Back to Standards Matrix

Standard Test Method and Performance Specification Used in Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Protectors for Commotio Cordis

Topics: Baseball, Chest Protector, Commotio Cordis, Lacrosse, Performance, Safety, Softball

Login to subscribe to updates on this Standard.


This standard test method describes laboratory equipment and basic requirements pertinent to projectile testing of protectors for commotio cortis using the NOCSAE Thoracic Surrogate. It is believed that compliance with this test method will lead to improved protector performance, thus a reduced risk of commotio cordis. The protector for commotio cortis shall be supplied as offered for sale with required hardware and fitting instructions along with required accessories if any are required for the protector to function as designed.


Previous versions


    • Chris Flahan

    This comment is private.

      • Mike Oliver

      I understand why there is confusion. I made some comments at the beginning that were not accurate with regard to a revision being in an official “proposed” status and having a longer comment period. I have reviewed the video and will put together a clip of that section for review.
      The accurate statement would have been that when the staff considers that a revision is appropriate, a draft (or redline) version of the requested revision is posted on the NOCSAE website at least 30 days prior to the meeting where the revision be voted upon. That was done in this case. At the same time or earlier, a copy is also circulated to the standards committee for feedback and comment. In the case of ND200, those steps were taken, and no objections or comments were received before the vote was taken. Once a requested revision is officially on the standards committee agenda for an approval vote, the standards committee can table the vote and postpone it to another meeting date, table and request additional comments or input, approve changes to the pending redline version, or reject the request. If the committee approves the revisions, it must establish an effective date. That date cannot be sooner than 12 months from the date of the vote, but it can be anytime after 12 months. Had your objection been raised, I am confident the date would have been set later than February 1, 2022.

      I accept your comment as an objection to the effective date and a request for a different effective date, and I will officially present that objection to the standards committee through the Technical Director.
      Mike Oliver

Submit Feedback

Comments will be moderated, and appear after approved.