NEW NFHS warning rules

[Thawk]

Man I love having this option that NFHS gave us with for warning the coaches.  The restriction adds a little more bite to a warning.

So let me set it up for you; MS game, Bottom 6th, 2-2 game, 0 outs, Runners on 1st & 3rd.  BR goes for the bunt and misses.  R1 takes of on the pitch stealing 2B.  F2 attempts to throw out R1 and in the process runs into BR.  BR never left the batters box, never made any movement after the bunt.  So I make the call "I've got nothing here".  Next pitch, BR attempts to bunt again.  This time after he attempts and misses, his momentum carried his front foot out in front of the plate.  F2 goes for the backside pickoff of now R2 and again makes contact with BR.  Now I've got interference, and call BR out.  OC comes down from 3B box to argue the call.  He swears to me that his batter was stepping out the BACK of the box, and that F2 induced the contact.  I calmly tell him that the BR stepped out of the front of the box and that is why I called interference.  Coach doesn't like it, gets closer to my face, clearly attempting to intimidate me.  I simply say "Coach, we're done.  It's my call."  He turns around to go back to 3B box, not happy but quietly.  I'm all ready to put the ball back in play when I hear from the 1B box "LEARN THE DARN (Yes, darn was the word used) RULES!!"  Turned right over to the coach, and said "Coach I'm giving you a warning; you're restricted to the dugout for the rest of the game."  If that rule hadn't been in place, I probably would have ended up ejecting him.

Why that coach had to chime in, I'll never know.  Next batter brought in the go-ahead run, and the Home Team won 3-2.

[PonyUmpire]

Firstly, I don't like how FED takes away my discretion on how to manage the game.  If I think a warning alone will be effective for a particular coach, why should I have to restrict him to the dugout.  Secondly, if a coach yells to me across the field that I need to learn the rules, he's done.  If a coach breaks my personal space barrier and deliberately gets in my face, he's done too, unless he backs off real quick.  I don't need him glowering at me from the dugout for the rest of the game.

[ElkOil]

23 minutes ago, PonyUmpire said:

Firstly, I don't like how FED takes away my discretion on how to manage the game.  If I think a warning alone will be effective for a particular coach, why should I have to restrict him to the dugout.  Secondly, if a coach yells to me across the field that I need to learn the rules, he's done.  If a coach breaks my personal space barrier and deliberately gets in my face, he's done too, unless he backs off real quick.  I don't need him glowering at me from the dugout for the rest of the game.

I think this new rule is widely misunderstood. The point of it isn't to limit your discretion. You can still bounce a coach for the reasons you stated -- that hasn't changed.  You can also still restrict a coach to the bench. That, too, hasn't changed. All the new rule does is formalizes an escalation path for disciplining a coach while keeping him in the game so he can still coach his players.

It's not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.

[scrounge]

39 minutes ago, PonyUmpire said:

Firstly, I don't like how FED takes away my discretion on how to manage the game.  If I think a warning alone will be effective for a particular coach, why should I have to restrict him to the dugout.  Secondly, if a coach yells to me across the field that I need to learn the rules, he's done.  If a coach breaks my personal space barrier and deliberately gets in my face, he's done too, unless he backs off real quick.  I don't need him glowering at me from the dugout for the rest of the game.

I concur with @ElkOil, there is nothing really stopping you from using pretty much the same discretion as before. You can still give the unofficial 'warning' the same way as before...the stop sign, the 'knock it off', etc. If you think it's a major violation - and physical intimidation would certainly count - then you still can eject and be perfectly within the rules. I also like how @Thawk751 used this new tool - a tool that the coaches themselves asked for. Put them on the bench for that minor offense - just like they asked for. And if (when?) the inevitable 2nd minor offense comes, they're gone. And they can't say they didn't see it coming.

[ElkOil]

2 minutes ago, scrounge said:

I also like how @Thawk751 used this new tool - a tool that the coaches themselves asked for. 

That's a good point. 

[PonyUmpire]

3 hours ago, ElkOil said:

I think this new rule is widely misunderstood. The point of it isn't to limit your discretion. You can still bounce a coach for the reasons you stated -- that hasn't changed.  You can also still restrict a coach to the bench. That, too, hasn't changed. All the new rule does is formalizes an escalation path for disciplining a coach while keeping him in the game so he can still coach his players.

It's not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.

I hear you.  My point was more about wanting to be able to warn without restricting.  Clearly I can still eject a coach without warning if I think it's appropriate (I guess my comments on that were more a reaction to the OP than the rule change itself).

[ALStripes17]

I hear you.  My point was more about wanting to be able to warn without restricting.  Clearly I can still eject a coach without warning if I think it's appropriate (I guess my comments on that were more a reaction to the OP than the rule change itself).

You still have your discretion of 'soft warning' also known as 'acknowledging'.

"That's enough" is not a formal warning (I imagine you know that, just providing example for some others)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[PonyUmpire]

@ALStripes17 Just curious, what do you guys think constitutes a "formal warning"? Obviously, "that's enough" doesn't qualify, and neither does a stop sign. What about something like "Bob, I'm warning you, no more", or "Jim, I'm warning you not to come out."? Do I really have to go with "Bill, this is your warning for arguing balls and strikes. If you continue you will be ejected", followed by pulling my lineup card out like an idiot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NCAAump2]

In NCAA, the line equivalent to "This if your warning.  If you continue, you will be ejected," is exactly what they want.  A formal warning, and everyone knows it. 

[ALStripes17]

@ALStripes17 Just curious, what do you guys think constitutes a "formal warning"? Obviously, "that's enough" doesn't qualify, and neither does a stop sign. What about something like "Bob, I'm warning you, no more", or "Jim, I'm warning you not to come out."? Do I really have to go with "Bill, this is your warning for arguing balls and strikes. If you continue you will be ejected", followed by pulling my lineup card out like an idiot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The coaches voted on that. It lets them know exactly where they are in the succession.

" Bill, this is your formal warning. You are restricted to the dugout. If you continue, you will be ejected" is exactly what needs to be said and taking out your book and writing that down is what needs to be done

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ZebraStripes]

23 hours ago, PonyUmpire said:

@ALStripes17 Just curious, what do you guys think constitutes a "formal warning"? Obviously, "that's enough" doesn't qualify, and neither does a stop sign. What about something like "Bob, I'm warning you, no more", or "Jim, I'm warning you not to come out."? Do I really have to go with "Bill, this is your warning for arguing balls and strikes. If you continue you will be ejected", followed by pulling my lineup card out like an idiot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here in Georgia, it is a written warning.  It's written on the lineup card and a game report is filed after the game.

[ALStripes17]

Here in Georgia, it is a written warning.  It's written on the lineup card and a game report is filed after the game.

Lots of informal warnings from me if I have to do paperwork for a restriction...smh... Are they trying to make it difficult on yall?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ZebraStripes]

14 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Lots of informal warnings from me if I have to do paperwork for a restriction...smh... Are they trying to make it difficult on yall?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

They want to keep track of the offenders I guess.  Or to "formalize" the process.  I restricted a coach in the front end of a double header and had paper work, then my partner tossed an assistant coach in the bottom end of it, more paper work.

[catsbackr]

Does the "formal" warning and the dugout restriction go together?

[scrounge]

4 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

Does the "formal" warning and the dugout restriction go together?

Yes, though as I understand it, a couple states are saying to separate them. In initial communications, NFHS said in their PR release that the progression of penalties would be warning, then restriction. But the rule clearly says "shall" warn AND restrict.

 

"Coaches who receive a written warning (10-2-3j) shall also be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game. "

[LMSANS]

We were told that the purpose of this process was to cut down or slow ejections by inserting a formal warning step when necessary.  We know IAWE, but there are guys that just do E.

[ElkOil]

Wouldn't you know that this just happened in one of my games.  Coach was upset about a call my partner made, and out he comes to talk about it. He didn't like the direction the conversation was headed, so he got a little worked up. My partner restricted him to the dugout with a warning. The coach was a little confused and asked if he could still coach 3B. My partner told him that he had to stay in the dugout. So far, so good. The coach calmed down and asked me later how this type of thing gets reported to the school district, and I said I didn't really know, but my partner would have to submit a report to our association. He understood. No problems for the rest of the game. The rule seemed to have accomplished what it intended.

After the game, my partner seemed pretty upset as we walked back to our cars. He said, "That coach talked for the rest of the game.  He was coaching all the time from the dugout!"

"Well, yeah," I said. "That's the point of the rule -- keep the coach in the game so he can still coach his players."

"No it isn't!"

"I'm pretty sure it is."

It's going to take some time to get used to this, as with any change, from both the coaching and umpiring side.

[NorthTexasUmp]

26 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Wouldn't you know that this just happened in one of my games.  Coach was upset about a call my partner made, and out he comes to talk about it. He didn't like the direction the conversation was headed, so he got a little worked up. My partner restricted him to the dugout with a warning. The coach was a little confused and asked if he could still coach 3B. My partner told him that he had to stay in the dugout. So far, so good. The coach calmed down and asked me later how this type of thing gets reported to the school district, and I said I didn't really know, but my partner would have to submit a report to our association. He understood. No problems for the rest of the game. The rule seemed to have accomplished what it intended.

After the game, my partner seemed pretty upset as we walked back to our cars. He said, "That coach talked for the rest of the game.  He was coaching all the time from the dugout!"

"Well, yeah," I said. "That's the point of the rule -- keep the coach in the game so he can still coach his players."

"No it isn't!"

"I'm pretty sure it is."

It's going to take some time to get used to this, as with any change, from both the coaching and umpiring side.

Texas right?? UIL wants a report for restrictions.

[lawump]

It is clear to me that the intent of this rule (and what it does and does not do) is not being grasped by a lot of umpires.  (I'm not picking on anyone in this thread.)

I only wish I knew someone on the Fed rules committee who could bring this observation of mine to the attention of the committee.

[ZebraStripes]

8 hours ago, catsbackr said:

Does the "formal" warning and the dugout restriction go together?

Here, they go together based on what was conveyed to our association as being from the state.

[catsbackr]

We do not report Warnings/Restrictions to the State.

[Welpe]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:33 AM, catsbackr said:

Does the "formal" warning and the dugout restriction go together?

Yes. Part of the penalty in the book for a written warning is restriction to the dugout.