(With respect to the passing of Johnny Carson) - Welcome to that mysterious visitor from the East. Seer, sage, soothsayer. Carnac the Magnificent, who, in his ultimate wisdom, shall ascertain, in his own divine and mystical way, the answers to questions that he has never seen before and that have been hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar and stored on the porch of Funk and Wagnall. Are you ready oh great one?

Answer: Bad Hops Question: Why do some beers not taste good?
Answer: Taking one for the team. Question: What does a kleptomaniac team mom do while shopping?
Answer: Displace Question: What do you do when you badmouth a ball field?
Answer: Pinch Hitter Question: What are two things that you can do to a softball player to get arrested?
Answer: Acrobatic Question: What does team Acro do on offense?
Answer: Cut off man. Question: What does a bartender do when you drink too much?
Answer: Howard Stern, Timex, Cat Osterman. Question: Name a shock, a clock and a jock.
Answer: Desperate Housewives Question: What do some mom’s become when they can’t find a team for their daughter?

FACE IT

There seems to be more than a few disappointed parents and coaches around the country about the implementation of the ASA’s new facemask rule. While those originally opposed to the mandating of the masks have reluctantly accepted the new rule, it seems that many that got a jump on the rule by installing masks last year are now outraged that their masks do not meet ASA standards. The ASA rule, which was clearly stated in last year’s rulebook to alert everyone, requires "All Junior Olympic Fast Pitch batting helmets shall be equipped with a NOCSAE approved face masks/guards."

The current controversy stems from the "NOCSAE approved" portion of the rule. NOCSAE, the National Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, was formed in 1969 to improve athletic equipment and reduce injuries in athletics. They have developed standards for certifying several types of sporting safety equipment. A review of the NOCSAE’s web site indicates that prior to January 2004, after the ASA had adopted the rule change mandating the facemask (and surely in response to the rule change), there were no established standards for testing batting helmet facemasks. Therefore, prior to that date, no facemasks were NOCSAE certified. Once the standards were established, manufacturers had to submit examples of their product to NOCSAE for certification. The problem is with the facemasks that were manufactured prior to actual certification, masks that were purchased by teams, coaches and/or parents in an effort to meet the impending ASA requirement. Since the masks purchased prior to certification are not legal for championship play, those owning them are vocal in their displeasure, if not outright accusing ASA and the manufacturer’s of deception. The following is their flawed logic, and the reality of this situation.

LOGIC: This is just a method for ASA or the manufacturer’s to make more money.

REALITY: ASA makes no money requiring the NOCSAE certification, nor by requiring facemasks. The requirement was for safety concerns. Manufacturers will make more money, but not because of anything they have done. First, the drive to require the facemasks was participant driven, not manufacturer driven. Secondly, the fact that people purchased "uncertified" masks last year is not the manufacturer’s problem. What were they suppose to do, stop selling them until they were certified? Some manufacturers have stepped up to the plate and are replacing old masks with certified masks. Which, I think, is great but that certainly isn’t something they should be expected to do.

LOGIC: Why did ASA require the NOCSAE certification? We’ve been using facemasks for years before they were required without a problem.

REALITY: Requiring a piece of safety equipment is a lot different, liability wise, than permitting it. ASA or any sanctioning organization, has three choices concerning equipment. They can require it, prohibit it or permit it. If you choose to use a piece of equipment that is not prohibited, you do so at your own risk; you are accepting liability. If the ASA requires a piece of equipment, it is their duty to insure that it is as safe as possible, hence the NOCSAE certification requirement. Perhaps a better question is, why is there no certification requirement for catcher’s masks?

LOGIC: The new certified masks are exactly the same as the old masks. The old ones should be grand fathered like ASA did with bats.

REALITY: There are two separate issues here. The first deals with an assumption that the certified masks are the same as the older masks. While this may or may not be true, the fact of the matter is, in terms of risk management, it is a moot issue. The reasons for ASA requiring the NOCSAE certification was for liability protection and to prevent someone from just building something and fastening it to a helmet to meet the requirement. If a lawsuit is filed due to the failure of a face mask, and ASA would be named due to it being required, and the specific face mask that failed had not been certified as required, the defendants would be placed in a difficult position, regardless of whether or not the mask was identical to another mask that had been certified. What is on trial is the mask that failed, not other "identical" masks. While this is one major reason for not grandfathering in older masks, the other is that grandfathering in bats is different from other safety equipment. ASA certification of bats is based on the exit speed of the ball coming off the bat. ASA made a decision to grandfather bats that they knew could not exceed the standards established for certification. Additionally, while the reasoning for developing the bat standards were for safety, bats are not safety equipment. Their failure to meet established bat standards would not result in equipment failure that would put a player at risk.