Base Coaches Skull Caps

[JaxRolo]

Received this in an email yesterday from FHSAA.

"Starting this season, any coach occupying the 1^st base or 3^rd base coaching box is required to wear a skull cap style helmet (non-ear flaps). There is not a penalty for this rule this year. Just help remind the coaches of this rule during the season. If there are any issues, just send me an email with the name of the school and I will handle it. I have emailed all the athletic directors with this information also."

I also learned last night that in FHSAA there is no Protests allowed.

I also learned that FHSAA does not restrict players or coaches to the dugout. You either eject them or you don't

[Guest]

So, this year, you have this possibility:

"Coach, put your helmet on"

"No"

"Ok."

What is that? Can you say pushover? No offence...

Seems like they're denying a request to me. Buh-bye.

[tjthresh]

There are a few rules in the book that don't have any real consequence.

I've been waiting for that one to pop up.

[widac]

Starting this season, any coach occupying the 1^st base or 3^rd base coaching box is required to wear a skull cap style helmet (non-ear flaps).

Is this a local thing or a Fed thing?

[yawetag]

Is this a local thing or a Fed thing?

Must be Florida only, as I haven't heard about it for Fed.

I love the "it's required, but there's no penalty" part of it. Sounds like it's being phased in, with it being required (with penalties) in a few years.

[Umpire in Chief]

So, this year, you have this possibility:

"Coach, put your helmet on"

"No"

"Ok."

What is that? Can you say pushover? No offence...

Seems like they're denying a request to me. Buh-bye.

You've got it. Now that they are denying a request by an umpire who is enforcing a rule they are gone.

[yawetag]

You've got it. Now that they are denying a request by an umpire who is enforcing a rule they are gone.

Warren, there's no rule you can use to eject. In fact, the email lists the complete opposite: "There is not a penalty for this rule this year. Just help remind the coaches of this rule during the season." You'll be grabbing the [very] dirty end by ejecting.

[JaxRolo]

Starting this season, any coach occupying the 1^st base or 3^rd base coaching box is required to wear a skull cap style helmet (non-ear flaps).

Is this a local thing or a Fed thing?

Its a Florida Fed thing.

[Umpire in Chief]

In this case your not ejecting for failing to wear the cap, your ejecting for refusal to comply with the administration of the game FED 10-1-1. In cases where the penalty is a "don't do that" after ignoring the request to do/not do what is requested we're in different territory. This would fall under your choice of interferring with the administration of the game or sportsmanship.

Me: Coach I'm going to need you to have a helmet on please.

Coach: I'm not going to wear one.

Me: You need to have a helmet on to be on the field.

Coach: I'm not going to wear one.

Me: Bye

[tjthresh]

Seems to me its both "grabbing the dirty end", and completely within the rules to eject in this case. Personally, I'm not grabbing. It's just not worth it. Sounds like that state association needs to make a rule with some teeth.

[yawetag]

In this case your not ejecting for failing to wear the cap, your ejecting for refusal to comply with the administration of the game FED 10-1-1. In cases where the penalty is a "don't do that" after ignoring the request to do/not do what is requested we're in different territory. This would fall under your choice of interferring with the administration of the game or sportsmanship.

Me: Coach I'm going to need you to have a helmet on please.

Coach: I'm not going to wear one.

Me: You need to have a helmet on to be on the field.

Coach: I'm not going to wear one.

Me: Bye

Warren,

If a pitcher blows through a stop, you balk him. You, in effect, tell him not to do it again. When he does it again, you balk him again. That's what the rules say to do.

When a player commits obstruction or interference, then does it again, you don't eject him. The rules tell you what to do.

Why would you do any different in this regard? The rules specifically tell you that it's not ejectable. Why would you?

[mstaylor]

I read it to be that this year is getting used to having them. The conversation should be fairly simple and keeps the stick where it belongs.

Jax: Coach, you know you need to wear a helmet to coach in the box.

Coach: Yeah, I know, we ordered them but they haven't come in yet.

Jax: That's fine, get them as soon as you can. I do have to say something to my assigner.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Coach: I'm not weraing that stupid thing!(This means they have them, he just doesn't want to use it)

Jax: Fine, that just means you are a bench coach today. ( Then go to the manager and explain he needs a compliant coach in the box. This isn't a restriction anymore than not letting him in the box out of uniform. If he persists in arguing then you can dump him.) ( If it is the manager then it becomes my next ending of the conversation)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Manager: I'm not weraing that stupid thing!

Jax: Jim, you can't coach on the field without it, either you have to wear it or you can't coach in the box.

Manager: I have coached for thirty years without a helmet and I don't plan to start now.

Jax: Maybe so but FHSAA says wear it or you can't be in the box.

( Any further discussion, dump him. If he complies then all is good.)

The rule says they are mandatory and if they don't comply then report them to the state. In the first conversation I think telling the assigner that they have them on order but haven't gotten them yet, but to let the next crew know about it. The second and third gets a report to your assigner and the state.

[Umpire in Chief]

Warren,

If a pitcher blows through a stop, you balk him. You, in effect, tell him not to do it again. When he does it again, you balk him again. That's what the rules say to do.

When a player commits obstruction or interference, then does it again, you don't eject him. The rules tell you what to do.

Why would you do any different in this regard? The rules specifically tell you that it's not ejectable. Why would you?

The balk has a prescribed penalty, and continual balks will receive the penalty as punishment.

For the life of me I'm having a tough tiime thinking of another "don't do that" type penalty right now. -- I need to shake off the rust and get on the field.

But you instruct them to stop, and if they refuse then they are potentially subject to ejection.

I just wish I could think of a comparable situation.

Also, like MST said, a lot will depend on the situation and their reaction.

[ukce1861]

The closest comparable thing I can think of off hand is a fielder standing in foul territory before the pitch. There's no prescribed penalty, but play won't resume until the situation is resolved. If a player won't comply with the umpire's demands, they're ejected. Also, it's like the jewelry rule - if you don't take it off, you can't play.

[UmpTTS43]

Your organization put you in a bad situation. Institute a safety rule that "requires" something but fail to address or penalize if there is noncompliance.

If the coaches have the caps and refuses to wear them, God forbid that they get hit in the nug with a batted ball. Rare occurance, but if it happens, the crew will be held responsible. In this day and age, I will not put myself nor the rest of my crew in that sort of jeopardy. I highly recommend you enforce this rule.

If coaches refuse to wear them in the coaches box, as stated before, I will order them to wear the cap, warn once or twice, then eject when they step into the coaches box without it on. The ejection will be for failure to comply with an order from the umpire. If they don't like it, they con protest. Ooops, can't do that either. Sounds like a win win for the umpire.

The only other tihing I can think of is to have the FHSAA issue all umpires a waiver in the event that a coach is injured to due his noncompliance of this rule. Good luck with that.

[yawetag]

The only other tihing I can think of is to have the FHSAA issue all umpires a waiver in the event that a coach is injured to due his noncompliance of this rule. Good luck with that.

Or get the answer from the state on what happens if they don't comply after being asked (and warned) to wear it. If we can't agree on here, there's no way it's going to be enforced equally throughout the state. Personally, it's like the new "subs must be listed on the lineup" rule. There's no penalty for it not happening, which makes it a stupid rule.

[JaxRolo]

I know this is old but Is there still no penalty for coaches not wearing a Skull cap?

[noumpere]

It's not a requirement in HS ball (for adults).  I personally think it's the correct decision.

[maven]

I know this is old but Is there still no penalty for coaches not wearing a Skull cap?

No penalty. In codes where it's required, don't allow them on the field without one. Warn, then eject for failing to comply.

[basejester]

Thanks for the posthumous instruction, @mstaylor.

[johnnyg08]

If there's no penalty, I will fail to notice.

[noumpere]

If there's no penalty, I will fail to notice.

There are several items in any of the books where there is no penalty other than "don't do that" (or maybe "do that").

 

Those should (generally) be noticed and enforced just like it says; and certainly the helmet issue is one that should be enforced where it exists (even if I think it's a "stupid" rule, I enforce it). 

 

(And, I do recognize that you can probably come up with some example of some rule that I don't enforce to the full letter of the rule.  I recognize the hypocrisy.)

[maven]

 

(And, I do recognize that you can probably come up with some example of some rule that I don't enforce to the full letter of the rule.  I recognize the hypocrisy.)

I don't think it's hypocrisy. We don't enforce the "all (non-F2) fielders in fair" until someone complains. But we should enforce a mandatory helmet rule every time, with or without complaint.

My principled distinction rests on the fact that the helmet rule, where it exists, is grounded in safety. I will always enforce safety rules with some vigilance, even when they might be a little "over the top."

[Mudisfun]

The rule is we do not put the ball into play unless the coaches are compliant.

Coach I need you to get your helmet on.

No... I don't wanna! (think Peter Griffin type whine)

Ok coach then we don't play. Per rule I cannot put the ball into play unless you are properly equipped. 

Now at this point I am betting they get with the program or they are going to start hearing it from those moms and dads who showed up to watch their kids play.

[johnnyg08]

Except there is no penalty.  They're not serious about it if they don't put some teeth in the rule...just makes an umpire's job more difficult that it needs to me.