It's time to quit complaining and to do something about it

[coachjwb]

Thanks to all for the continued energy on this subject. I know that we all don't agree on whether facemasks should be mandatory, but that we all agree that we don't want to see our daughters, granddaughters, players or anyone for that matter to be seriously hurt playing this game we love.

As most of you know, we formed a team of 8 around this subject and we have been very busy since our first meeting last Wednesday. Our next meeting will be this Thursday and I am already anxious to hear everyone's updates and ideas. One of the things we decided we needed to do is to come up with a team name and, after much debate, we came up with one that I think is perfect ... SMART. Smart stands for "Softball Mask Awareness and Rules Team". We agreed that awareness and education are critical and probably where we can potentially have the most impact, especially in the short run. While we believe that rules should be changed, we recognize that will be an uphill battle, and we can't depend or wait on that. But we think it's "smart" to wear facemasks, and so the name/acronym is appropriate.

Expect to see very soon a SMART Facebook page, and hear about some of the activities we plan to do to raise awareness. We will announce once that page is up, and hope we will get a lot of likes, as well as potentially more of you to help with the cause. By the way, here's an excellent story or video on the subject if you haven't seen it already ... http://bit.ly/1sMOQl9

Thanks again to everyone on the team, but to all of the excellent debate, input and support from many of you, and look for more updates and ways you can help in the near future!

The SMART team ... Mark Haley, Dan Masiello, Jennifer Justice-Carter, Scott Kanipes, Chris Zaker, Jeff Hill, Tom Harley and Jeff Baker

 

[cz fastpitch fan]

The SMART Facebook page has come to life. We have a LOT more work to do...we need to upload links, videos, pictures, stories, statistics from health officials, movements made by high school coaches to require their infielders to wear masks, etc.
www.facebook.com/pleasewearamask.
We are asking all supporters of this cause to like the page and share it. We can work together to prevent these injuries from occurring.
If we only stop one, then our efforts have paid off. We want to prevent as many as possible! We need stories, pictures, links to videos, etc. Go to our Facebook page & it will tell you how to get these to us.

Thank you for your help!

SMART

 

[coachjwb]

Great job putting this together for us, Chris! Would also like to encourage others to like and more importantly share.

 

[DanMaz]

looks great Chris! It will only get better and better as time goes by...........


WEAR IT AND BE PROUD!!!
IT'S YOUR CHOICE!!!
IT'S YOUR LIFE!!!

 

[Pacerdad57]

Nice page Chris!

 

[El Spizo]

Of course, i will answer it, lol.

I don't think anyone debates that sanctioning bodies have a right to make safety rules, it's just a matter of how far they should take them. Batting helmets, catcher masks and goalie masks are all obvious necessities. I don't think the same holds for fielder's masks.

The question could be asked of mandatory mask supporters whether they would support the mandatory wearing of every possible device to maximize safety in the game? Should heart guards be mandatory? Should we make it mandatory that all fencing is padded? It's all a matter of how far we want to take things.

My first post, so I want to make sure I let you know there is no direct or indirect or implied disrespect in my words, simply counter pointing the post and continuing the conversation.

Ill be honest with you, I think that this already isn't mandated is absolutely nuts and irresponsible.

My my daughter has worn a mask, 8u, since her second practice ever (once I learned they existed in the first practice). It wasn't even a question really. I never even thought "should I let her play without it" but my thought was "why aren't these things mandatory"

She did say to me "I don't want this thing, it's going to annoy me" but once I adjusted it to fit, she loves it and won't even play catch in the backyard without it.

To her it's as much a part of what she needs as her glove.

To me, any argument of "it hinders your game" is complete nonsense on the level of "what the hell are we/ were we thinking" the same as 10 years ago in football when "you just got your bell rung" meant you needed to "play through it, tough it out" and not "sit and rest and get checked for a concussion" as we know today.


Ill ill tell you this, the first coach to tell her to take it off will have one less girl on her team. The first time she tells me "I don't want to wear it" is when I tell her saying that means "I don't want to play softball"

This isn't a "what if" scenario. We aren't being overprotective. Shots to the face happen. The same reason we make them wear a helmet and mask while they are base runners should make the logic that maybe we need to protect the girl the ball is being thrown to the same as the girl the ball might accidentally hit.

i know there's the logic that "base runners aren't watching the ball but the fielder is... I think it's pretty clear from the instances of line drives to the face that even if you're watching the ball, the reaction time to get your glove to your face is just not reality.

Coach and player arguments about it fall on deaf ears to me. Frankly, I don't give a flying crap about any amount of extra outs or runs saved if the trade off is safety of the player.

Id personally argue the confidence it gives the players result in better play anyhow. I also don't get the argument because frankly losing a starter at pitcher or infield to a shot to the face is going to cost you more outs than any mask.

----


As for mandating heart guards... Well, I just simply don't know enough about the subject.

 

[cobb_of_fury]

My first post, so I want to make sure I let you know there is no direct or indirect or implied disrespect in my words, simply counter pointing the post and continuing the conversation.

Ill be honest with you, I think that this already isn't mandated is absolutely nuts and irresponsible.

My my daughter has worn a mask, 8u, since her second practice ever (once I learned they existed in the first practice). It wasn't even a question really. I never even thought "should I let her play without it" but my thought was "why aren't these things mandatory"

She did say to me "I don't want this thing, it's going to annoy me" but once I adjusted it to fit, she loves it and won't even play catch in the backyard without it.

To her it's as much a part of what she needs as her glove.

To me, any argument of "it hinders your game" is complete nonsense on the level of "what the hell are we/ were we thinking" the same as 10 years ago in football when "you just got your bell rung" meant you needed to "play through it, tough it out" and not "sit and rest and get checked for a concussion" as we know today.


Ill ill tell you this, the first coach to tell her to take it off will have one less girl on her team. The first time she tells me "I don't want to wear it" is when I tell her saying that means "I don't want to play softball"

This isn't a "what if" scenario. We aren't being overprotective. Shots to the face happen. The same reason we make them wear a helmet and mask while they are base runners should make the logic that maybe we need to protect the girl the ball is being thrown to the same as the girl the ball might accidentally hit.

i know there's the logic that "base runners aren't watching the ball but the fielder is... I think it's pretty clear from the instances of line drives to the face that even if you're watching the ball, the reaction time to get your glove to your face is just not reality.

Coach and player arguments about it fall on deaf ears to me. Frankly, I don't give a flying crap about any amount of extra outs or runs saved if the trade off is safety of the player.

Id personally argue the confidence it gives the players result in better play anyhow. I also don't get the argument because frankly losing a starter at pitcher or infield to a shot to the face is going to cost you more outs than any mask.

----


As for mandating heart guards... Well, I just simply don't know enough about the subject.

Spizo - Great job on the first post - Heres to many more - Enjoy!

 

[cobb_of_fury]

Rickey - can you consult the record books ?
I belive this Thread may be approaching a record...

I believe the previous Record holder for most Replys/Views was on Facemasks as well - (Though that may have been before the crash - Do the pre crash records still count?)

Post On -

 

[JoeA1010]

With the posts about the likelihood of a successful lawsuit above, yes, I will be my house against yours on the result of such a lawsuit. It's not even close.

With El Spizo's post above, I'm not sure what in that post contradicts mine, other than we disagree on whether it should be mandatory.

 

[coachjwb]

Joe ... I know you know the law more than most of us combined, but in the situation outlined where a coach didn't allow the mask and there ended up being a serious injury or worse yet death ... if a case like that somehow ended up in front of a jury in this day and age, I have to think there would at least be a risk of the coach/school/travel org/sanctioning body being held liable. Or are you saying that a case like that couldn't end up in front of a jury?

As you know, I am passionate and biased about the subject but, even if I wasn't, just trying to understand better why there couldn't be a successful lawsuit ...

 

[El Spizo]

Joe ... I know you know the law more than most of us combined, but in the situation outlined where a coach didn't allow the mask and there ended up being a serious injury or worse yet death ... if a case like that somehow ended up in front of a jury in this day and age, I have to think there would at least be a risk of the coach/school/travel org/sanctioning body being held liable. Or are you saying that a case like that couldn't end up in front of a jury?

As you know, I am passionate and biased about the subject but, even if I wasn't, just trying to understand better why there couldn't be a successful lawsuit ...

99% of this board will know far more about softball than me, however I'm very confident in my knowledge of law.

In the situation described, the coach is 100% exposed and it the likelihood of a successful defense would all but require the plaintiff or their lawyer to hop up on the bench and take a dump on the judge's gavel.

it wouldn't even require an injury.

Player wants to wear a mask and shows they were willing and able to wear the mask and possess the safety equipment in question (or it's reasonable to believe they would have obtained it otherwise), Coach will not allow it. (the only possible defense would be the league/gov. Body forbids their use, in which case you'd be suing them)( I am also unaware than any governing body prohibits them)

Then all you need is damages. This doesn't need to be a physical injury. It's possible even without an event a player who regularly used a mask before becomes overwhelmed with fear without it the act of playing the game is emotional or psychologically damaging.

Believe it or not, that's actionable. It's a stretch and would place a huge burden to prove, but I wouldn't open myself up to that liability and cost of defense. Btw, No it would not meet the burden of frivolous so you'd be paying for your defense.

(BTW, the above could also occur in the event of another player getting hit in the face)

With that out of the way, let's say an event does occur.

Player gets hit in the face, no mask because coach told her no.... Essentially even the dumbest lawyer could win that one. "Despite there being nothing in the rules disallowing it, contrarily the rules state any player may choose to wear this additional piece of safety equipment; the defendant gave compelling instruction to the plaintiff that she was not to wear the device, against her wish to have the added protection. Furthermore, had the plaintiff been wearing the device the injuries (list of injuries) could have been reduced or prevented altogether."

Defense? None. Good luck finding an expert or a study that says these devices don't reduce injuries. I also don't believe there is a judge or jury who would accept "I was worried it would make her not play as well" as a defense for a coach against an injured softball player. Fat chance, you'd be lucky if that doesn't double the punitive damages.

Lets just say that while I am not a lawyer, as I was getting my MBA I took courses in contract, tort/negligence, and liability (law) and not one bit, not one sentence, not one word of that education lead me to any conclusion that a coach telling their player not to wear a protective device that's within the rules and that the player willing chooses to want to wear is not opening themselves and probably their league/association to a huge, easily won, liability.

Furthermore, now that at least one association of some esteem has mandated their use and there has been more than adequate publication of the policy, I'd advise any association if they were my client (I do business/management consulting from time to time) to enact this requirement immediately or at least a policy encouraging their use immediately with a set date for them to be required. Otherwise I believe if an injury occurs, they would have a case against the association for negligence.

 

[coachjwb]

I'm on the same side as you, El Spizo, but I think it's rare that a coach will outright forbid a player to wear one. When I have heard issues, it's more like they just won't recruit or play players who wear them, or will make comments to them about being afraid, etc.

 

[El Spizo]

I'm on the same side as you, El Spizo, but I think it's rare that a coach will outright forbid a player to wear one. When I have heard issues, it's more like they just won't recruit or play players who wear them, or will make comments to them about being afraid, etc.

I prefer this. It would give me a good indicator of who I want nowhere near my kid with a shirt that says coach.

 

[JoeA1010]

99% of this board will know far more about softball than me, however I'm very confident in my knowledge of law.

In the situation described, the coach is 100% exposed and it the likelihood of a successful defense would all but require the plaintiff or their lawyer to hop up on the bench and take a dump on the judge's gavel.

it wouldn't even require an injury.

Player wants to wear a mask and shows they were willing and able to wear the mask and possess the safety equipment in question (or it's reasonable to believe they would have obtained it otherwise), Coach will not allow it. (the only possible defense would be the league/gov. Body forbids their use, in which case you'd be suing them)( I am also unaware than any governing body prohibits them)

Then all you need is damages. This doesn't need to be a physical injury. It's possible even without an event a player who regularly used a mask before becomes overwhelmed with fear without it the act of playing the game is emotional or psychologically damaging.

Believe it or not, that's actionable. It's a stretch and would place a huge burden to prove, but I wouldn't open myself up to that liability and cost of defense. Btw, No it would not meet the burden of frivolous so you'd be paying for your defense.

(BTW, the above could also occur in the event of another player getting hit in the face)

With that out of the way, let's say an event does occur.

Player gets hit in the face, no mask because coach told her no.... Essentially even the dumbest lawyer could win that one. "Despite there being nothing in the rules disallowing it, contrarily the rules state any player may choose to wear this additional piece of safety equipment; the defendant gave compelling instruction to the plaintiff that she was not to wear the device, against her wish to have the added protection. Furthermore, had the plaintiff been wearing the device the injuries (list of injuries) could have been reduced or prevented altogether."

Defense? None. Good luck finding an expert or a study that says these devices don't reduce injuries. I also don't believe there is a judge or jury who would accept "I was worried it would make her not play as well" as a defense for a coach against an injured softball player. Fat chance, you'd be lucky if that doesn't double the punitive damages.

Lets just say that while I am not a lawyer, as I was getting my MBA I took courses in contract, tort/negligence, and liability (law) and not one bit, not one sentence, not one word of that education lead me to any conclusion that a coach telling their player not to wear a protective device that's within the rules and that the player willing chooses to want to wear is not opening themselves and probably their league/association to a huge, easily won, liability.

Furthermore, now that at least one association of some esteem has mandated their use and there has been more than adequate publication of the policy, I'd advise any association if they were my client (I do business/management consulting from time to time) to enact this requirement immediately or at least a policy encouraging their use immediately with a set date for them to be required. Otherwise I believe if an injury occurs, they would have a case against the association for negligence.

Here is a question. Do you believe a coach can be successfully sued if his/her player gets hit in the face while not wearing a mask, even if the coach has no policy either way on masks? If the answer is no, then you are saying the action of a coach to not permit a mask is the deciding factor in a successful lawsuit. Assuming the player is under 18, we know the minor cannot sign away her right to a lawsuit. Therefore, we can't say that a player assumes the risk of not wearing a mask, as she is not old enough to be held to that legal standard.

If a minor cannot assume the risk, then she would potentially have a valid lawsuit whether a coach allows or does not allow a mask. If it is reasonably foreseeable that a player will get hit in the face with a batted ball and that this is not a generally accepted risk of the game, then it would become the coach's obligation to require a mask for all corners and pitchers, and maybe middle infielders. A coach's decision to not allow masks does not increase the odds of a given unmasked player getting hit in the face. To say that a coach would be liable because he refused to allow a minor to wear a mask is equivalent to holding a coach liable for allowing any minor to play those positions without a mask because a coach has the legal responsibility to properly equip his players, and minors cannot waive the coach's obligation.

The fact that masks are not mandatory, or at least not universally used, is what the case will turn on. I suppose at 10-U and 12-U masks might be almost universally used at this point, so such a case at this age level would stand a much better chance. But at the older levels, no coach is going to be held negligent for not allowing an equipment device that no sanctioning body believes is necessary.

 

[El Spizo]

Here is a question. Do you believe a coach can be successfully sued if his/her player gets hit in the face while not wearing a mask, even if the coach has no policy either way on masks? If the answer is no, then you are saying the action of a coach to not permit a mask is the deciding factor in a successful lawsuit. Assuming the player is under 18, we know the minor cannot sign away her right to a lawsuit. Therefore, we can't say that a player assumes the risk of not wearing a mask, as she is not old enough to be held to that legal standard.

If a minor cannot assume the risk, then she would potentially have a valid lawsuit whether a coach allows or does not allow a mask. If it is reasonably foreseeable that a player will get hit in the face with a batted ball and that this is not a generally accepted risk of the game, then it would become the coach's obligation to require a mask for all corners and pitchers, and maybe middle infielders. A coach's decision to not allow masks does not increase the odds of a given unmasked player getting hit in the face. To say that a coach would be liable because he refused to allow a minor to wear a mask is equivalent to holding a coach liable for allowing any minor to play those positions without a mask because a coach has the legal responsibility to properly equip his players, and minors cannot waive the coach's obligation.

The fact that masks are not mandatory, or at least not universally used, is what the case will turn on. I suppose at 10-U and 12-U masks might be almost universally used at this point, so such a case at this age level would stand a much better chance. But at the older levels, no coach is going to be held negligent for not allowing an equipment device that no sanctioning body believes is necessary.

Mind you again, I'm not a lawyer. But as a management professional/consultant the area of law I'm educated in and experienced with is mitigating risk. (Risk in this case being liability)

fortunately the the courts for liability like this are not the legalese, technicality riddled system we see in contract law cases and Supreme Court decisions.

For the most part, you should rely on the "reasonable person standard" that the courts tend to use in cases like this.

to understand this, the question asked is "given xxxx would a reasonable person conclude xxxx"

I.E. Given the league allows for these masks to be used, given these injuries do occur, given while devastating at the time, these instances are rare and generally have a good prognosis for a speedy full recovery... Would a reasonable person conclude that a coach should have gone above league guidance and mandated every player wear a mask (also given that traditionally these players do not)?

Right now, the answer will most likely be NO.

This is where it gets all lawyerie. It would be the suing lawyer's job to frame the context to make the answer yes.

How could they do that? Well, for your typical every day volunteer dad of kid on the team coach... Very difficult. However, if coach also happens to be a doctor and they can show he/she should have and likely is aware of the danger, maybe

Again, a reasonable person would believe. If your coach was a sports medicine professional and had knowledge of injuries like this... A reasonable person could very well say that coach knew it was a risk and should have made an effort to get them to wear the safety device.

However right there you discover the white knight to shield you: impress upon the girls and parents that these devices should be used and even while these devices are not mandatory and a coach probably isn't within his rights to mandate they wear them, that they prefer they wear them and they are for safety.

me personally, I put it in writing and hand it out to the parents. I'd even ask the league to allow me to have parents sign that they understand the masks are not mandatory but highly recommended to prevent/lessen the severity of injuries. So I have it on file.

remeber the reasonable person. Given the coach expressed how important he/she believes it is to wear them, has a paper he gave to players and parents/guardians, and if allowed has a signed copy that the parents received, read, and undertstand the recommendation... Would a reasonable person believe it's the coach's fault the player did not wear a mask and suffered injury as a result.

it sounds like a lot, but it's far less annoying that defending a lawsuit.





reality is, most parents are not going to sue a coach. Even if you have litigious parents, they are going to go after the league. It's difficult to hold a coach, who was performing his assigned duties as described and wasn't acting outside of the scope of his duties, to be personally liable.

Again, as a coach you should have the interest of your girls safety first. As a parent of a player, we are trusting you to do that, wether we are yelling "win win win" at the time or not.

Remember, despite how intense the parent is, when you call them or approach them about an injury in a game, very very few want to know the score of the game before you tell them about the injury to their kid.

 

[El Spizo]

Here is a question. Do you believe a coach can be successfully sued if his/her player gets hit in the face while not wearing a mask, even if the coach has no policy either way on masks? If the answer is no, then you are saying the action of a coach to not permit a mask is the deciding factor in a successful lawsuit. Assuming the player is under 18, we know the minor cannot sign away her right to a lawsuit. Therefore, we can't say that a player assumes the risk of not wearing a mask, as she is not old enough to be held to that legal standard.

If a minor cannot assume the risk, then she would potentially have a valid lawsuit whether a coach allows or does not allow a mask. If it is reasonably foreseeable that a player will get hit in the face with a batted ball and that this is not a generally accepted risk of the game, then it would become the coach's obligation to require a mask for all corners and pitchers, and maybe middle infielders. A coach's decision to not allow masks does not increase the odds of a given unmasked player getting hit in the face. To say that a coach would be liable because he refused to allow a minor to wear a mask is equivalent to holding a coach liable for allowing any minor to play those positions without a mask because a coach has the legal responsibility to properly equip his players, and minors cannot waive the coach's obligation.

The fact that masks are not mandatory, or at least not universally used, is what the case will turn on. I suppose at 10-U and 12-U masks might be almost universally used at this point, so such a case at this age level would stand a much better chance. But at the older levels, no coach is going to be held negligent for not allowing an equipment device that no sanctioning body believes is necessary.

Btw, to address a couple of points I missed in my reply

1. Yes, the kids are minors but their parents/guardians are not. The parents would sue on behalf of the kid and are liable for the kid as well. The line from coach to parent is where it stops being a generally known risk (I.e. When you stand in front of someone with a club smacking a ball thrown at them, you may get hit)(parent) to expect to be known by those who hold your title (I.e. You'd expect a coach to know face masks for fielders exist and that they reduce injuries from fielders getting struck in the face).

Which is is why I suggest leagues AND coaches make a disclaimer of sorts to let parents know the risk and that masks can reduce that risk and highly recommend their use.




i don't believe it's yet to the point that "you didn't mandate it, so you're liable" but I'd highly suggest mandating sooner than later because it's trending that way. (I.e. A hockey coach in the 60s saying "wear a helmet/mask or not it's your choice but I recommend a helmet/mask was passable, imagine a coach today giving a hockey player the option then a head injury happens? Dead in the water today)

I'd error on the side of caution both health and legal. I mean, what's easier to get over... Losing an out, or losing an eye?

 

[El Spizo]

Not sure if taboo or not, but I'll let these two videos make the point.

Thankfully, as I made sure, both girls ended up being fine... One apparently recovered quicker than the other.

With mask

[video=youtube_share;7Ghy_zaUK58]http://youtu.be/7Ghy_zaUK58[/video]

 

[El Spizo]

without

[video=youtube_share;nyW_xP7Pk9Y]http://youtu.be/nyW_xP7Pk9Y[/video]

sorry to make the point so hard, but it should make clear the argument that gameplay is affected negatively by wearing is bunk. I mean, I've heard you can't find the ball as well with a mask on, but girl in the first video takes a ball to the mask, finds the ball, throws it to first, and makes apparently a close play (sounds like she was safe, but close) to first and visibly shows no ill effect of any part of it. (Although I'm sure coach probably jogged out there to check on her... I mean, right?)

Not sure how you make the argument against masks.

Again, both girls are fine now.

 

[Slugger]

coachjwb - I bet you didn’t think this would turn in to this. Lol I have a hard time with the rules of the game, let alone bring the law on to this form.

 

[coachjwb]

Yeah, I mean it's all interesting and somewhat relevant, but our team's approach is not to really address the legalities, and I'm just not a litigious person anyhow. We want to educate and we do want to address the rules, but we certainly don't want to encourage lawsuits. We'd rather things change before it either gets to that point because someone else has been critically or even fatally injured. I respect Coach Joe more than any college coach I've ever met, he's an accomplished lawyer, and he also has no issues recruiting or playing players with masks. I really wish all of the legal debate would go away ... I personally don't think that's the best way to get things changed.