Here is what I had to say:
Regarding the manufacturers of umpire masks, the type of testing they do is more for durability; tests such as anvil testing and ball impact testing. The manufacturers are going to want to make sure their mask frame is not going to bend, break or crack with stress.
Regarding NOCSAE certification, there is no NOCSAE reviews for any helmet without an earflap. So the only thing you're going to see a NOCSAE stamp on for umpires are hockey style helmets.
Optimal would be to design a rating for each mask in terms of impact reduction. Weight and height are easy, but wouldn't it be nice to know let's say that one mask had a certain impact reduction rating and another was higher?
There are 2 problems with that. One is that there is no standard testing from which manufacturers can work. The other is that there are areas of the mask that are going to take more force where hit than others. It is this main reason why the Kettering study you mentioned was flawed (they compared a flatter area on one vs a more rounded on another).
What we do know about umpire masks and their safety is relative.
And we also know that there are risks inherent in umpiring just as there are in other sports (e.g. football, racing) and professions (e.g. firefighters, construction workers) that can't be prevented, but can only be minimized.
- We know that a mask with more padding is going to be more protective than one that has less.
- We know a mask frame that is more curved is going to deflect more force than one that is lower or flatter.
- We know a hockey style helmet protects more of the head than a traditional style mask.
And to minimize the risk, you currently have only the relative information and anecdotal evidence from other umpires but no precise, objective analysis.
I would love to hear your comments on this important subject.