Player Safety

[default]

MANDANTORY: I have one real problem with this. My friend in high school , thought the same thing. Rode his cycle without a helment. When he flipped at about 60 mph and his head was under the cycle till it stopped, brain damage . Now he couldn't take care of himself. His parents couldn't pay all the costs, so we ( Tax payers) now pick up the bill in the nursing home. I suggest anyone that wants to argue against mandantory safety such as seat belts, spend a day in a Nursing Home. I have and when you see young kids that have been injured that could have been prevented, you might change your mind. Game Face , or other safety investments, that a young kid has no idea what it like to spend the next 60 plus years in a wheel chair . We as adults need to help them make the right choices.

 

[default]

I see both sides of the mandatory measures. But since we, the general softball public, aren't getting anywhere with this subject, other than to debate it to death, I can't see any other way to make something happen. The govt, NSA, ASA, Pony, USSA, schools, etc are going to have to step in sooner or later and make something mandatory or nothing will get done at all.

Its a good point with the bases. I'm not really for moving the bases back as much as I am for the mound. Mainly because it would make them longer than the college level. And I surely wouldn't want the bases moved back unless the mound was moved back also. As long as something gets done to move in the direction of making it safer. Our 12u team, 3 of the pitchers decided on their own to start wearing the masks. The other 2 I'm going to strongly suggest, not mandate, that they wear them also. One of the pitchers plays 3rd when not pitching usually, so I'm sure she just wear it there also. Anyone else who plays the corners will be asked to wear them also. If their parents are that against it though there isn't much I can do. Not like I'm not going to let them play because of it. Alot of schools here in PA are making them mandatory now. Its gotten alot of press in the last week because of the 2 latest incidents.

Though, as I've mentioned before, from a different point of view, while moving the mound back will slightly increase safety, it will also open up the game to be less pitcher dominated. Now some would say they don't want that. Well then maybe consider moving the bases back also. As for the 95% of runners being average speed, isn't that what makes the other 5% above average speed? In other words, 5% being noticably faster than the other 95% sounds about right to me. It would be all equal in the end. Runners have 5 more feet to run to a base, but fielder has 5 more feet of infield to cover, run to cover a base, and a longer throw to a base. Catchers have longer throw for steals and pickoffs. Its all relative. I don't think it would help the faster players at all or hurt the slower players at all.
Though, as I said, I'm not so much for the moving of the bases back. I'd rather see the mound moved back. Just make the game the same as International Softball and the Collegiate level has decided to make it. Why are so many against their implied recommendations for how the game is played?

Fast Pitch Baselines
60 feet
Slow Pitch Baselines
65 feet or 70 feet or more depending on the association and level of play

Fast pitch pitching dimensions
College and Adult
Female - 43 feet
Male - 46 feet

Under 18
Female - 40 feet
Male - 46 feet

Under 15
Female - 40 feet
Male -46 feet

Notice the men at 46 feet from 15u and above? Why is the distance the same for them from 15u and up but for the girls it only hits 43 feet at the 18u, college and national team level? Isn't it all relative for male/female and age? The men are stronger so thats already factored in being that they're 3 feet further. But then theres a 6 foot difference at 15u? What sense does that make? A 14/15 year old girl surely can pitch a ball 43 feet as their male counterparts can throw one at 46 feet.

Also, notice the slow pitch base distances. The fielders and runners have to deal with that extra 5 feet there. Yeah, no stealing and bunting/slapping,but everything else is the same as far as beating out hits and extra base hits. Yes I know slowpitch shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with fastpitch.

To me these changes would make the game more exciting. Games where pitchers strikeout 15 a game should be less rare.

Yes, I know I am spending way too much time on here posting, and I am way too verbose. Someone start another topic, please.

 

[default]

I agree with SBFAMILY?.visit the nursing homes, visit the hospitals, it is interesting what some people choose over what I consider common sense?.please I do not mean to disrespect anyone or their rights to choose what is best or feel what is best for their children or themselves.

I have seen first hand what helmets can do to prevent head injury, so if you choose not to wear one I should be able to choose not to pay for your right to choose not to wear it. That seems fair to me however where does it stop and common sense prevail and at what costs are our freedoms being eroded?

At the WSU coaches clinic the issue of catchers throwing off the helmet was brought up. The coach responded they never take their helmet off for any reason?.they will get use to it over time. He went on to say the helmet MUST be adjusted correctly however so it moves with the head as a unit.

The game face mask I think falls into the same thing?fitted properly and given time fielding grounders etc it should become second nature.

Base your considerations on your child?s athleticism?who knows them better than you the parent any way.

Just a thought?

Howard

 

[default]

KRM0503: Sent you a PM. After you read my Pm, go to the JV high school scores and follow the amount of runs being scored over the next week. . When we discussed the 43 last year, many from the travel teams had no idea what was going on at the high school level. I bet your 12U pitchers are better than most JV pitchers we face. Your problem will be at the high school level.

 

[default]

Pitching from 43 ft. at younger ages and in high school will only make the bats stronger as it hinders the pitcher.

 

[default]

If I calculated this right... here is the reaction time based on the speed of the ball off the bat.. (this looks like it formatted ugly). Anyway.. I am not sure if you are talking about that much time between 40 feet and 43 feet.

A ball that comes off the bat at 98.2 miles / hour will reach the pitcher in .28 seconds at 40 feet away. It will reach the pitcher in .30 seconds at 43 feet. Is .02 seconds going to make a difference.

The other question (changing bat and ball compression).

If I understand correctly. ASA sets max speed off the bat at 98.2 miles per hour. If we change the bat / ball compression. What is our goal? What do we decide is a fair reaction time for the pitcher.

Let's say that we determine that a fair reaction time is 1/2 a second (.5 second). If that is a "safe" reaction time for our pitchers. Then a ball would have to come off the bat at 54.2 miles / hour (slower than most older girls pitch).

I think that realistically there is very minimal change we can make to the equipment and or field dimensions that will increase the safety of the girls.

The only real safe steps (if you are committed to change) is to move towards safety equipment.

I know some people are saying - we should use wooden bats. How much of a difference is it really going to make? Instead of coming off the bat at 98.2 miles per hour it comes off at what... 88 miles per hour. Now it gets back to the pitcher in .31 seconds vs .28 seconds. Will .03 seconds really make that much of a difference? Mayyyyybbbbbeeeee... in one rare instance... but in way toooooooo many instances it won't make any difference.

Just my opinion... since no one else listens to me... you probably shouldn't either... ;D

Ball Velocity off bat (mile/hour) Feet / Mile seconds / hour Rubber 40 Feet (secs) Rubber 43 Feet (secs)
98.2 5280 3600 0.28 0.30
94.2 5280 3600 0.29 0.31
90.2 5280 3600 0.30 0.33
86.2 5280 3600 0.32 0.34
82.2 5280 3600 0.33 0.36
78.2 5280 3600 0.35 0.37
74.2 5280 3600 0.37 0.40
70.2 5280 3600 0.39 0.42
66.2 5280 3600 0.41 0.44
62.2 5280 3600 0.44 0.47
58.2 5280 3600 0.47 0.50
54.2 5280 3600 0.50 0.54

 

[default]

to me, the .02 does make a difference since we're talking barely over a quarter of a second to begin with. This is one article that mapped it out pretty good.

http://www.girls-softball.com/2007_01_28_archive.html

Plus, my point all along isn't that moving the mound back to 43 feet would totally solve all issues of pitchers getting hit. It was that it would help and since 43 feet is where the upper levels pitch from why not make the move. And at least it would be something instead of the nothing being done currently to address pitcher safety issues.

Though sbfamily did point something out to me. Some HS pitchers, non travel level, may have issues with 43 feet. I'm always looking at things from the travel level and assuming that pitchers on this level would not have a problem from 43 feet if they can do 40 feet now. It was a good point.

 

[default]

One thing to consider... what exactly is .02 seconds...

I think Hitter can confirm this... I think he said this before. Jenny Finch from the K position (12 o'clock) to release (6 o'clock) is .20 seconds.

So .02 seconds as compared to .20 seconds (Jenny Finch's pitching) is 1/10th the time.

So that means (assuming her arm is not accellerating from K position to release) that her arm would move from the 12:00 position to to the 12:03 position in .02 seconds. (30 minutes from 12:00 to 6:00 - 1/10 of 30 minutes is 3 minutes).

I think she is a 6 foot gal. So for all you 6 footer out there. Take your arm extended it over your head to the 12 oclock position and move it 3 minutes in the wind up. How far did you move it. Assuming a 2 foot arm span, my bet is that it moved about 7.5 inches (circumference of a circle is = 2 * radius * pi = 2 * 24 * 3.14 = 150.72 inches). She is only moving 3 minutes out of 60 minutes (a full circle here) so her arm would move 7.536 inches.

So that means that adding an additional .02 seconds to the reaction time means that a pitcher has an additional 7 inches of glove coverage - assuming that she can get her glove arm moving as fast as Jenny Finch's arm is moving when she is at the top of the K (12 o'clock).

I say that would probably be rare... so lets say that by adding .02 seconds to the reaction time of the pitcher, the pitcher can now cover 5 more inches.

So a line shot back at the face - the pitcher will be 5 inches closer to catching it.

Five inches might make a difference in a number of cases. Then again, it might not. My thought.... if you are really concerned about safety... Game face.

Again that is just me.

 

[default]

All the math makes my head spin. My dd pitches and plays 1st base and I make her wear her Game Face in both positions EVERY time or she doesn't play. But I got to thinking..... My son has played 2nd and pitches from the time he could play has been moved to 1st base for a few innings a game... He is playing JV baseball and I don't require the same for him. (he would never ever put a game face on!) But my questions is, isn't it just as dangerous for him? She is definately closer to the ball, but does it make that much difference? (Which is probably what all the math above is saying) I can't wrap my head around it though. :'(

 

[default]

bobblehead, that was an astute forensic analysis, however you only assume raw glove speed in you calculation. The delay is not in the speed of the glove. The delay is in the brain to process the information and then to send the message to the muscles to move the glove into the correct position. We are talking 20ms here. The algorithm loop in our brains do not work that fast. I think this is all a moot point anyway. The rules allow any player to wear the protective equipment they want. If the rules didn't allow game faces, then we would have a big problem.

 

[default]

I agree, the game face should definitely be used. But most pitchers do not currently wear them. And until its mandated, a ton of girls won't because they don't like them and their parents won't make them wear it. Which is their right, currently. Your post was great about the five inches. And you're probably right about the majority of the girls can't get their glove arm moving as fast as a highly conditioned, experienced pitcher like Jenny Finch. My argument for moving to 43 has always been, from a safety standpoint, that it will improve the time needed to react. Even if its slight. And since 43 is how it is on the upper levels, why won't we switch to 43 for most of the lower levels? Sbfamily did point out one reason maybe that people don't want to switch. And I kind of get it. But most people either don't give a reason why they're against it or act as if switching it to 43 would mess with the way the game is supposed to be played. And to me that doesn't make any sense since 43 is the official distance for the most recognized level of this game. If .02 is all we can gain from moving the mound to 43, is that not better than nothing? I could see if we were talking about moving it to more than 43 feet since that would be messing with the way the game is intended to be played. But we're just talking about moving to the already recognized distance of 43 feet. Gamefaces should still be used because. That's why I voted for moving it to 43 and for mandating the gamefaces. 43 feet, to me, makes it more legit, slightly more safer. Adding gamefaces take the safety factor up another notch because even at 43 feet, most girls don't have the quick reaction that a high level athlete, like Jenny Finch, has. But they really only protect your face for the most part.

The Olympic level changed mostly to spice up the offense and make the games less pitcher dominated because they realized that it was becoming less exciting to watch for all, except those involved in the sport itself. The lower levels didn't follow suit for reasons I still can't get thoroughly explained to me. I think they should've for the same reasons as the Olympic level did, but thats another argument. With the bats the way they are, and more and more girls training year round and involved in travel level ball, the result is alot more girls who can just kill the ball. With more and more pitchers getting drilled from batted balls, short of putting them out there dressed like hockey goalies, I'm just for anything that lowers the risk of a young lady getting hit, anywhere, with a batted ball.

Just because its rare doesn't mean we shoudn't do something about it. Not that most, including you bobbelhead, said we shouldn't do something, but some have. According to the poll, 27%. But people surely have right to their opinion.

I have beat this topic to death. The poll was great. I'll predict that soon gamefaces will be required for at least the pitchers in all levels.

 

[default]

But I got to thinking..... My son has played 2nd and pitches from the time he could play has been moved to 1st base for a few innings a game... He is playing JV baseball and I don't require the same for him. (he would never ever put a game face on!) But my questions is, isn't it just as dangerous for him? She is definitely closer to the ball, but does it make that much difference?

In baseball the distance between bases is 90'. The pitching mound is 60' 6". You'll rarely see a baseball player closer than 60'. It's a big difference. I had a discussion with a couple of guys at work they remember (as pitchers) taking hits off of their heads. Their words were, "I saw it coming, but I had no time to react."

 

[default]

But most people either don't give a reason why they're against it or act as if switching it to 43 would mess with the way the game is supposed to be played.

• Moving the pitcher's plate to 43' for all age groups doesn't account for the different skill levels or age groups.
• Moving the pitcher back to 43' gives the hitter more time to see the ball and hit it, thus potentially increasing the number of chances to get hit by a batted ball.
• The increased reaction time is not significant enough in terms of reaction time to really make a difference in safety. I think that 5 inches of glove movement is optimistic; at 12 o'clock "Jennie's" arm has already gained enough momentum to nearly be at full speed. What if the glove is stopped or moving away? Also don't forget that they have to see the ball coming at them before they can react to it and move their glove to where it is being hit.

 

[default]

If you read baseball 101 ,. Safety is discussed in baseball and the game face is never mentioned. It is all about changing bats. Going back to wood is the big debate. VA, looks like they are the next state to mandate a bat change.

 

[default]

sorry, but can't stop myself. Thanks for some reasons, but....

Account for the different skill levels and age groups? What specifically do we need to account for? A 14u pitcher is usually less skilled than a 16u. Yep I agree. So is the 14u batter usually less skilled than a 16u batter.

Moving to 43 surely gives the batter more time to see the ball and hit it. I agree. So does the upper levels, which is why they moved it to 43. But from a safety standpoint, while more balls will be put into play, the increased risk you're associating with it wouldn't matter. We're not trying to limit the number of balls hit at the pitcher, we're trying to make sure she's better protected when they are. For example, if you're a soldier, which situation would you rather face? One bullet fired at you without your body armor (gameface) on, or 10 bullets fired at you with your body armor (gameface) on? If you're better protected, you're safer, regardless of how many instances of harm comes your way. And thats before even factoring in the pitch took longer to reach home plate since its further away, and the batted ball took longer to get back to the pitcher because she is further away.

Not significant enough? Lets assume you're right on this one. So, only a significant change is one worth making? When you're talking about the potential serious, even life threatening, injury that can occur, why does a change have to be significant? Anything helps moreso than nothing. Always has, always will. I know the life threatening instances might never happen, but will it actually take that to happen before anything is done?

If any of my posts sound like I'm bull headed, you're right. I am. Imagine being my wife? But I do really respect that others have opinions that differ from mine. I don't mind debating them and understand that I'm not going to change many peoples opinions, if any at all. Thanks for the reasons against moving it to 43 though. At least I got some.

 

[default]

I do not understand why we need the composite bats. I understand using metal bats because of the longevity compared to wood. I think going back to the original style metals bats would be much safer and a heck of a lot cheaper as well as taking the game back to strategy ie: short game, moving runners etc. I know this opinion is not going to be popular with homerun loving parents, but it's a way to make the game safer and more interesting.

 

[default]

True, but what would rather drive? A Yugo or Ferrari. Nobody drools over a hunk of aluminum from Wal-Mart. My wallet would like it.

 

[default]

Ok out of curiousity at what age would you propose moving the mound back to 43ft? (You may have mentioned this but I don't recall)

 

[default]

Account for the different skill levels and age groups? What specifically do we need to account for? A 14u pitcher is usually less skilled than a 16u. Yep I agree. So is the 14u batter usually less skilled than a 16u batter.

What about the 10's and the 12's?

Moving to 43 surely gives the batter more time to see the ball and hit it. I agree. So does the upper levels, which is why they moved it to 43. But from a safety standpoint, while more balls will be put into play, the increased risk you're associating with it wouldn't matter. We're not trying to limit the number of balls hit at the pitcher, we're trying to make sure she's better protected when they are. For example, if you're a soldier, which situation would you rather face? One bullet fired at you without your body armor (gameface) on, or 10 bullets fired at you with your body armor (gameface) on? If you're better protected, you're safer, regardless of how many instances of harm comes your way. And thats before even factoring in the pitch took longer to reach home plate since its further away, and the batted ball took longer to get back to the pitcher because she is further away.

Now you're mixing your arguments. I've been a proponent for protective masks. I've been against just moving the pitcher's plate back and calling it a safety improvement.

So, only a significant change is one worth making?

No, I'm saying making a insignificant change for change's sake is not worth making.

If any of my posts sound like I'm bull headed, you're right. I am. Imagine being my wife? But I do really respect that others have opinions that differ from mine. I don't mind debating them and understand that I'm not going to change many peoples opinions, if any at all. Thanks for the reasons against moving it to 43 though. At least I got some.

Thats OK. You can probably guess that I'm a little stubborn myself. People have been giving you reasons all along, however, you just seem to be ignoring them.

 

[default]

definitely for 14u and above is where I'd say it could be moved to 43. ?Thought about 12u too. ?Definitely not 10u. ?I'll stick with 14u and above since its this age bracket that hits the high school ranks.

cshilt,

I was just responding to the comment about how moving the distance to 43 feet would produce more balls able to be hit which would increase the chances of the pitcher being hit. ? I was just trying to emphasize that any solution has to do with protecting the pitcher a little more when she is put in harms way, not limiting how many times she is put in harms way. ?If we protect them properly, then who cares how many balls are hit her way, she'll be able to handle it. ?If you're for the use of gamefaces then great. ?But remember thats not the end all as it does only protect your face and part of your head.

You said "The increased reaction time is not significant enough in terms of reaction time to really make a difference in safety". ? I am just saying that 5 inches of moving your glove in the way of an oncoming ball, even if thats overly optimistic, is worth gaining over doing nothing and thus gaining nothing. ?Even it it were to help in only 1 out of 100 cases, I say do it in this case because 43 feet it what it already is in College and the International level. ?So, part of the justification for moving it to 43 is to match those upper levels of the game and a byproduct of doing that is to reduce the risk of the pitcher getting drilled, however slight that may be. ?So moving it to 43 feet wouldn't just be for changes sake, even if you don't view the added distance as any form a increased safety measure. ?It would also be to mimic the distances the "big leagues" pitch from. ?That is most of my argument from my point of view on the 43 feet. ?Its already in place in this game. ?Why not follow suit and in the process gain whatever in reaction time as a byproduct of the change? ?Yeah, and of course wear the gamefaces still.

I must have missed most of the reasons you say people were giving me in their posts. ?Seriously. ?Most didn't even touch on the 43 feet issue other than to say it wouldn't make enough of a difference, if any at all. ?To me, thats not giving a reason to not move it back. ?I got one response about some, less experienced, high school pitchers maybe struggling with 43 feet since some are now struggling at 40. ?Which is valid to some extent. ?The only other reason I got for not changing it was that the batters would have more of an advantage. ?Which is true to some extent also. ?But, if the International Softball and Collegiate softball communities decided 43 feet was the best, for whatever reasons, don't you think we ought to trust their judgement? ?So, to me, if that is someones reason (the increase in offense) for not changing it to 43 feet then I can't accept that since I have to trust the people who make a living off of this game to have the proper perspective on what is best for the sport. ?So its not just my opinion in that case, its the NCAA and the Olympic level opinion also. ?We should be playing by their rules. ?They surely studied all that matters before they came to that decision to move it to 43 feet. ?In other words, its already been decided by the powers that be, that offense should be increased. I don't accept letting my playing partner use a mulligan on the golf course if we're playing for money. ?If the "real" game allowed that then fine.