Mizzou pitchers and the mask or no mask question

[jacman]

So Earleywhine thinks facemasks should be mandated by the NCAA for infileders and pitchers. Yet he does not require the use by his team? Smells like BS to me.

I'm going from memory here, because I haven't been able to find a couple of articles to verify, but at least in the game against Oregon this spring, when Lowary came back into the game after being hit, he did make her wear a mask. Don't know if he still does, or if she's doing it on her own now. I also believe I remember accurately that he wants to require his all pitchers to wear a mask, but is concerned that in the future, girls he wants to recruit that don't want to wear one will pass on the Mizzou program. (Interesting turn of affairs from the more traditional: girl who wears a mask gets passed on by a coach who doesn't like them.)

My impression over the past few years is that Earleywine is a straight shooter. He's the first of the big-time programs I'm aware of who has made such a bold statement about favoring masks, and he seemed pretty honest about how he went from not liking masks to wanting them. I'm glad he at least spoke up. Maybe he will take that last step and require the masks for his pitchers. I hope so, but I'll take his statement as a step forward for the moment.

 

[jacman]

You mean like the facemasks on batting helmets?

I wouldn't mind requiring face masks on batting helmets, but no. I was being sarcastic about why it's okay to require batter's helmet for a hitter and not a mask for a pitcher. It baffles me.

Without the sarcasm, I'm thinking along these lines: I don't see how requiring a pitcher to wear mask changes the game. A number of years ago, the NHL started requiring helmets for players. There was a lot of debate, but ultimately the helmets were required, and the game of hockey wasn't changed by it. A lot of injuries were prevented. Some years before that, goalies didn't wear a mask. Does anybody really think we should remove the rule requiring goalies to wear a mask now? This seems to me pretty much a parallel situation. I feel like we've seen enough injuries - some severe - to warrant real concern. Again, how would such a requirement change the game? The worst thing I can see possibly happening is that head and facial injuries are significantly reduced. And as a side benefit, girls who want to wear a mask aren't penalized by the coaches who refuse to see the value in it. I'm not finding anything wrong with that. Seriously, if we don't mind batting helmets or catchers gear being required, why are we so hung up on the mask issue for pitchers?

 

[slingnit]

to me it is where does it stop. Masks on pitchers, then the corners, next all infield, and so on. At what point do players or teams have to police themselves? There are no masks requirements on batting helmets and even though rare a foul back to the face could do major damage. Considering the number of pitches thrown the number of pitchers hit is a minute percentage.When the vast majority of dugouts look like this and all you can say is "pitchers need masks", your priorities are out whack. More kids hit unexpectedly while in the dugout. Or fans being hit by line drive fouls, happens all the time. Now do you want dugouts and foul netting to be reconfigured to protect the fans and players that are more likely to be hit than the pitcher?? If so who is gonna pay for it?

 

[riseball]

If the NCAA and coaches truly cared about the safety and welfare of the players they would ban all "away" games. Many more players are injured traveling to "away" games than "home" games so it only logical if we care about the welfare of players there should be no more "away" games. Only "home" games. Of course the unforeseen benefit would be no further need for fielding masks for pitchers, infielders, players in the dugout, or fans. No need for mandatory Evo shields, heart guards, etc. By only playing "home" games the sport would be much safer and there would be no need for anyone to be personal accountability for their own safety.

 

[colin]

or we could just give up the need to have so many home runs

 

[slingnit]

Exactly!! The hitting forum may disagree. Lol

 

[Yellowjacket]

I am happy when we get to the point where players are recruited if they use a mask or not. I believe we are reaching this point.

 

[Westwind]

The debate itself demonstrates that attitudes are changing. That's all I care about.

If players are truly free to choose I am good with that.

 

[riseball]

I do not see much in the way of a debate. I am unaware of any rule that has ever forbid their use and players have always had the freedom to choose. Unfortunately some find peer pressure and public opinion too great an obstacle to stand by their convictions. There seem to be two distinct groups. One that sees value and will stand by their convictions and act accordingly. A second that sees the value but lacks the conviction to act and wants some type of judgement free, safe space. Earlywine seems to be an example of the latter who talks the talk, but lacks the conviction to walk the walk.

 

[Westwind]

If debate wasn't the right word, perhaps discussion is preferable.

As of right now, I'm Sweden. Does anybody want to change the subject to something less inflammatory like abortion, whether we should water board terrorists or whether Donald or Hillary would make the best president?