Thoughts?

[knightsb]

The premise that a coach will pass on a truly gifted player that would add value to their program due to them wearing a mask is a myth.

Lets change a few words here....

The premise that an Employer will pass on a truly gifted Prospect that would add value to their Company due to their ethnicity is a myth.

You see what RB has done, if you don't get asked to join the program, it is because you were not "truly gifted", or wouldn't "add value to their program", not because there exists a prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason).

I can tell you from personal experience there are coaches, both college and TB, that view players who wear a mask weak, scared, and less skilled.

Prejudice does exist, what ever form it may take.

 

[Rocketech1]

I'd be more worried about the coach or arganization that told girls they had to wear unapproved equipment and were still injured when they got hit with a line drive. There's so many masks on the market and no standards to prove they're all actually effective it would be hard to mandate something that could possibly do more harm than good.

Masks don't do more harm than good. I agree there should be some standards in safety equipment but my DD wears a rip-it face mask and I'm very confident that if she gets a line drive to face that having worn that mask will create less injury than had she been hit without wearing a mask.

I mentioned this a few months ago but in the fall, DD was hit in the stomach by a rocket line drive and she couldn't react fast enough to get a glove on it. It was hit so hard it left the balls seam marks on her belly. Had the line drive hit her face, it would have done some serious damage. Luckily she hasn't been hit yet it the face but she has taken line drives off her legs, stomach and hand over the last 6 years she had pitched. With the hot composite bats and better conditioning and hitting training, it's likely she will be hit in the head sometime in her "career". She needs her face for the rest of her life after she hangs up the cleats. I would rather her be safe than me being sorry that I was too stubborn to make her weds a mask.

 

[MNDad]

DD wore the Rip-It too and I believe fully it offered her protection.

I'm just saying mandating unapproved equipment when there's no safety standards in place is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[Cobb_of_Fury]

Lets change a few words here....

The premise that an Employer will pass on a truly gifted Prospect that would add value to their Company due to their ethnicity is a myth.

You see what RB has done, if you don't get asked to join the program, it is because you were not "truly gifted", or wouldn't "add value to their program", not because there exists a prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason).

I can tell you from personal experience there are coaches, both college and TB, that view players who wear a mask weak, scared, and less skilled.

Prejudice does exist, what ever form it may take.

While Prejudice does exist it is the relm of Idiots - To not take the best person for a task when your job depends on you finding the best person for the task is idiotic.

 

[Strike2]

I'd be more worried about the coach or arganization that told girls they had to wear unapproved equipment and were still injured when they got hit with a line drive. There's so many masks on the market and no standards to prove they're all actually effective it would be hard to mandate something that could possibly do more harm than good.

For anyone with half a brain, it's not hard to figure out whether a mask would offer protection. Unfortunately, it's easy to find people with less than half a brain in this sport. It's certainly possible to sustain injury even if wearing a mask, but common sense says that injury will be less than if the player took the same ball to the face and wasn't wearing the mask. Some designs will undoubtedly be better than others, but it would take an exceptionally bad and unconventional design for a mask to "do more harm than good".

 

[riseball]

Lets change a few words here....

The premise that an Employer will pass on a truly gifted Prospect that would add value to their Company due to their ethnicity is a myth.

You see what RB has done, if you don't get asked to join the program, it is because you were not "truly gifted", or wouldn't "add value to their program", not because there exists a prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason).

I can tell you from personal experience there are coaches, both college and TB, that view players who wear a mask weak, scared, and less skilled.

Prejudice does exist, what ever form it may take.

Yes it certainly does. You have 2 choices: You can be a victim and use it as an excuse. Or you can deal with it, move on and be successful.

 

[Strike2]

I can tell you from personal experience there are coaches, both college and TB, that view players who wear a mask weak, scared, and less skilled.

I can tell you there are coaches, both college and TB, who are morons.

 

[riseball]

I am at a total loss how a kid who wears a mask would want to play for a coach that took issue with them. If a coach doesn't want you because you wear a mask then find one that does. Don't expect people to fix it for you.

 

[knightsb]

Yes it certainly does. You have 2 choices: You can be a victim and use it as an excuse. Or you can deal with it, move on and be successful.

You can't have it both ways, it either exists or its a myth. There exists a real prejudice in some coaches at all levels regarding players who choose to wear a mask.

The premise that a coach will pass on a truly gifted player that would add value to their program due to them wearing a mask is a myth.

For you to state that it is a myth is simply wrong.

I am at a total loss how a kid who wears a mask would want to play for a coach that took issue with them. If a coach doesn't want you because you wear a mask then find one that does. Don't expect people to fix it for you.

We have, and we don't.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

DD wore the Rip-It too and I believe fully it offered her protection.

I'm just saying mandating unapproved equipment when there's no safety standards in place is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I checked with a couple of attorney friends about this for another thread. Short answer: people can sue for anything, but they will absolutely lose in this particular type of case.

Longer answer: Basically, voluntary participation in the sport removes liability from the league and coaches. This legal interpretation is based on OH law, so YMMV in other states, but likely the rules are very similar everywhere:

From one attorney friend: "The rule is that when someone participates in a recreational sports activity, they assume the risk of suffering the injuries ordinarily associated with that sport. In order to recover, they have to prove that the defendant acted recklessly or that the injury was intentional."

and

"The Ohio Supreme Court ruled: "Whether the activity is organized, unorganized, supervised or unsupervised is immaterial to the standard of liability." (Marchetti v. Kalish (1990) 53 Ohio St. 3d 95.) In other words, there is no claim for negligent supervision. That same case referred to an Illinois case where the court specifically held that the standard is not changed, even if the source of the injury is the violation of a safety rule. (Keller By & Through Keller v. Mols (1987) 156 Ill. App. 3d 235, 237.)"

From another attorney friend: "...even if there was a lawsuit, contributory negligence was the first thing that popped into my head...So between the liability waiver and the contributory negligence, nothing to be had."