What do you think about the Evoshield elbow guard

[59Invicta]

...wished they'd make one for shins...

Pale Rider - they do make one for shins. My DD has been wearing the catcher's thumb guard for a couple months now and it has saved her big time. When I was researching the available protection for catcher's thumb, I came across the Evoshield website. Check it out - they have guards for everything......kind of makes me see all of our DD's out there one day in full armor playing the game, but it is what it is.....

[Sam]

The guy that's always rantin about preventing injuries is against preventing them now?

Nobody gets injured from getting hit on the elbow. If it is painful, then they can back away from the plate a bit. Wearing elbow armour only increases the chances of the batter getting a pitch in the earhole.

[BAM2]

...wished they'd make one for shins...

Pale Rider - they do make one for shins. My DD has been wearing the catcher's thumb guard for a couple months now and it has saved her big time. When I was researching the available protection for catcher's thumb, I came across the Evoshield website. Check it out - they have guards for everything......kind of makes me see all of our DD's out there one day in full armor playing the game, but it is what it is.....

HEY 59, I have one of those, but have not formed it yet. DD dislocated her thumb on a swipe tag at the plate then put it back in herself. Is there any hinderence in the thumb guard? And is that what it's meant to protect from?

[59Invicta]

HEY 59, I have one of those, but have not formed it yet. DD dislocated her thumb on a swipe tag at the plate then put it back in herself. Is there any hinderence in the thumb guard? And is that what it's meant to protect from?

BAM - Not sure about dislocation. Guard protects from the impact of the pitched ball against the joint at the base of the thumb by keeping thumb from being pushed backward. Think of your DD in position ready to receive the pitched ball - the force of the pitched ball pushes the ball into the mitt. Because her thumb is extended, it is vulnerable to being pushed back - away from the force of the pitched ball. Doing this for several games in a day with a high velocity pitcher can cause considerable pain and eventually inflammation and decreased motion of the thumb. My DD has found no hindrance with this guard and loves it. Just take time to form it well to her hand - this probably makes all the difference in the guard hindering her

[NumeroUno]

Lets see one six inch pad on your elbow and a helmet, You still have a lot of body to hit that will leave a bit of pain. Elbows and hands break easy, pad the up and crowd the plate

[Sam]

Lets see one six inch pad on your elbow and a helmet, You still have a lot of body to hit that will leave a bit of pain. Elbows and hands break easy, pad the up and crowd the plate

Never seen a broken elbow in all my years doing this. Still won't see any if they continue to allow the batter body armour.

[Vess Express]

The irony of these two threads next to each other is funny to me.

I have watched about 30 H.S. games this season, so far. No one has been hit in the elbow, two people have been hit in the thigh/butt area, and one person has been hit on the side of the face mask.

If you are for the safety of elbow guards, you should be for the safety of face masks. I hate making things mandatory, but it should be the accepted way to play.

Batters become more aggressive with a face mask, just like they become more aggressive with the elbow guard. I believe fielders would also become more aggressive with masks/protection. That’s what softball should be – fast and up in your face. That is what separates it from baseball, and makes it more exciting, IMO.

So your argument is that batters get aggressive with their heads because they wear a mandatory mask. Really? I'm trying to picture that. So you think that ASA/Fed/PGF hitters are more aggressive with their heads than college hitters. Please help us all make sense of that.

It seemed pretty self-explanatory, and I don’t believe everyone misunderstood, but I will try to do better for you -

I said that batters (in general) get more aggressive. Not just because they can stick their head into the path of the ball, but because they can keep their eye on it even if it might hit them directly in the head.

Do you believe that football players were more aggressive without high dollar helmets, and pads? I don’t. I think that when they got more protection, they played faster, and with more aggression. (Maybe a little too much aggression, at times)

The point I was trying to make is, that if all of the players had a little more protection (offensive AND defensive), I think the game would be faster, and more aggressive. That's what people like to see in sports.

[Sam]

The irony of these two threads next to each other is funny to me.

I have watched about 30 H.S. games this season, so far. No one has been hit in the elbow, two people have been hit in the thigh/butt area, and one person has been hit on the side of the face mask.

If you are for the safety of elbow guards, you should be for the safety of face masks. I hate making things mandatory, but it should be the accepted way to play.

Batters become more aggressive with a face mask, just like they become more aggressive with the elbow guard. I believe fielders would also become more aggressive with masks/protection. That’s what softball should be – fast and up in your face. That is what separates it from baseball, and makes it more exciting, IMO.

So your argument is that batters get aggressive with their heads because they wear a mandatory mask. Really? I'm trying to picture that. So you think that ASA/Fed/PGF hitters are more aggressive with their heads than college hitters. Please help us all make sense of that.

It seemed pretty self-explanatory, and I don’t believe everyone misunderstood, but I will try to do better for you -

I said that batters (in general) get more aggressive. Not just because they can stick their head into the path of the ball, but because they can keep their eye on it even if it might hit them directly in the head.

Do you believe that football players were more aggressive without high dollar helmets, and pads? I don’t. I think that when they got more protection, they played faster, and with more aggression. (Maybe a little too much aggression, at times)

The point I was trying to make is, that if all of the players had a little more protection (offensive AND defensive), I think the game would be faster, and more aggressive. That's what people like to see in sports.

The point I was trying to make is that I think you are full of $hit

[UmpSteve]

The batter body armour should be outlawed. It allows the hitter to crowd the plate without any fear of being plunked, forces the pitchers to constantly work away.....which results in shots hit back at the most vulnerable fielder playing. If the batter wishes to crowd the plate without their armour, let them. If they insist on being protected then lets put a screen in front of the pitcher and every ball that touches the screen is an automatic out.

NCAA level, Blues jumped up and down for this, and, well now they got it. They are the ones that look like idiots now. You see the ball in the strike zone, kid leaning into them, body clearly in the zone. Blue stands with that stupid look on their face, sends the kid to first base.

No doubt you get a smart team like Florida to figure it out. 43 free passes so far this year. While only giving their opponents 12. There can be zero argument with success of their approach.

Would be nice to hear from some of the Blues. Somehow they gotta blame this stupidity on the coaches.

I know/agree that some of the umpire community pushed for the "if it's in the box the batter shouldn't be required to attempt to avoid" interpretation. But the umpires have no vote in the NCAA Rules Committee; they are, in fact, 100% coaches that are voting members making the NCAA rules.

And so they are also the ones insisting on squeezing the strike zone; so when the batter is in the box but leaning over, that elbow is NOT in the strike zone. There is no "river" inside any more, and the elbow is universally above the defined "top of the ball must be on or below the bottom of the batter's sternum when she assumes her natural batting stance". Any umpire that calls a dead ball strike on a ball that touches elbow, forearm, hand or wrist without a swing will get red-lined and removed from D1 conferences.

The rulebook allows the umpire to judge if a ball is NOT completely in the batter's box AND the batter makes no attempt to avoid it (dead ball "ball", not awarded first base), but then adds "Note: The benefit of any doubt must go to the batter and could include a batter freezing due to the unusual movement or speed of the pitch." Tell me, did that just tie our hands, or what?

Unless the batter moves into the pitch to be hit when holding her position would not have resulted in HBP (and we have to judge that that wasn't part of her nornal hitting action, mind you), no umpire can survive NOT awarding first base. And guess what? Even the OBVIOUS movements to be hit, if called, result in major arguments, as the coaches rally behind their player after TELLING/TEACHING her how to get on base that way.

You can call it "Blue stands with that stupid look on their face, sends the kid to first base"; I'm telling you we have no choice based on what the NCAA Rules Committee has placed in their Bible. I repeat: I hate it, personally. I think it is a bad rule that is 1) changing the natural balance between offense and defense, and 2) resulting in unnecessary injuries for players being told to "take it for the team". There is no option; call it that way, or be forced out of umpiring.

[Vess Express]

The irony of these two threads next to each other is funny to me.

I have watched about 30 H.S. games this season, so far. No one has been hit in the elbow, two people have been hit in the thigh/butt area, and one person has been hit on the side of the face mask.

If you are for the safety of elbow guards, you should be for the safety of face masks. I hate making things mandatory, but it should be the accepted way to play.

Batters become more aggressive with a face mask, just like they become more aggressive with the elbow guard. I believe fielders would also become more aggressive with masks/protection. That’s what softball should be – fast and up in your face. That is what separates it from baseball, and makes it more exciting, IMO.

So your argument is that batters get aggressive with their heads because they wear a mandatory mask. Really? I'm trying to picture that. So you think that ASA/Fed/PGF hitters are more aggressive with their heads than college hitters. Please help us all make sense of that.

It seemed pretty self-explanatory, and I don’t believe everyone misunderstood, but I will try to do better for you -

I said that batters (in general) get more aggressive. Not just because they can stick their head into the path of the ball, but because they can keep their eye on it even if it might hit them directly in the head.

Do you believe that football players were more aggressive without high dollar helmets, and pads? I don’t. I think that when they got more protection, they played faster, and with more aggression. (Maybe a little too much aggression, at times)

The point I was trying to make is, that if all of the players had a little more protection (offensive AND defensive), I think the game would be faster, and more aggressive. That's what people like to see in sports.

The point I was trying to make is that I think you are full of $hit

Note to self:
Sam is never wrong, so when he disagrees with you, you must be full of $hit.

Don't work yourself into a lather, Sam. Just a couple more hours, and you can walk on your High School field, and demand everyone address you as King A-Hole, the Great. No one will dare question your genius there.