Jump to content

NFHS Feedback

kylehutson

By kylehutson
in High School

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4118 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Majordave
Majordave

I got two. Tried to do it twice since I'm registered in two states but the survey said I'd already taken it when I went to it via the other email link. They don't want to hear your questions or wri

scrounge
scrounge

​ Ah yes, the annual (sometimes more so) plea from a HS coach "but he's outside the tackle box!?!?"....I kinda get a sadistic kick out of telling them that's not the HS rule, to be honest.

kylehutson
kylehutson

Got this from our state association. Too bad there's no open-ended "what would you change" questions, but you can give your feedback to NFHS on recent rules changes and changes they are considering ma

semper_fi_72

semper_fi_72

Posted
Posted

Got this from our state association. Too bad there's no open-ended "what would you change" questions, but you can give your feedback to NFHS on recent rules changes and changes they are considering making.

 

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/

I believe those are sent out randomly to various officials across the country.

I believe the survey was ment for you and not for you to distribute and share.

IMHO

kylehutson

kylehutson

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This was a mass email sent out to our entire state association. There's no unique identifier on it.

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

That's for any official or coach to complete. You can submit as many as you like.

 

I just got the results of the basketball survey from a friend.

  • Like 1
StrikeDavis

StrikeDavis

Posted
Posted

We got these emailed to us the other day as well.  I wish you were able to provide answers to some of the questions beyond just clicking a box.

  • Like 1
Majordave

Majordave

Posted
Posted

I got two. Tried to do it twice since I'm registered in two states but the survey said I'd already taken it when I went to it via the other email link.

They don't want to hear your questions or written responses. That's why they crafted the questions and only allowed the specific answers to them the way they did. They already know what they want from the survey.

  • Like 3
maven

maven

Posted
Posted

I got two. Tried to do it twice since I'm registered in two states but the survey said I'd already taken it when I went to it via the other email link.

They don't want to hear your questions or written responses. That's why they crafted the questions and only allowed the specific answers to them the way they did. They already know what they want from the survey.

 

Your browser stored a cookie from surveymonkey. Delete it, and you can take the survey again. If you wanna.

Majordave

Majordave

Posted
Posted

Not that big a deal. I thought I was entitled to two opinions since I paid full price. Twice. Not worth the effort.

ZebraStripes

ZebraStripes

Posted
Posted

 

Got this from our state association. Too bad there's no open-ended "what would you change" questions, but you can give your feedback to NFHS on recent rules changes and changes they are considering making.

 

http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/

I believe those are sent out randomly to various officials across the country.

I believe the survey was ment for you and not for you to distribute and share.

IMHO

 

The association I am calling for next year sent me the same survey.

MadMax

MadMax

Posted
Posted

Besides, @maven , @Majordave would likely submit two different (sets of) answers / opinions... Just to mess with "Them". Or, to demonstrate the point – that despite the complexities and details of their ruleset, there just might be two differing results or rulings. ;)

Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted

"1. Umpires ejecting coaches without any warning – the coach ejection rule should be prefaced with a restriction to the dugout prior ejection."

 

Sigh.  :shakehead: 

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

"1. Umpires ejecting coaches without any warning – the coach ejection rule should be prefaced with a restriction to the dugout prior ejection."

 

Sigh.  :shakehead: 

 

Think we'll see differential responses between the two groups of survey takers?

 

Or: how about this? "Coach, you're restricted to the dugout...now you're ejected!"

Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted

I have a feeling the distribution on that question is going to be quite predictable.

 

I do like your restrict - eject 1-2 combo. Only Fed could make this much of a mishmash of the rules. 

ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

I wish elimination of the illegal F1 throw to a base from the wind-up position (OBR/Fed difference) was up for consideration. With as much enforcement problems enforcing the hybrid wind-up rule created by this rule difference, who in their right mind wants to keep this rule difference.

kylehutson

kylehutson

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wish elimination of the illegal F1 throw to a base from the wind-up position (OBR/Fed difference) was up for consideration. With as much enforcement problems enforcing the hybrid wind-up rule created by this rule difference, who in their right mind wants to keep this rule difference.

Exactly why I lamented there not being any open-ended questions.

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

 

"1. Umpires ejecting coaches without any warning – the coach ejection rule should be prefaced with a restriction to the dugout prior ejection."

 

Sigh.  :shakehead: 

 

Think we'll see differential responses between the two groups of survey takers?

 

Or: how about this? "Coach, you're restricted to the dugout...now you're ejected!"

 

 

This is exactly what I was going to say.

 

I filled out the survey. They need to fix their ridiculously stupid definition for backswing and follow through interference. What everyone else calls "backswing interference", they call "follow through interference" and it is an out just like a normal batter's interference. FED's "backswing interference" is when the batter is taking a practice swing and accidentally hits the catcher's mitt before the pitch is even thrown. They want you to kill it and reset. Just make it like every other rule set. They have this need to be different just for the hell of it. 

kylehutson

kylehutson

Posted
  • Author
Posted

FED's "backswing interference" is when the batter is taking a practice swing and accidentally hits the catcher's mitt before the pitch is even thrown. They want you to kill it and reset. Just make it like every other rule set. They have this need to be different just for the hell of it. 

Our state association meeting stated the reason they did this one. Apparently some coaches were coaching their batters to hit the catcher's glove on the backswing on purpose in order to make them "gun shy" to setup for steals.

scrounge

scrounge

Posted
Posted

Please vote to eliminate the jewelry rule!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why? I don't agree with all the fashion police stuff, but this is a legitimate safety issue that I fully support.

BillKen

BillKen

Posted
Posted

How many MLB injuries have we ever seen due to jewelry? I'm not picking a fight...but in reality, it is a very low risk item.

scrounge

scrounge

Posted
Posted

How many MLB injuries have we ever seen due to jewelry? I'm not picking a fight...but in reality, it is a very low risk item.

It may be relatively low risk but it's also a much different threshold for professional adults to assume that risk in their workplace vs allowing exposure to that risk for minor children in an extracurricular, school related activity.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...