2016 Rule Changes

[noumpere]

What if BU gives the restriction warning...does BU have to go to PU, to get him to document it on the line-up card ?  That would seem awkward.

Just another reason BU should carry a pen and paper on the field.

[catsbackr]

Both umpires need to know where each coach stands.

[zm1283]

This isn't that big of a deal, they just need to be specific like the NCAA is. You have to record ball/strike warnings, bench jockeying warnings, etc. in NCAA baseball. This should be similar. The automatic stuff will still be automatic. 

I do wish the FED rule makers would fix other idiotic FED rules before they bother with stuff like this. 

[indianaumpire15]

I do wish the FED rule makers would fix other idiotic FED rules before they bother with stuff like this. 

If they weren't different they wouldn't be able to justify their jobs.

[CentralOhioUmp30]

Quote from Mr. Hopkins:

"A successful game official practices preventative officiating, and this new penalty progression will allow the official to issue penalties that give the coach the opportunity to remain in the game and teach his players."

I like a lot of things this man writes, but is anyone as grossly offended about this as I am? What does he and the Committee not understand about how umpires, not 'officials', practice proper game management? What other sport requires written warnings before penalties for unsportsmanlike behavior?

And the last shot about keeping the coach around to teach his players? What does this mean? Maybe AD's and principals need to handle that when contracts are signed and expectations are set up for coaches. If you as a coach want to stay around and teach your players the game and learn good sportsmanship, maybe you ought to show good sportsmanship from the beginning of the game when a call you don't like happens?  

I officiate other sports, some of them very emotional and tough sports to work with coaches and participants. In HS wrestling, for example, if you have a coach who is acting unsportsmanlike you go to the table, signal 'warning for coaches misconduct' and that's it. If it happens again, there is an ejection. In BK it's two T's on the HC, with some exceptions, and he's gone. Even in VB, you give a yellow card without warning that puts them on the bench, then a red card which is a point and side out, the red/yellow which is an ejection. I have not l ejected a coach in these sports in years.

 There are no written warnings in these sports before you go to the penalty chart, why is it Baseball now adds another layer to give coaches a free shot to commit unsportsmanlike conduct before the penalties start?   

 

I'm offended with this, too.

Won't affect me since 5:00 games (when HS starts) will no longer be an option, but nevertheless, that's weak.

[johnnyg08]

Why do they try to have all sports be identical?  I don't understand that.

[maven]

Why do they try to have all sports be identical?  I don't understand that.

The coaches care about that among themselves, and since coaches initiate most rule changes, this one is unsurprising.

Frankly, I don't see it as much of a change. I haven't ejected a coach in years, nor restricted one to the dugout. Where appropriate, I routinely warn anyway, and the change requires me to note the warning, which covers my butt. Where an immediate EJ is warranted, this rule won't prohibit me from doing so. No biggie.

I read Hopkins's language as directed to his coaching constituency. He has to please many masters, and in light of that fact I don't feel threatened by the language.

I know any number of umpires in my association who never warn nor restrict, but EJ on the smallest provocation; and even more who warn, warn, and warn again, to the point where coaches can't possibly know when they're on the edge. If followed, the new rule will help coaches "know where they are" and bring a bit more consistency to game management. If that's correct, then it's difficult to see any objection to it. I am skeptical about whether good game management can be legislated in rules, but making a stepwise procedure can surely promote consistency to some extent.

[ricka56]

So yesterday, I get a phone call from a chapter member who is trying to get a jump start on the year by taking the state HS exam. "Have you seen this year's test ? There are 4 questions about coach warnings and ejections on it. What the hell is going on ?" After I explained the rule change and calmed him down, he thanked me for saving him 4 no-doubt wrong answers that he would have given. I think the only impact this new rule will have for me is to adjust my responses to the state rules test. 

[JaxRolo]

Just another reason BU should carry a pen and paper on the field.

And a phone so he can call it in?

[catsbackr]

We were instructed that if base umpire gives a warning, restriction or ejection, they need to communicate with the plate umpire and have them record it.  Also, if the plate umpire issues a warning, restriction or ejection, the base umpire needs to know, too.

 

Makes sense.

[VolUmp]

I'm on the side of this change is much ado about nothing.  I don't recall my last coach ejection ... I usually toss one player a year for throwing a bat, profanity, MC, etc, but I notate a lot of things ... such as Defensive Conferences, subs, other such warnings like a kid taking off his helmet, so what's the big deal with one more.  5 seconds, signal "W" to partner, and cruise on.

[conbo61]

OK.  Now I am a bit confused. I thought that the written warning was stand alone, but now, based on this document (taken from official PIAA website), if you issue a written warning to a coach, the coach is also to be restricted.  

Just telling him that they are restricted is not sufficient?  Now we need a paper trail?

2015-16 Baseball Rules Changes.pdf

[scrounge]

44 minutes ago, conbo61 said:

OK.  Now I am a bit confused. I thought that the written warning was stand alone, but now, based on this document (taken from official PIAA website), if you issue a written warning to a coach, the coach is also to be restricted.  

Just telling him that they are restricted is not sufficient?  Now we need a paper trail?

2015-16 Baseball Rules Changes.pdf

Indeed, if you issue a written warning, then you are also restricting the coach. I don't really think that this is turning out as nearly the tempest that we initially thought. If it's a minor offense, then restrict them and write down that you did. If major, chuck them immediately. If that's what the whining coaches want ('But he didn't warn me!! Waaaaah'), fine....there's gonna be a good number of restrictions. Enjoy what you asked for.

[zm1283]

I like the written warning/restriction as one step. Why should anyone get multiple warnings? The restriction is a warning by itself. You shouldn't get a written warning, then restriction (Another warning), then ejection. 

[conbo61]

51 minutes ago, zm1283 said:

I like the written warning/restriction as one step. Why should anyone get multiple warnings? The restriction is a warning by itself. You shouldn't get a written warning, then restriction (Another warning), then ejection. 

If you are going to restrict, why bother writing ANYTHING down? If the coach can't figure out that he is close to getting tossed after he is restricted, save everyone the hassle and dump him straight away.

My initial understanding is that the written warning was an additional step to minimize restrictions and ejections.  Not that restrictions are a big deal around here.  A coach is suspended for an ejection, but not a restriction.

[Kevin_K]

7 hours ago, conbo61 said:

If you are going to restrict, why bother writing ANYTHING down? If the coach can't figure out that he is close to getting tossed after he is restricted, save everyone the hassle and dump him straight away.

My initial understanding is that the written warning was an additional step to minimize restrictions and ejections.  Not that restrictions are a big deal around here.  A coach is suspended for an ejection, but not a restriction.

Well....... here in the great State of NJ our state interpreter offered the following sage advice at our interpretation meeting last week:

Keep a shoe box in your trunk so you can hang on to all lineup cards for the season because the NJSIAA may want umpires to send in those "documents" if a coach is issued multiple warnings during the season. In NJ, coaches or players who are ejected can jeopardize their team's eligibility for post season play. Now, the intelligentsia want to be able to disqualify teams for coaches who have received an as yet undetermined amount of warnings since coaches are supposed to be role models and the baseball field is an extension of the classroom.

Hence, umpires are required to store those lineup cards for a yet to be determined number of years.

Perhaps we can now add a storage fee to our game fees? 

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Well....... here in the great State of NJ our state interpreter offered the following sage advice at our interpretation meeting last week:

Keep a shoe box in your trunk so you can hang on to all lineup cards for the season because the NJSIAA may want umpires to send in those "documents" if a coach is issued multiple warnings during the season. In NJ, coaches or players who are ejected can jeopardize their team's eligibility for post season play. Now, the intelligentsia want to be able to disqualify teams for coaches who have received an as yet undetermined amount of warnings since coaches are supposed to be role models and the baseball field is an extension of the classroom.

Hence, umpires are required to store those lineup cards for a yet to be determined number of years.

Perhaps we can now add a storage fee to our game fees? 

We might not get the storage fee in the form of a rate increase. Perhaps there's a tax write off hiding in there somewhere for "cost of retaining documents?"

[Cav]

Perhaps we could just upload them to our private servers, unless of course the contents in any way are the protected proprietary rights of those unionized coaches and/or under-age players listed.  

[Minnz]

If you guys use Arbiter in your assocation propose that it can be stored in the game notes. Umpire who restricted can go in after the game and document it there for all to see. 

[lawump]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 3:31 PM, indianaumpire15 said:

If they weren't different they wouldn't be able to justify their jobs.

I don't get paid a cent for being on the national NFHS Rules Committee.  It is strictly a volunteer position. 

[grayhawk]

41 minutes ago, lawump said:

I don't get paid a cent for being on the national NFHS Rules Committee.  It is strictly a volunteer position. 

I knew you guys were overpaid!

 

[indianaumpire15]

43 minutes ago, lawump said:

I don't get paid a cent for being on the national NFHS Rules Committee.  It is strictly a volunteer position. 

I'm not talking about the volunteers, I'm taking about the office in downtown Indy, around my parts.

[jjskitours]

On 2/9/2016 at 8:27 AM, scrounge said:

Indeed, if you issue a written warning, then you are also restricting the coach. I don't really think that this is turning out as nearly the tempest that we initially thought. If it's a minor offense, then restrict them and write down that you did. If major, chuck them immediately. If that's what the whining coaches want ('But he didn't warn me!! Waaaaah'), fine....there's gonna be a good number of restrictions. Enjoy what you asked for.

First off I agree that a restriction goes hand in hand with the written warning. We had a rules interpreter state that it was a 2 step process, actually he described a 4 step process. First a verbal, then a written followed by a restriction for what would be considered a 3rd offense and lastly an ejection. I know early on under this thread it was being described as a 2 step process with a written warning later followed by a restriction. The current Rule book (3-3-1 Penalty, page 29), 2016 Rules Interpretations as well as the 2016 Preseason Guide all clearly support a restriction at the time of a written warning. Am I missing something?

Someone mentioned the NFHS exam having several questions pertaining to this new rule. Can anyone forward those questions and do the answers support the rule as I have noted.

[maven]

14 minutes ago, jjskitours said:

First off I agree that a restriction goes hand in hand with the written warning. We had a rules interpreter state that it was a 2 step process, actually he described a 4 step process. First a verbal, then a written followed by a restriction for what would be considered a 3rd offense and lastly an ejection. I know early on under this thread it was being described as a 2 step process with a written warning later followed by a restriction. The current Rule book (3-3-1 Penalty, page 29), 2016 Rules Interpretations as well as the 2016 Preseason Guide all clearly support a restriction at the time of a written warning. Am I missing something?

Someone mentioned the NFHS exam having several questions pertaining to this new rule. Can anyone forward those questions and do the answers support the rule as I have noted.

You are correct: there's no 4-step process, and issuing a written warning without restriction is incorrect by rule.

I will not even be teaching this as a "2-step process." Rather, I distinguish between major and minor offenses.

Minor: written warning plus restriction (for coaches).

Major (including 2nd minor): ejection.

Then the focus is on distinguishing minor vs major, which is where it should be, as that's really the challenging judgment call for the proper application of these penalties.