coach...correct?

~Dawg 

In my humble opinion, yes.  This should all be covered under our pre-game question "are all players legally and properly equipped?".   After that, it's on the coaches to make sure they are checking helmets, bats, gloves, etc. I'm an umpire, not an inspector of NOCSAE.

If push comes to shove, unless they can PROVE that they bought it that way from the manufacturer, then it needs removed.

I wouldn't stress too much over this.  In almost 10 years of umpiring, I've only seen 1 - and it was in travel ball two years ago.

[834k3r]

13 hours ago, DevildogUmp said:

But the catcher can wear tinted glasses or goggles under their mask. I am not trying to be difficult here, I just don't see the logic in what is banned and what is ok (I know, welcome to FED rules).

You're not the only one.

[834k3r]

5 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

I brought up the safety thing, because FED does that in so many places.  If installed by the manufacturer (read "expert") it it less prone to failure in FED's eyes. An amateur (read "non-expert") is a risk when installing it and it is much more prone to having problems, so FED bans it.

LL does the same thing with cheek flaps on batter helmets. It has to be factory-installed (sorry, Mark Wort!) for it to be legal. With the rarity of eye shields installed on catcher masks, it seems to me like NFHS is finding trouble in an area that didn't have any.

[wolfe_man]

46 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

... it seems to me like NFHS is finding trouble in an area that didn't have any.

Well, to be fair, it came down to either this or banning shoelaces that weren't black as too-distracting to batters.   And we did get rid of the jewelry rule, so that we could grab this more pressing issue.

 

 

[JSam21]

Life is much easier when you stop trying to figure out the reasoning, and just enforce the rules as written.