Jump to content

2017 rule changes

lawump

By lawump
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 3587 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

lawump

lawump

Posted
Posted

The 2017 rule changes will be announced by the NFHS on Monday (7/11/16).  I'll post more about them at that time.  Just thought that I would give a head's up.

  • Like 2
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

lawump
lawump

The 2017 rule changes will be announced by the NFHS on Monday (7/11/16).  I'll post more about them at that time.  Just thought that I would give a head's up.

udbrky
udbrky

Until the families of the victims are notified?

grayhawk
grayhawk

I felt like it had no chance.  The risk/return is unbalanced.  For every base hit or home run taken away by a balk under the current rule, there would be 10 total clusters that would have to be dealt

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted
On 7/9/2016 at 9:03 PM, RichMSN said:

Too bad the group at large couldn't bring themselves to accept the recommendation of the rules committee.

Regarding the balk rule?

maven

maven

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, noumpere said:

they are put on nfhs.org every year (still too early in the day for them to be posted yet)

Right: it's like a stock report from AOL, which they'll post after the close of business to minimize the damage.

stkjock

stkjock

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, maven said:

Right: it's like a stock report from AOL, which they'll post after the close of business to minimize the damage.

LOL, you'll be waiting a loooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time for that next report...   :D

 

AOL has not been a public company in a bit over a year...AOL

 

 

lawump

lawump

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I did get an email on Friday telling me the press release was coming out today...I promise.  But until it comes out, my lips are sealed.  (And even when it comes out, I can't discuss what happened (or did not happen) in the committee room).

 

 

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RichMSN said:

Yes.

I felt like it had no chance.  The risk/return is unbalanced.  For every base hit or home run taken away by a balk under the current rule, there would be 10 total clusters that would have to be dealt with by umpires that have no idea how to administer a balk when the ball is kept live.  It's just not worth the headaches it would cause.

  • Like 2
grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, lawump said:

Do you find that to be the case in other youth leagues in your area that play using OBR?  Because I find in my area that the umpires that work other organizations (Legion, USSSA, AAU, etc.) that use OBR (with safety modifications) do just fine with applying the OBR rule in games they work in those organizations.  (I'm not saying that it is never incorrectly applied, but not to the level you are stating in your post.)  In fact, I have had some of my FED umpires get it wrong (because they use the NCAA or OBR rule and don't realize that the FED rule is different).  I had one crew in 2015 let a bases loaded triple stand in a big FED game b/c they forgot that in FED the ball is immediately dead.  (The crew was comprised of two guys who work both FED and NCAA.) 

Honestly, the number of times I have seen a balk followed by a batted ball is so small that the sample size wouldn't tell me much.  I've seen it administered correctly, only for both teams to stop everything.  I've seen it killed improperly (either too soon (at the time of the balk), or too late while the circus unfolds).

I am generally all for having as few rules differences as safety allows, and this used to be one of the big ones for me.  But I have come to realize that the offense gets hosed by the dead ball balk SO infrequently that it just doesn't matter to me anymore.  I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather align the pitching restrictions themselves than deal with the penalty.  Here are the things that really should be changed, IMO:

- Remove the requirement that the pitcher's entire pivot foot, while in the set, be within the length of the rubber (I don't feel it gives F1 an advantage)
- Remove the requirement for the pitcher to come to a stop with no runners (we already have a quick pitch rule)
- Remove the requirement that the pitcher, while in the set, come to a stop with the glove at or below the chin (is this really confusing to runners?)
- Allow pick offs from the windup (for the sole purpose of my next suggestion)
- By allowing picks from the windup, remove the whole hybrid mess.  Even after years of enforcement, coaches and players still don't get it, and it's just one more reason to make umpires the bad guys.

You could also make feinting to third illegal, but admittedly, it would only be to align rule sets.  This one doesn't bother me since it's a chance to get an out, and it's not attempted so much in my games that it lengthens the overall game times. 

NorthTexasUmp

NorthTexasUmp

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, maven said:

Right: it's like a stock report from AOL, which they'll post after the close of business to minimize the damage.

Pacific time?? :huh::wacko:

  • Like 1
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Honestly, the number of times I have seen a balk followed by a batted ball is so small that the sample size wouldn't tell me much.  I've seen it administered correctly, only for both teams to stop everything.  I've seen it killed improperly (either too soon (at the time of the balk), or too late while the circus unfolds).

I am generally all for having as few rules differences as safety allows, and this used to be one of the big ones for me.  But I have come to realize that the offense gets hosed by the dead ball balk SO infrequently that it just doesn't matter to me anymore.  I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather align the pitching restrictions themselves than deal with the penalty.  Here are the things that really should be changed, IMO:

- Remove the requirement that the pitcher's entire pivot foot, while in the set, be within the length of the rubber (I don't feel it gives F1 an advantage)
- Remove the requirement for the pitcher to come to a stop with no runners (we already have a quick pitch rule)
- Remove the requirement that the pitcher, while in the set, come to a stop with the glove at or below the chin (is this really confusing to runners?)
- Allow pick offs from the windup (for the sole purpose of my next suggestion)
- By allowing picks from the windup, remove the whole hybrid mess.  Even after years of enforcement, coaches and players still don't get it, and it's just one more reason to make umpires the bad guys.

You could also make feinting to third illegal, but admittedly, it would only be to align rule sets.  This one doesn't bother me since it's a chance to get an out, and it's not attempted so much in my games that it lengthens the overall game times. 

I had my first legit, base hit balk this year.  It was a cluster to say the least...my partner and I handled it perfectly from a mechanics standpoint but the "IT'S A DEAD BALL" screaming from both dugouts & stands was rather comical.  (OBR)

Two years ago, we had a balk, batted ball in play, and the batter/runner was thrown "out" at first base by F6...then we had to call time and enforce the balk.  Same melt down there.  

RichMSN

RichMSN

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I felt like it had no chance.  The risk/return is unbalanced.  For every base hit or home run taken away by a balk under the current rule, there would be 10 total clusters that would have to be dealt with by umpires that have no idea how to administer a balk when the ball is kept live.  It's just not worth the headaches it would cause.

Except all other baseball is played this way.  And in summer ball I have at least one a season where everyone thinks it should be dead, but isn't.

  • Like 1
Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, RichMSN said:

Except all other baseball is played this way.  And in summer ball I have at least one a season where everyone thinks it should be dead, but isn't.

But it isn't umpired that way. In my neck of the woods the "real" baseball org (fill in the name) has umpires who give "coach choice" because the rule is too hard to understand. I brief my HS trained guys when they do a LL upper level game about the rule. Not sure it would be called correctly if it happened, which thankfully it has not. Just read the threads and confusion on this topic here at UE. 

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

But it isn't umpired that way. In my neck of the woods the "real" baseball org (fill in the name) has umpires who give "coach choice" because the rule is too hard to understand. I brief my HS trained guys when they do a LL upper level game about the rule. Not sure it would be called correctly if it happened, which thankfully it has not. Just read the threads and confusion on this topic here at UE. 

Yeah, you can't make it up.  Reading comprehension is too tough, so make up some SH*#.  Just fantastic.

lawump

lawump

Posted
  • Author
Posted

DISCLAIMER:  I will not discuss the details of the debate in the committee room; I will not discuss the vote breakdown; I will not confirm or deny anything that is not contained in the press release.  Furthermore, I have absolutely NO authority to speak on behalf of the committee.  Any "opinions" expressed in any of my posts are MY opinion (and not the committee's). 

All I am doing is sharing the rule changes (which were publicly released this morning) since just about everyone on this site are rule geeks (Until published in the rulebook, the exact wording of a rule is subject to change):

RULE CHANGE #1:   Rule 2-32-2 (c) is modified to read, "except at home plate, the runner goes beyond the base and the makes contact with or alters the play of the fielder.  At home plate, it is permissible for the slider’s momentum to carry him through the plate in the baseline extended."

RULE CHANGE #2:  Rule 3-2-2 modified to read, "The runner shall be called out immediately.  (8-4-2s)" 

Rule 8-4-2 is modified to add a subsection "s" which shall read, "is physically assisted by a coach."  (MY opinion:  The purpose of this rule change is to make coach's interference the same in FED as it is in OBR and NCAA.  The runner whom the coach assists is declared out, the play continues for all other purposes.  FED umpires will no longer be required to let the play continue solely for the purpose of letting the defense get other outs.  FED umpires will no longer have to return runners to their T-O-I base (at the end of the play) when coach's interference occurs.  Rather, the runner whom the coach assisted is immediately called out...but the play continues (ball remains "live") for all other purposes.)

RULE CHANGE #3:  Rule 3-3-1 is modified to read:  "PENALTY:  The umpire shall warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur.  A warning may be verbal or written.  If written, the offender shall be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game.  If a coach has previously received a verbal warning, he shall receive a written warning (and be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game) for any subsequent offense.  If a coach has previously received a written warning, he shall be ejected for any subsequent offense.  Any offense judged to be major in nature shall result in an immediate ejection.  For coaches who violated f (1-5), g, h, I, j, or k, the umpire may: (1) issue a verbal warning to the offender, (2) issue a written warning to the offender (any offender receiving a written warning shall be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game), or (3) eject the offender for a major offense.  For violation of f (6) both the offending coach and the head coach shall receive a written warning and be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game unless the offense is major in which case the offender shall  be ejected and the head coach shall receive a written warning (and be restricted) or be ejected.  A coach may leave the bench/dugout to attend to a player who becomes ill or injured.  In f (7), the state association shall determine appropriate action.

In the Notes section at the back of the rulebook it will read, "The intent of this rule is to stress to umpires that unless an offense is particularly major, umpires should employ a three-step method of dealing with the unsportsmanlike behavior set forth in Rule 3-3-1.  This three-step method is to first acknowledge the offense, then formally warn and then eject.  in high school baseball, a minor offense should first be acknowledged by issuing a verbal warning.  A subsequent minor offense should result in a formal written warning (accompanied by a restriction to the bench/dugout).  Finally, a third minor offense shall result in an ejection.  Umpires should strive to keep coaches and players "in the game" by using this three-step procedure.  However, nothing in this rule shall prohibit an umpire from issuing an immediate ejection (without a preceding verbal or written warning) for any major violation of Rule 3-3-1.

 

A 'written' warning means that the umpire shall notate on paper in his possession (for example, the back of a line-up card) the name of the person warned, the point in the game of the warning (inning, number of outs, location of runners) and the reason for the warning."

 

RULE CHANGE #4: Rule 3-3-1 (f)(2) is modified to read, "Use of profanity, intimidation tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably upon any other person, or taunting or baiting.  The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting.

 

RULE CHANGE #5:  Rule 6-2-6 is modified to read, "Each state association shall have a pitching restriction policy based on the number of pitches thrown to afford pitchers a required rest period between pitching appearances.

 

 

 

scrounge

scrounge

Posted
Posted

Well, I gotta admit.....I kind of like these changes. I know, that's not the fashionable reaction to Fed...but I think these are actually pretty good in reality.

Home plate slide rule - I think this is long overdue, no one wanted to make that call in the first place.

Coach's assistance - sure, why not, simplifies and makes it consistent. Runner's out, that seems sufficient and relieves the need to worry about placement.

Warnings - let's face it, is it really doing anything more than formalizing and recognizing the verbal warnings that we were already giving in the first place? I bet nearly all of us were already doing the 'informal' verbal warning in our IAWE progression already. What's the difference? If anything, this will help in documenting it and keeping us out of the 'he didn't give me a warning!' business. "Gave coach verbal warning, he continued, gave written warning with restriction, he continued, I ejected him". May even make it easier to go up the ladder, since it's now formalized. No more 2 and 3 verbal warnings, just give out those restrictions - like they want. Seems like there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over this provision, but the practical effect strikes me as simply acknowledging the progression we almost always were already doing. I think this is a molehill.

Taunting - whatever, already there in practice

Pitching - coaches' business

 

  • Like 1
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...