Mike Coolbaugh (Tulsa Drillers Coach) Killed By Line Drive

by Onions on Jul 23, 2007 1:44 AM EDT Comment 43 comments

Was first alerted to this in the daily Minor League thread, but wanted to post this update in it's own diary.

Only 35 years old. Very, very sad - Thoughts and prayers to his family, friends, players and especially Tino Sanchez. Tragic.

Drillers' first base coach dies after being hit by foul ball

Coolbaugh had been on team's staff a short time

By Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

The first base coach of the Tulsa Drillers died after being struck by a foul ball during a game at Dickey-Stephens Park on Sunday night, officials confirmed.

Mike Coolbaugh was hit in the side of the head during in the top of ninth inning with Drillers player Tino Sanchez at bat. Coolbaugh collapsed to the ground and lay there motionless as medical personnel and team members came to his side. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed on the field.

Coolbaugh, 35, then was transported to Baptist Health Medical Center in North Little Rock. He was pronounced dead a short time later, according to Sgt. Terry Kuykendall, spokesman for the North Little Rock Police Department.

According to the Tulsa Drillers Web site, Coolbaugh joined the team on July 3.

The game was suspended with the Arkansas Travelers leading 7-3 with no outs in the ninth inning.

Thank you for coming to the Web site of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. We're working to keep you informed with the latest breaking news.

This article was published Sunday, July 22, 2007.

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very sad!

Hello Onions,

Thanks for updating - how sad. :-(

My thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, all who knew him, and all who were there who witnessed that tragic incident, especially Tino Sanchez. I can only imagine what must be going through his mind right now.

What a tragedy all the way around.

RIP Mike Coolbaugh

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 23, 2007 1:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's horrible.

What a horrific accident... My only question is, what happened to the helmet? Or am I totally crazy in thinking that 1st/3rd base coaches are supposed to wear helmets?

by mroak89 on Jul 23, 2007 2:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure, but I don't think they wear

helmets, although if they had, Coolbaugh would probably be alive right now.

I wonder if this might make MiLB, maybe even MLB, reconsider having the 1st and 3rd-base coaches wear helmets on the field?

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 23, 2007 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They should

No reason not to after this happened. :(

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Jul 23, 2007 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers too!

Pitchers are closer than most 1B and 3B coaches, and are in a less defensive position when the ball is hit. It hasn't happened as much these last couple years that I have seen, but a few years before that there was a string of batted balls hitting pitchers in the head, the most memorable to me was when Kaz Ishii caught one straight off the noggin. There's no reason for those coaches and pitchers not to wear some sort of safety gear.

Hopefully Coolbaugh's unfortunate death will be the catalyst for change and he won't die in vain. His death can open the eyes of rule makers in baseball.

And while we're at it. Let's move cameramen farther away from the playing courts and fields in basketball and football. How many players and cameramen need to get injured by running into a camera or getting knocked over before something will be done?

"Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young and 11 Tim Lincecums." -uga007

by Boxkutter on Jul 23, 2007 5:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's horrible

Yes, and having a helmet likely would have saved his life.

But it obviously won't bring back his life now. And it happens all the time. Something completely unlikely and random one-in-a-million happens and then after-the-fact, rules get put in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. But it's so unlikely to happen again anyways, the new rules achieving little.

How many millions of balls have been hit during how many hundreds of thousands of games across the planet between whenever the last 1st or 3rd base coach got killed by a batted ball (if it's ever happened)?

If they are going to wear helmets, why not also wear facemasks? Why not also wear a chest protector - the ball could hit them in the chest and stop their heart - I've seen it happen in a hockey game?

There is no reason NOT to wear a helmet, just like there is no reason NOT to wear a mask or some form of chest protector, but I never understand these after-the-fact pushes for regulation when whatever is trying to be prevented is so insanely rare and unlikely to ever happen again anyways.

by Curtis Pride on Jul 23, 2007 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may not agree with it,

but I don't see how you can't understand it.

One is enough to make it never happen again. We don't need another "example" to push it further.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Jul 23, 2007 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with Curtis

on this one. A freak think happens and then everyone wants to make a rule/law to correct it. A coach is far more likely to be struck by lightning before this happens again. This will obviously get some attention and many coaches will probably start wearing helmets. Maybe it should be a rule, I dunno. We as a society just seem to get caught up in fixing these freak things because they cause such an uproar when there are other things that are more dangerous/obvious that we glaze right over.

I feel terrible for his family. The part about the kid on the way makes it especially tough.

by slurve on Jul 23, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rule of thumb

Safety first, and it's always better to be safe than sorry. Lightning does strike numerous people yearly, so why not prevent the freak accidents that are just that -- preventable?

by mroak89 on Jul 23, 2007 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so then...

you'd be for every batter, pitcher, infielder, umpire, and base coach also wearing helmets and face masks to prevent another Bryce Florie, etc?

And the previously mentioned electrified fence to prevent fans from rushing the field to beat up umpires (or who have guns or bombs or knives?)

The sad fact is: horrible horrible stuff happens. You can't protect everyone from every thing in every situation. It's horrible for Mike Coolbaugh's friends, as well as the kid who hit the ball.

But, no matter how many rules we institute now, it's not going to bring Mike back. And more importantly, it's likely not to save anyone else either since this was such a jawdroppingly freak occurance. It just seems like we are about to see a lot of handwringing and wheel spinning for absolutely no tangible benefit.

by Curtis Pride on Jul 23, 2007 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

very true

plus, from an indefensible aesthetic standpoint, i'd hate to see first- and third-base coaches look like little leaguers, which is the last time they make you wear helmets

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

rules

Hyperbole aside, I do tend to agree that this was a freak thing. Usually you don't find anyone who's paying more attention to the game than a 1st/3rd base coach. To me, the fans in the stands are at much more risk than a coach on the field. Even players in the dugout are more at risk if they're not paying attention. Coaches generally shouldn't have a problem ducking/jumping out of the way. Who knows exactly what happened to Coolbaugh.

Honestly I'm pretty surprised there aren't more really serious injuries in ballparks from people getting hit by line drives. Once that happens we'll probably get plexiglas barriers like they have at hockey games.

"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." -Red Barber

by e 6 on Jul 23, 2007 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there's a way to make it safer for them,

yet not change the appearance of the equipment that much.

Hello everyone,

Curtis and bleedjaxblue - no offense, but I think Alon has a great idea in his post from John's thread on Mike Coolbaugh.

Having a lightweight hat with a sheet of foam inside of it would help to prevent tragedies like the one that occurred. And just because it hasn't happened all that often doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential to do so; in short, we've been quite fortunate we haven't had more serious injuries from hard-hit balls or broken bat shards. That doesn't mean we should stand back and "hope" that this type of incident doesn't occur again any time soon.

Granted, we can't protect everyone from every thing in every situation, but in this day and age, safety is more of a central issue, and if there's a way to increase the safety for those involved with minimum changes in the equipment, I'd think it would have to be considered.

Just my 2 cents - no offense. :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 23, 2007 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no reason to stand around, sure

but:

1) I'm pretty sure Alon is not an engineer and has no idea what type of impact his foam interior would make on preventing injury. Considering how bulky batting helmets are (and even they rarely prevent concussions from pitches -- which travel slower than many linedrives), I would doubt it would be possible to create this lightweight, unobtrusive material that makes any significant impact in preventing injuries once a linedrive makes contact with a person's head.

I'm not a material scientist either, but this strikes me as science-fiction rather than an invention waiting to be made. After all, if such materials existed, why aren't they used instead of these ineffective and unwieldy batting helmets?

2) So, as I said in my post, not wearing helmets for the sake of aesthetics is morally indefensible. Practically speaking, I doubt the enforcement would go over well, either -- I can't see a bunch of 50-year-old baseball lifers wanting to be treated like 8-year-olds and being forced to wear helmets when they go out and play. However, in this case, I don't think it should be that high a priority to force them to.

What happened to Coolbaugh was a tragedy. However, not every tragedy demands action, and there's still some value to allowing people the choice of how to live their lives. For instance, it's illegal to be a passenger in a car without wearing a seatbelt, because it's a high enough probability event that someone will get in a car crash where a seatbelt would have made a difference. However, past a certain age, people are not required to wear bike helmet -- here, the state decides the freedom of the individual is worth more than the risk. And, as referenced before, the state doesn't make skydiving or bungee-jumping illegal, despite the "risks" of these activities. It's all a sliding scale of "what's worth ENFORCING rules for" and, given that all of basecoach in professional baseball history has died from a foul ball, it seems unlikely that this is a cause worth FORCING a rule change for (obviously, any coach can always CHOOSE to wear a helmet should he want to).

Anyway, as for the suggestion, I really do feel this is an overreaction. Furthermore, the suggestion will almost certainly make no impact. For instance, your "foam-covered hat" only covers so much of the third-base coach's head -- are you sure it would have sufficiently covered where Coolbaugh was hit? As mentioned by others, the thirdbase coach is probably at less risk than many fans in the front rows, who are: 1) less likely to be paying attention, 2) less athletic/agile, and 3) trapped in their seat/unable to dodge the ball freely. Do you propose we force all fans in the first 20 rows wear helmets?

Listen -- I'm not saying to toss safety into the wind. But I question how "unsafe" it really is right now, and how much any changes you're proposing will increase said safety.

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see your points, but realize that just because

it's only happened once in however many years doesn't mean that that's how it will always occur - we could have several incidents in a shorter time span; i.e. we've been lucky that this is the first incident of someone dying in however many years it's been.

Like I said, I'd think if there can be improvements made that improve the safety on the field, especially if there isn't much change to the equipment, I'd think it should be considered.

After all, look at the basketball players who have defects in their hearts and collapse on the court during play; that's why most sidelines now have defibulators to help restart their hearts. That's why there are tests to detect these defects; that too is a rare occurrence, yet we made changes to help improve the safety for them, right?

Same thing with Orioles' pitcher Steve Beckler, the one who died after taking a nutritional supplement containing Ephedra and during workout regimens. Changes were made to make sure certain nutritional supplements aren't taken and workout regimens were modified accordingly, even though that incident was rare as well.

I don't think just because an incident is rare means that we should just continue as if everything is fine - like I said, we've been fortunate that more line drive and broken bat shards haven't killed or seriously injured more people. It's been the luck of the draw, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to improve the safety whereever possible.

As for the people in the stands, either remind them to be more cognizant every so often throughout each game, or if necessary, provide helmets for those who want them (especially young children, who often aren't paying attention, and the parents can't always watch and protect them every second they are there.)

Just my 2 cents - no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 23, 2007 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so why do you draw the distinction....

....between fans and third base coaches?

Currently, you're advocating mandatory batting helmets for coaches, and optional helmets upon request for fans in front rows. Why would you say "It's our responsibility to ensure safety" for the former, but leave it up to chance with the latter?

I can see reasons for one or the other -- mainly that it's not particularly feasible to provide helmets (and ensure that they're not stolen) to fans -- though, of course, the hockey-style plexiglass is still a PLENTY responsible "option."

But I'm not sure why you draw such a strong distinction about where we should start and stop being paternalistic, considering the "likelihood of dying" has been established over a rather long sample size, and, even if it were higher, it wouldn't likely differ between the two groups -- fans and coaches.

By the way, I don't think your examples are all that analogous. Ephedra has taken far more lives when used in work-out settings than batted balls ever have, and, furthermore, it's a fairly controlled substance anyway, similar to speed, and thus might have been banned soon thereafter for other reasons as well. And "providing medical equipment in case of emergency" isn't the same as requiring people to restrict activity in case of rare events. If baseball wants to make sure medical staff is on hand in case of emergencies, I'm all for it. But your suggestion is closer to forcing all NBA games to have multiple timeouts where every player's heart-rate is tested to make sure nothing abnormal is happening -- this type of prophyllatic measure is overkill, and prohibits the natural flow of the game. (This is an overstatement for baseball, since coaches wearing helmets wouldn't matter THAT much, but I think this analogy fits much better than the one you gave, which is simply to provide treatment for an event that happens much more often.)

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts!

Hello bleedjaxblue,

"But I'm not sure why you draw such a strong distinction about where we should start and stop being paternalistic, considering the "likelihood of dying" has been established over a rather long sample size, and, even if it were higher, it wouldn't likely differ between the two groups -- fans and coaches."

Maybe because the coaches are on the field of play, while the fans aren't. Of course, the fans can suffer serious injury as well, but they're not on the field of play as the coaches are, so it makes sense to think that the fans have just a tiny bit of time more to react, making the chances of a fan unable to react quickly enough to a hard-hit foul ball that much less likely compared to a 3rd or 1st base coach, or a pitcher.

"By the way, I don't think your examples are all that analogous. Ephedra has taken far more lives when used in work-out settings than batted balls ever have, and, furthermore, it's a fairly controlled substance anyway, similar to speed, and thus might have been banned soon thereafter for other reasons as well. And "providing medical equipment in case of emergency" isn't the same as requiring people to restrict activity in case of rare events. If baseball wants to make sure medical staff is on hand in case of emergencies, I'm all for it. But your suggestion is closer to forcing all NBA games to have multiple timeouts where every player's heart-rate is tested to make sure nothing abnormal is happening -- this type of prophyllatic measure is overkill, and prohibits the natural flow of the game. (This is an overstatement for baseball, since coaches wearing helmets wouldn't matter THAT much, but I think this analogy fits much better than the one you gave, which is simply to provide treatment for an event that happens much more often.)"

No offense, but I wasn't referring to testing those athletes during the game; I was referring to physicals they now take before they're allowed on the team - of course I'm not suggesting that they take multiple tests during the game, but if I'm correct, they do require HS athletes (in Ohio, at least) to take those tests that can detect defects in the heart before they're allowed to play. I would think the NBA does or should before those athletes are allowed to play as well - that's not going to hinder the game in any way as far as I can see.

Also, no offense, when I'm talking about putting a type of helmet on these coaches, it's not to try to heal them after they get hit; it's to try to prevent a catastrophic injury like Coolbaugh suffered in the first place, so no offense, your analogy doesn't seem to match up with what I was suggesting. Of course, they should have medical staff on hand somewhere inside the stadium, which I think they do, but that's besides the point of trying to make sure that this type of injury doesn't happen again, and just presuming it won't because it hasn't happened that often doesn't seem very responsible to me, no offense, because it's basically been a matter of luck that no one else has died or been seriously injured when you take into account all the close calls with hard-hit balls and broken-bat shards, whether they hit a player/coach or come within inches of doing so (and there are many of those throughout each baseball season) - if there's a way to improve the safety of the game and keep the flow of the game as well, then by all means, you have to explore it.

Just my 2 cents - no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 23, 2007 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"hindering the game"

EXACTLY. These physicals DON'T hinder the game. It takes place well before the game. Furthermore, I don't think there's an organized sport on this planet from high school on where you DON'T have to pass physicals before playing them.

A lot of people would tell you wearing a batting helmet as a basecoach doesn't hinder the game, either, but I don't feel I'm going too far out on the limb when I say that not every basecoach would agree with you. I'm willing to bet many would object to it -- just like many adults/teenagers refuse to wear bike helmets.

Obviously, at a certain point, comfort/freedom-of-choice takes a backseat to safety. I question whether an isolated freak incident is enough to warrant such a change.

As for fans being less likely to be injured, I still disagree. In many stadiums, there are plenty of areas right over the dugout where fans are just as close as the third base coach. As mentioned previously (and DESPITE the public address announcements to "please pay attention to bats and balls that may fly into the stands"), fans are much less attuned to the game than the third base coach. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 to 100 fans were treated by medical staff each year at stadiums when hit with foul balls. This marks the first time I've ever heard of a basecoach being injured (I HAVE heard of batters in the on-deck circle being injured/killed, and this IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they're wearing helmets). I have trouble seeing the distinction between the two -- especially if you wouldn't enforce hockey-style fencing (which I think we all agree would take away from our enjoyment of the game, but would make being a fan infinitely safer).

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points; my thoughts!

Hello bleedjaxblue,

Regarding the physicals, my main point was they made an addition to them to detect that heart defect, even though it is a rare condition - that was meant as a counterpoint to your implication that just because something is a rare occurrence means that nothing should be done to address it.

Regarding the base coaches, I wonder, is it because they are more-less "old-timers" who wouldn't want to see the game changed from the way they remember it, even though, in all actuality, how much of a change would it really make? It wouldn't obstruct their vision, they could still flash signs, run up-and-down the lines, and tell runners to stop or go. Therefore, with all due respect to the base coaches, I'd think it would depend on how much safety was added by wearing the helmets - if necessary, they'd be able to adapt to it over time, if MLB and/or MiLB told them that they must be worn.

As for this incident causing them to reconsider the idea, I have no problem with that; losing one person from such a tragic incident, no matter how rare the incident is, is an indication that as a society, we do care on improving the safety of the game by taking a look to see if anything can be done to improve the safety of the game. Plus, it would seem like his death would go for naught if we don't at least consider the issue - it's likely his family and Tino Sanchez would want MLB and/or MiLB to look at ways to improve the safety of the game without ruining the flow of the game - I think we owe Mike Coolbaugh that much - to take a look at what can be done to improve the game, no matter how rare this incident occurs. Like I said, it's all due to luck that those close calls haven't resulted in death and serious injury, not because line drives aren't capable of doing this on a regular basis, which is why I think the issue has to be considered. Too many hard-hit line drives and broken bat shards occur in games nowadays where we can just sit back and expect the "old way" of doing things to be the best way to go about handling this. More bats break nowadays than they ever did - one of these days, I fear someone is really going to be impaled by one of those shards, and we could have a tragedy as bad as this one. Issues like these have to be considered, especially in light of a tragedy such as this - it's the obligation of a responsible institution and society for us to do so in my opinion.

In case you're wondering how to handle the broken-bat shard issue, I'm thinking that bats can only be shaved down to a certain point; they were never allowed to be shaved down that much in the old days, but somewhere along the way, baseball allowed them to. Perhaps that should be looked at, as well as the quality of wood being used - too many broken bats are occurring nowadays, even moreso than I can recall in the 1980s and even early 1990s.

As for the fans, I agree that there are several incidents where fans are hit or close to being hit by hard-hit balls; perhaps they should extend that mesh they have behind home plate above the dugout areas. Mind you, not all the way down the lines, as the distance increases, but extending that mesh to include the area above the dugouts might be a plausible consideration.

Just my 2 cents - no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 23, 2007 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

seems fair

not much else to say. i'm just not so sure this is a big, long-term issue. and, like curtis said, it's a shame this one will get all the attention when there are plenty of other dangers (many more likely to happen) that we don't focus on until it's too late. but that certainly shouldn't stop us from improving where we can.

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

erm

I understand exactly where you're coming from, bleedjaxblue, and IndiansFan does a wonderful job basically summarizing my ideas, but just to comment:

"1) I'm pretty sure Alon is not an engineer and has no idea what type of impact his foam interior would make on preventing injury. Considering how bulky batting helmets are (and even they rarely prevent concussions from pitches -- which travel slower than many linedrives), I would doubt it would be possible to create this lightweight, unobtrusive material that makes any significant impact in preventing injuries once a linedrive makes contact with a person's head."

I'm not sure you meant it to be such, but I feel that that came across as unnecessarily abrasive. Ok, sure, I'm not an engineer -- but obviously, I do have an idea of what a foam exterior would make on preventing injury. As I said, anything that slows down impact time can be the difference between life and death, and while (as you so eloquently put) I'm not an engineer and have no idea what it would do, I do know that there are some foams (or other lightweight substances... focus on the goal rather than the means) that are pretty powerful.

Slowing down the impact time can have a drastic effect on force applied... just like the difference between a check-swing roller to the pitcher and a line-drive to center field is the millisecond of added impact by following through...

by mroak89 on Jul 23, 2007 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

Didn't mean it to come off as abrasive at all. I just meant to correct indiansfan, who was treating your suggestion like it was as good as fact, when -- for the reasons I explained -- I would bet against the substance you're suggesting existing.

This substance would need to be 1) capable of cushioning the head against the impact of a baseball traveling well in excess of 100-mph to the point where serious trauma and/or death occur, 2) be unobtrusive, flexible and, for all intents and purposes, not provide a different "feel" than wearing a baseball cap now, and 3) be cost-effective to put in every Major League cap.

I think you have an interesting idea, but I don't think it's realistic. As I admitted, though, I'm not a material scientist, so I'd be more than willing to look at any links to articles or research or a product number you could provide. Otherwise, I gave my reasons for doubting this material exists (at least to the point where it would be clinically effective against such severe trauma -- obviously, every little bit counts, but we're also not going to go about re-designing Major League hats if the effect is hardly significant AND is almost never relevant).

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nah

the hat shouldn't focus on protecting the head. That is why baseball, football, and hockey helmets are shite. A proper protective helmet focuses on dissipating the impact. Take for example a mountain biking helmet.

I don't want to get into the mechanics of it but think of the armor on tanks where the impact destroys a layer but does no damage. The mountain bike helmets are similar in that manner. After a serious collision they are garbage. The layer "gives itself up" to dissipate the collision.

Typical helmets are hard shell. What was suggesting like the steel lining could save a person, or just as likely kill a person. A hard shell will transfer the energy, just to a larger area. Hard shell helmets cause concussions, not protect from them.

The helmet could be light but would be bulky until technological advances.

by pedrophile on Jul 23, 2007 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand some of us....

....and I appreciate the correction on the difference between hard and soft forms of protection.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at though, so I'd appreciate a little clarification.

What are you saying the purpose of the hat should be? I'm not quite sure what the distinction between "protecting the head" and "dissipating impact" is, though I get that you're saying a hard hat DOES NOT dissipate the impact.

And what is it that hard hats are viewed as effective for, in a practical sense (I get the energy transfer idea, but am not sure how this manifests itself in terms of consequences)? Are you saying then that hard hats protect against fatal injuries but actually make minors injuries (i.e., concussions) more likely?

Also, are you saying a soft hat would be advantageous all around, in every sense of protection, but for it being too bulky?

It sounds like at the end that you're agreeing with me that Alon idea would NOT work -- there are no materials out there that you could fit inside a cap that would absorb a linedrive of that speed particularly effectively that would also not inherently change the size, fit and feel of a baseball cap (since you seem to be saying we can't even make a HELMET out of this material. But, again, I'm not totally sure.

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm just not sure I understand what you were getting at with all of this post. Thanks.

by bleedjaxblue on Jul 23, 2007 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no problem

first - I agree Alon's idea wouldn't work right now. And until the hard shelled hats become extinct there will be no incentive to improve the size of the softer shelled hats.

Sports like hockey & football should eliminate the hard shelled hats. They not only cause concussions but the helmet themselves can be used as a weapon and I believe have caused severe injuries including broken necks (head to head collision).

Hard shelled helmets serve two purposes.

One would be to divert sharp objects and convert an invasive impact (ie a knife) to a blunt impact. For example wearing a baseball helmet and you were hit in the head with a knife it wouldn't be a big deal. But if you were hit with a hammer the helmet wouldn't do much.

The second part is the soft shell under the hard shell. This can help somewhat with the blunt impact (ie the baseball). Baseball helmets have very little of this. Football and hockey are better but you still see many concussions and neck injuries.

I'll try to explain the concept on dissipating the energy. If you put a brick on your head and someone struck it with a hammer the brick would be intact and your head probably as well. It would hurt like hell though. If you used a pillow instead the hammer would probably break through and crack your head open. Neither is the best of solutions as you can see ;)

Now think of tiles of dominoes that are made of rubber and are randomly placed (somehow) on the head. When the hammer strikes it the rubber will absorb some energy and some energy gets passed on to the next level. But since all the dominoes are staggered the energy is not transferred directly. I'd imagine the dominoes would scatter and the energy would go in many directions as well as some dissipating. Then take this concept further and instead of rubber have it of a brittle substance that is designed to break. Styrofoam is one type and perfect for this. Very little energy would go to the head.

FYI - this concept stems from tank armour that is designed to stop large shell impact projectiles.

ps: you did ask about what hard shell helmets are good for. Stopping bullets or knives, lol. We took the concept of warfare into sports. Unfortunately little thought went into it. When they didn't work very well we added padding underneath. When that didn't work so well they added gel and other fancier padding underneath. Not so much thought into the whole premise of a hard shell helmet is designed for something else. The protective soft-shelled bicycle helmets have been around for over 10 years but for some reason (business ?) have not made inroads on the major sports industries.

by pedrophile on Jul 24, 2007 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Basically this is what i was getting at...

you just did a much better job of expressing what I'd like to see happen, and with far better knowledge/understanding of what that entails. thanks

by mroak89 on Jul 24, 2007 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are welcome

and I would like to see these advances happen. These helmets are very light, just bulky.

They will never become small IMO because it's not about making harder & smaller materials. But they can become much smaller. Hmm, thinking about it maybe they can become small. Maybe some mixture of hard light composite and soft foam would do it? Only time will tell I guess.

by pedrophile on Jul 24, 2007 7:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rather than mandate new rules

How about some public service announcements at the start and middle of each that reminded people to watch the pitch, especially if yoare sitting on the opposite field from the batter? I'd rather see a little education than yet another rule.

Of course, a PSA would cut into advertising and promo time....

by siddfynch on Jul 23, 2007 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Always better to be safe than sorry?

Nah.

If we all agreed that, there would be no rock climbing, whitewater kayaking, boxing without headgear, and all the other things that give us a sense of thrill and enjoyment.

by siddfynch on Jul 23, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i mean

all those sports you mentioned have tons of safety features to decrease their % chance of death... and I think if you asked professionals, most would say that they take every safety precaution to insure that they will be able to continue at the dangerous sport of their choosing

by mroak89 on Jul 23, 2007 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

gamboa

We should also put up an electric fence between the the field of play and the stands. This could prevent another Tom Gamboa or Jeffrey Maier situation.

The community list is garbage

by I Love Oakland As on Jul 23, 2007 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

okay

All I was saying was that I'm not sure why Curtis Pride didn't understand why people think coaches should be wearing helmets. I think it's pretty understandable that we don't want people to die from line drives. It's also understandable that if it happens once, it's more than likely to happen again some time. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not for another 100 years, but I guess since it's only a one time freak accident that we shouldn't bother, right? I'm not quite sure why someone would want to try and test death. Maybe he wasn't paying attention, that's fine. But from what I read, he didn't have time to get out of the way.

For once I would think people would tone down the goddamn sarcasm on this site, but not even someone's death could do that.

Talkin' Sports

by BlackOps on Jul 23, 2007 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's not sarcasm

and I UNDERSTAND why there's going to be a big push for helmets. A guy died. That's why there's a push. I'm just saying that it's pointless. There are equally dangerous and equally unlikely scenarios (e.g. there are no metal detectors and very spotty "frisking" outside of parks which could result in guns, knives, bombs, etc at the park) that no one will discuss because no one's already died from it (which is very faulty logic) and there are probably less dangerous scenarious that are much more likely to occur (balls hit in people's faces, people rushing the field) that people also aren't discussing because no one's been killed by them (see my point?)

Yes, it's happened once (that I have heard of) in recent memory. Probably covering millions of hit baseballs.

by Curtis Pride on Jul 23, 2007 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

sad stoy,,,RIP

Vin Scully has been saying for years, "1b & 3b coaches should wear helmets."

by LipstickOnDipstick on Jul 23, 2007 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What a tragedy

My condolences to his family and friends. As indiansfan already said, who knows what's going through the mind of Sanchez.

by albo4lyfe on Jul 23, 2007 2:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

terrible

when was the last time something like this happened? The Natural was AMC on last night (Bump Bailey)

Curtis Granderson fan

by jrose643 on Jul 23, 2007 7:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More Often

I am actually surprised that we dont hear about this more often. I would think with all the baseball being played from lets say the high school level on up, that atleast a handful of people, be it players, coachers or fans would die each year from batted balls. Perhaps they do, and i fail to notice or when not at the top levels, they dont get national media coverage, but that you dont see either death or serious brain damage at the major league level every couple years either speaks to great reaction time or great helmet construction.

by jlost284 on Jul 23, 2007 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ditto

I was at a ballgame this weekend and was amazed - again - at how many people turn their backs/heads as the ball is delivered. People are sitting along the 1B line and not looking up when a RHB is at the plate, or when the throw comes across from the infield. Disaster waiting....

I don't think I'd let my kid sit at 1B or 3B if they couldn't pay attention to pitches.

by siddfynch on Jul 23, 2007 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is very sad

Very sad, I'm kinda at a loss for words at the moment, But Ray Chapman pops into my head.

by sagecoll on Jul 23, 2007 11:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

few thoughts on the helmets

Many here advocate the helmets for the coaches. Very few mention the players. For example the players don't wear the batting helmets on the base paths do they? The umpires don't wear helmets (except home plate). The media don't.

If I was to ask who is most at risk I'm guessing at least one of these groups is at higher risk than the coaches. Or at least equal risk.

Understanding that means this (advocacy for coaches protection) is is more of a knee-jerk reaction than a pro-active approach to safety and security.

by pedrophile on Jul 23, 2007 11:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fans are at risk too

Seats behind the dugouts are close to the action these days. I saw a hard line-drive tonight at the Fresno-Colorado Springs game where a fan had no time to get out of the way, and it was a 1/2 foot from taking his head off. Luckily it hit the seat in front of him. Liners into the stands are what scare me the most because not everybody in attendance have constant attention span to the game.

by sdbaseballfan on Jul 24, 2007 6:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs