MLB to adopt helmets for base coaches

[OleMissCub]

Couldn't some of it be from fear of a future lawsuit?

 

I know Coolbaugh didn't exactly get hit in the head, but if a coach dies from a linedrive, and mlb doesn't respond to it, what happens the next time someone gets beaned in the grill?

 

Participating in professional sports constitutes an assumption of risk which usually negates teams being held liable.

[Derwood]

okay, here's a compromise:

 

1st/3rd base coaches can wear as much armor as they want, but MUST stay in side their coaches box

[CuseCubFan69]

Couldn't some of it be from fear of a future lawsuit?

 

I know Coolbaugh didn't exactly get hit in the head, but if a coach dies from a linedrive, and mlb doesn't respond to it, what happens the next time someone gets beaned in the grill?

 

Participating in professional sports constitutes an assumption of risk which usually negates teams being held liable.

 

Always looking for a future client, eh?

[snoodmonger]

Well that's it. I'm through with baseball.

[OleMissCub]

"Baseball people are generally allergic to new ideas, it took years to persuade them to put numbers on uniforms, and it is the hardest thing in the world to get major league baseball to change anything, even spikes on a new pair of shoes, but they will eventually...they are bound to." - Branch Rickey.

[Careless]

Couldn't some of it be from fear of a future lawsuit?

 

I know Coolbaugh didn't exactly get hit in the head, but if a coach dies from a linedrive, and mlb doesn't respond to it, what happens the next time someone gets beaned in the grill?

 

Participating in professional sports constitutes an assumption of risk which usually negates teams being held liable.

Wouldn't there be some level of reasonable precaution the league would be expected to take?

[OleMissCub]

Couldn't some of it be from fear of a future lawsuit?

 

I know Coolbaugh didn't exactly get hit in the head, but if a coach dies from a linedrive, and mlb doesn't respond to it, what happens the next time someone gets beaned in the grill?

 

Participating in professional sports constitutes an assumption of risk which usually negates teams being held liable.

Wouldn't there be some level of reasonable precaution the league would be expected to take?

 

Having trained medical staff in the stadium and posting notice about the dangers probably qualifies.

 

Think of it this way, if a fan gets hit in the head, the team isn't obligated to give them jack squat. Now think of someone who is actually ON the field participating in that sport. If they aren't legally obligated to the fan, they for sure aren't legally obligated for someone on the field of play.

[Careless]

except most fans as close to home as the base coaches and in the line of line drives are protected by some sort of plastic barrier or netting.

 

Now, I'm not proposing a lawsuit based on this, but saying, from a non-legally trained standpoint, if reasonable people can differ on what is reasonable protection/danger, why take the risk when you can slap a couple of helmets you have lying around on 2 people

[OleMissCub]

 

Now, I'm not proposing a lawsuit based on this, but saying, from a non-legally trained standpoint, if reasonable people can differ on what is reasonable protection/danger, why take the risk when you can slap a couple of helmets you have lying around on 2 people

 

Your type of analysis is generally the correct one used in legal thought. If the MLB's burden was less than the probability of harm times the degree of loss, then they should be held liable for damages.

 

B < p x L

 

However, this all goes out the window when there is an express assumption of risk involved, as there is with participating in professional sports. Thus, fear of liability is a moot point, unless it is somehow considered to be gross negligence and/or outside the scope of the assumption of risk.

 

For example, several fans were hurt a few years ago at Coors Field when the escalator had a brain fart and threw everyone down. An escalator collapse is outside the scope of one's "assumption of risk", getting hit by a foul ball or a stray puck isn't. Thus, the Rockies were held liable.

 

If MLB wants to put helmets on their base coaches, it's unlikely they would be doing it for legal reasons, otherwise they'd be putting helmets on umpires, pitchers, fielders, guys in the dugout, etc.

[Guest]

I think its only a matter of time until a child gets killed by a line drive too. I went a game in SLC this summer and was horrified by the families sitting on the baselines. Many of these families had multiple children at the game and the entire family was very distracted and barely watching the action. They would zero chance to protect themselves much less their children. I would never ever sit in seats that close to the field with my daughter (until she can catch anyway).

 

oh, and I don't think the batting helmets on coaches are necessary but I don't see how it hurts either. The argument that they don't protect their neck is pretty silly - motorcycle helmets don't protect the chest so are they worthless too?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Did y'all notice that somebody sent the question to Fox yesterday asking if they thought football refs should wear helmets, and they actually aired it on the pregame show.

[Soul]

i'm surprised about how passionate some of you are about this. thi seems like a total non-issue

 

I think alot of it has to do with how conservative the game of baseball is to change. Obviously baseball's belligerence to change can be a bad thing (segregation), but one of the game's most enduring qualities is how conservative it is and how it is basically an antiquated game being played in modern times.

 

But I think you're right, it probably is a non-issue.

 

Really, how much camera time is devoted to the umps at the bases anyway? Not much.

 

But yeah, this strikes me as something people will debate for awhile, and then forget about.