Requiring Facemask for pitchers... Possible league policy... THoughts?

Carsonsig said:

Hey all,

President of my local rec league 250 ish girls in spring. Our goal first and foremost as a REC league is FUN, Safety, softball love, and development... followed by winning somewhere at the end...

I am pondering policy proposals to require pitchers to wear a facemask. 3rd base POSSIBLY... but pitchers for sure. My local GSSA boss lady says it hasnt happened nationally for youth purely due to litigation fears... that if they require the mask, if a girl is hurt while wearing it they will sue... which I think is pu**y.

I just cant think of a good reason for pitchers that this isnt required. Stud defensive player or not, a pitcher cannot react and defend her grill or melon from a comebacker... we have all seen the videos.. and that is mostly older kids that are developed defensively.. a 10 year old...? cmon.

The league will provide each team one for team use... do a bulk order to cut the price for the kids who want their own..

So. Why should I NOT do this?

Appreciate any insight!

Click to expand...

First off, I'd like to know what actual examples exist in tort law of someone suing because they were not hurt as badly as they might otherwise have been because they were wearing a piece of mandatory protective equipment.

Secondly, there is a legal concept called "assumed risk". That means that what you're doing is dangerous, and you understand that it's dangerous. While that never trumps gross negligence, an assertion that reasonable steps to mitigate the risk should result in a claim that wouldn't normally be possible (absent gross negligence) doesn't seem logical or likely to help advance a lawsuit.

People are rightfully fearful of being sued, but sometimes, that fear trumps common sense. Consult a tort attorney for an opinion, and have a solid insurance policy. If the league does get sued, the insurance company defends you.

First off, I'd like to know what actual examples exist in tort law of someone suing because they were not hurt as badly as they might otherwise have been because they were wearing a piece of mandatory protective equipment.

Click to expand...

Being mandatory is not the issue. Mandatory equipment like football helmets, bats, batting helmets, batting helmet facemasks have all been tested in a laboratory and certified by the lab as meeting the safety criteria for the sport. I know it's NOCASE for the batting helmets and masks. Not sure about football. As far as I know there is no certified standard for fielder's facemasks. If there was a safety standard out there for fielder's facemasks the sanctioning bodies would be all over it.

As you stated, most leagues have insurance to cover themselves. However, I can see the insurance company denying to cover an injury if a player was wearing a league mandated piece of equipment that was not certified as being safe. The whole issue revolves around a safety certification for the masks.

Until that happens, the best common sense alternative to the issue is for parents to mandate their child wear a fielder's mask. I know as a coach I tell my families wearing a mask is optional. I highly recommend it for pitchers and corners. Each family needs to do their own research on them and make the decision as a family.

Right now I don't think anyone wants to be the incident that turns into case law. That's usually a risky, lengthy and expensive proposition. The leagues need to contact their insurer and ask them about facemasks and get a response in writing about coverage.

MNDad said:

Why just the pitcher? Young Rec girls are more likely to get hit by a thrown ball.

Click to expand...

IMHO , a softly thrown ball to the grill is not a realistic risk of catastrophic facial injury like a line drive is.

So basically the objections stem from some fig leaf of supposed protection that NOCSAE certification brings? As if a lawyer cant get through that in about 9 seconds. When was the last time all your league's helmets were inspected for hair line cracks bends to masks, bad foam, etc... I can tell you... never. I guarantee that NOCSAE standards do nothing if a lawyer really wants into your guts.

Do any of you HONESTLY think the rip it or gameface arent better than nothing? As far as being naive, I dont think so, I understand that there is some far off conceptual risk to me as a league officer, but I think that is out weighed by the gain in safety, and I doubt any of you really disagree with that...

Again, you want to require face masks for safety reasons when they aren't certified by the testing labs (NOCSAE). It's at this point where you and the voting board will assume liability if something happens while wearing the mask. It does not matter what anybody thinks about them being safer.

smddad said:

Again, you want to require face masks for safety reasons when they aren't certified by the testing labs (NOCSAE). It's at this point where you and the voting board will assume liability if something happens while wearing the mask. It does not matter what anybody thinks about them being safer.

Click to expand...

I looked into this in the past. This quote basically shows why NOCSAE currently will not address standalone fielders mask:

"We talked to (NOCSAE) a number of times and the reason there is not a standard for the standalone mask is that while the mask provides some protection, the lower part of the face and the side of the face are still not protected, based on their testing. We’ve looked at a couple of masks and done some tests on them, and we saw that they did not fully protect the players.”

Now because of this NFHS and most states have not mandated use of masks, and leave it up to individual schools and players.

That said, your exposure risk is still very, very low. There are no known cases at this time - and the masks have been around a decent amount of time. And it is every bit as possible that someone decides to sue BECAUSE you didn't mandate it - people can sue for anything and either scenario is not 100% avoidable even though either case would be extremely difficult for a complainant to win. Even then, for a case to happen, it would be the responsibility of the complainant to show that the fielding mask in someway made the injury worse or caused it in some way. And they would be up against a long line of players and parents that the manufacturer will be able to parade out who have escaped serious injury due to wearing the mask.

There is also precedent for non-NOSCAE safety equipment being mandated - cups for boys sports, football pads, hockey pads, non-soccer shin guards, etc, etc - NOSCAE is heavily helmet focused.
NOSCAE only looks at about 6 sports as well - so there are lots and lots of sports not being covered at all who mandate lots of differing types of safety equipment be used.

Personally... my DD has had several thousands of dollars of dental work done. She wears a mask when she pitches or plays infield. I respect the choice of those that choose otherwise even if I don't personally agree with their choice.

smddad said:

Again, you want to require face masks for safety reasons when they aren't certified by the testing labs (NOCSAE). It's at this point where you and the voting board will assume liability if something happens while wearing the mask. It does not matter what anybody thinks about them being safer.

Click to expand...

Again, I will ask, what does NOCSAE certification supposedly get me for liability coverage. As was mentioned below, there are MANY other safety gear items that are required, cups are a great example, that arent NOCSAE certified... or any other certification body... Does Nocsae guarantee me something if I get sued? A jury will say OH, he only mandated NOCSAE equipment.... case dismissed?

And if the post below discussing the areas NOCSAE certifies not applying to the masks at all due to them not covering side of head etc... are true, than it is all moot...

Carsonsig said:

Again, I will ask, what does NOCSAE certification supposedly get me for liability coverage. As was mentioned below, there are MANY other safety gear items that are required, cups are a great example, that arent NOCSAE certified... or any other certification body... Does Nocsae guarantee me something if I get sued? A jury will say OH, he only mandated NOCSAE equipment.... case dismissed?

And if the post below discussing the areas NOCSAE certifies not applying to the masks at all due to them not covering side of head etc... are true, than it is all moot...

Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious that you had already made up your mind before you posted. So what is the purpose of this post? It is looking much more like trolling than seeking insight as you claimed.

DD has always worn a face mask so any new rule will not effect us.

I have no problem with a leaque mandating any equipment for any position as long as it is stated up frount before some one signs up.

If you want to require cleats, shin guards, whatever have at it as far as I am concerned.

I do like you are going to go the extra mile and provide each Team a mask.

quincy said:

...I do like you are going to go the extra mile and provide each Team a mask.

Click to expand...

Would you really let your DD to share a mask with another player?