Baseball Points of Emphasis - 2017

VolUmp · December 25, 2016

Baseball Points of Emphasis - 2017

By NFHS on November 22, 2016 Baseball Share

The NFHS Baseball Rules Committee and the NFHS Board of Directors believe there are areas of the game of interscholastic baseball that need to be addressed and given special attention. These areas of concern are often cyclical, some areas need more attention than others, and that is why they might appear in the rules book for consecutive editions. These concerns are identified as “Points of Emphasis.” For the 2017 high school baseball season, attention is being called to: correct use of NFHS Authenticated Mark Program baseballs, umpires asking assistance from his partner on a call, positioning of team personnel and legal slides. When a topic is included in the Points of Emphasis, these topics are important enough to reinforce throughout the academic year because they are not being given the proper attention.

1) NFHS AUTHENTICATING MARK PROGRAM (AMP)
The NFHS AMP program was designed in 2000 to ensure that the equipment used in interscholastic contests is manufactured consistently and meets certain physical requirements. By using conforming equipment, players, coaches and officials can rest assured that the baseballs used are designed for the age group for which playing rules are written for interscholastic competition. All such balls are required to display the NFHS Authenticating Mark. Manufacturers make balls to our standards and expect that their products are purchased for game competition. Using non-AMP balls puts players, coaches, fans and umpires at risk of injury and inconsistent playability which hurts high school baseball. Using baseballs that meet the AMP requirements are good for our young people and even better for our game.

2) UMPIRE ASKING ASSISTANCE FROM HIS PARTNER
Often during contests, a coach will request that an umpire seek assistance from his partner for a particular call or play situation. Asking assistance from a partner is not mandatory. It is the discretion of the plate umpire if he feels that his view was obstructed or that his partner had a better angle on the play. If he does feel that his partner’s perspective will provide additional input to his final decision, then he has the flexibility to request his partner’s help. Once the opinion is shared, it is the plate umpire who will make the final determination on the call or play. This entire exchange will be quick and intentional using umpire signals that are relayed to players, coaches and spectators.

3) LOCATION OF TEAM PERSONNEL
Coaches, players, substitutes, attendants or other bench personnel shall not leave the dugout during live ball for any unauthorized purpose. Coaches or team personnel may not sit outside the dugout/bench on buckets or stools. Players are not allowed to stand or kneel outside their dugout/bench and make “cat-calls” or any other disparaging remarks while the other team is taking infield practice. This is unsportsmanlike behavior and will not be tolerated in interscholastic baseball. Umpires and coaches need to work together for the benefit of the students they officiate and teach. It is these game situations that provide coaches and umpires excellent “teachable moments” to reinforce proper behavior and perspective. The positive values that are learned at the baseball diamond will serve the young people long after their high school careers have ended.

4) LEGAL SLIDES
There has been a misnomer that on any given play the base runner has to slide into the base he is trying to acquire. Even the universally accepted “force play slide” is misconstrued as the player having to slide into the base. NFHS rules are specific and very clear – runners are never required to slide. However, if they choose to slide then the slide must be legal. A player can legally slide either feet first or head first. If a player chooses feet first, then at least one leg and buttock shall stay in contact with the ground. A slide is illegal if the runner uses a rolling, cross-body or pop-up slide, into the fielder, or if the runner’s raised leg is higher than the fielder’s knee (while he is in a standing position), if the runner goes beyond the base and then makes contact with the fielder or alters his play, if the runner slashes or kicks the fielder, if the runner intentionally tries to injure the fielder and during a force play situation, the runner does not slide on the ground and in a direct line between the two bases. When a runner slides, he must slide within reach of the base with either hand or a foot. The consequence is that the runner is called out and based upon his actions there could possibly be malicious contact and the runner would be ejected from the game. Attention to when it is appropriate to slide and to do it legally will improve the overall process of baserunning, reduce unnecessary injuries to the runner and the covering fielder, and make for a more exciting game to watch and enjoy.

I strongly disagree with #2. Why can't NFHS follow the NCAA system? It's perfect.

"Coach, I'll confer with my partner ... please head back to the coach's box/dugout, and you may not come back out regardless of our decision."

Declaring that the Home Plate Ump makes the final determination implies to all coaches and players that he outranks his partner.

*Edit: This has been corrected and clarified by FED per LawUmp.

Edited January 14, 2017 by VolUmp
Update

BT_Blue · December 25, 2016

Oregon has adopted and employs the NCAA standard for umpire conferences.

beerguy55 · January 10, 2017

Softball Canada also does what you suggest. The ump that made the call may or may not go to their partner for help, and then will decide if he will change his original call, and will make such announcement. The partner simply provides input and never decides or announces the final ruling.

goody14 · January 10, 2017

Here is old interp from 2007:

Quote

SITUATION 3: With no outs and R1 on first base, B2 hits a hard ground ball to F6. F6 fields the ball and steps on second base and then throws to first base in an attempt to double up B2. R1 is running standing up in a straight line to second and is hit by F6's throw. R1 was not even half way to second base and did not intentionally interfere with the throw. The defensive coach states that B2 should also be out since R1 violated the force-play slide rule. RULING: This is not a violation of the force play slide rule. R1 cannot be expected to slide at that point in the base path. The play stands. R1 would be out only if he intentionally interfered. (8-4-2b penalty)

The ruling states that a runner "cannot be expected to slide" because he is too far away from the base.

The POE doubles down on the fact that runners do not have to slide (even calling out the FPSR). The POE seems to state that a player going straight into a base is fine as long as he does not interfere. The interp makes it sound like if the player is close to the base, they had better hit the ground.

Which one is right? Or is this just verbal gymnastics?

noumpere · January 10, 2017

54 minutes ago, goody14 said:

Here is old interp from 2007:

The ruling states that a runner "cannot be expected to slide" because he is too far away from the base.

The POE doubles down on the fact that runners do not have to slide (even calling out the FPSR). The POE seems to state that a player going straight into a base is fine as long as he does not interfere. The interp makes it sound like if the player is close to the base, they had better hit the ground.

Which one is right? Or is this just verbal gymnastics?

The latter.

If the runner is close to the base (judgment) and goes straight in and stands up and interferes -- FPSR.

lawump · January 10, 2017

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 11:43 PM, VolUmp said:

2) UMPIRE ASKING ASSISTANCE FROM HIS PARTNER
Often during contests, a coach will request that an umpire seek assistance from his partner for a particular call or play situation. Asking assistance from a partner is not mandatory. It is the discretion of the plate umpire if he feels that his view was obstructed or that his partner had a better angle on the play. If he does feel that his partner’s perspective will provide additional input to his final decision, then he has the flexibility to request his partner’s help. Once the opinion is shared, it is the plate umpire who will make the final determination on the call or play. This entire exchange will be quick and intentional using umpire signals that are relayed to players, coaches and spectators.

I strongly disagree with #2. Why can't NFHS follow the NCAA system? It's perfect.

"Coach, I'll confer with my partner ... please head back to the coach's box/dugout, and you may not come back out regardless of our decision."

Declaring that the Home Plate Ump makes the final determination implies to all coaches and players that he outranks his partner.

First, have you read the 2017-18 NFHS Umpire Manual? We specifically adopted the NCAA system. You are now protected in writing if you employ the NCAA system in a FED game. And, in fact, because it is in the NFHS manual you should use the NCAA system.

Second, the NFHS has sent out a correction to all state directors. Specifically, the NFHS stated that the whole "plate umpire" language was a typo. It should be replaced with "it is the calling umpire..." Your state association and/or state rules interpreter should correct this for you.

lawump · January 10, 2017

From the Umpire Manual:

Section XII, (Brand New) Paragraph 23: "REQUESTS BY COACH FOR UMPIRE TO GET HELP: If a coach comes out and asks for an umpire to get help, and the umpire agrees to get help, the coach shall return to his position (dugout or coaching box). After conferring, the umpires shall announce the decision to both head coaches. If the call is confirmed, the coach shall not be allowed to return to the field to further discuss the call or he shall be subject to the penalties of Rule 3-3-1. If the call is changed, the other coach shall be entitled to an explanation."

BT_Blue · January 10, 2017

2 hours ago, lawump said:

From the Umpire Manual:

Section XII, (Brand New) Paragraph 23: "REQUESTS BY COACH FOR UMPIRE TO GET HELP: If a coach comes out and asks for an umpire to get help, and the umpire agrees to get help, the coach shall return to his position (dugout or coaching box). After conferring, the umpires shall announce the decision to both head coaches. If the call is confirmed, the coach shall not be allowed to return to the field to further discuss the call or he shall be subject to the penalties of Rule 3-3-1. If the call is changed, the other coach shall be entitled to an explanation."

We have been using this in Oregon for the last two or three years. The state said it was OK and all the coaches knew about it. I also used it in Washington (knowing full well that they could actually come back out) to great effect.

ALStripes17 · January 10, 2017

We have been using this in Oregon for the last two or three years. The state said it was OK and all the coaches knew about it. I also used it in Washington (knowing full well that they could actually come back out) to great effect.

Shoot. If a coach came back out after being directed that he couldn't... That would be grounds to restrict

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

BT_Blue · January 10, 2017

15 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Shoot. If a coach came back out after being directed that he couldn't... That would be grounds to restrict

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

True... but I didnt have rule support for telling him that. Explaining a restriction or ejection for this without rule support might cause an issue.

ALStripes17 · January 10, 2017

True... but I didnt have rule support for telling him that. Explaining a restriction or ejection for this without rule support might cause an issue.

How do you report prolonging an argument in a restriction/ejection report? Because that's exactly what it is. He's already talked to you... And received a directive that the conversation is over once you and your partner(s) converse.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

BT_Blue · January 10, 2017

I guess. What I am saying is that I didn't have rule backing telling him to go back.

ALStripes17 · January 10, 2017

I guess. What I am saying is that I didn't have rule backing telling him to go back.

But you do...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

BT_Blue · January 11, 2017

Now I do. Before I did not. At least not in Washington.

VolUmp · January 11, 2017

5 hours ago, lawump said:

First, have you read the 2017-18 NFHS Umpire Manual? We specifically adopted the NCAA system. You are now protected in writing if you employ the NCAA system in a FED game. And, in fact, because it is in the NFHS manual you should use the NCAA system.

Second, the NFHS has sent out a correction to all state directors. Specifically, the NFHS stated that the whole "plate umpire" language was a typo. It should be replaced with "it is the calling umpire..." Your state association and/or state rules interpreter should correct this for you.

Law,

Since the time that I posted this and made some comments, I did see your post about the corrective email sent by Elliot Hopkins.

Also, since the time that I posted this and made some comments, I received my 2017 books.

Now ... if we can get a ruling on the two directly conflicting Case Book examples we'll be good to go ...

Rook23 · January 14, 2017

Question: Now that we have the manual to back us up in terms of telling a coach to stay in the dugout if we don't overturn an appeal, does that constitute as a warning or do we skip straight to restriction if he does come back out?

I know what I'd like for the answer to be, but that doesn't mean it is the case. I can just see telling a coach to go back in the dugout while I conference with my partner and letting him know that he can't come back out over that call, then if he does come back out being expected to officially warn him for ignoring the warning of not coming back out. Le sigh.

VolUmp · January 14, 2017

43 minutes ago, Rook23 said:

Question: Now that we have the manual to back us up in terms of telling a coach to stay in the dugout if we don't overturn an appeal, does that constitute as a warning or do we skip straight to restriction if he does come back out?

I know what I'd like for the answer to be, but that doesn't mean it is the case. I can just see telling a coach to go back in the dugout while I conference with my partner and letting him know that he can't come back out over that call, then if he does come back out being expected to officially warn him for ignoring the warning of not coming back out. Le sigh.

The instruction to "please return to the dugout/coach's box and abide by our decision as final" is perceived as a warning in college, and an EJ if he disobeys. I think college just added the phrase, "I'll have no choice but to eject you ..."

FED is closely modeling this situation after NCAA (per LawUmp), so for FED, we have the restriction option. If he comes back out and directly disobeys your polite instruction, he's to be given a written warning and restriction.

dumbdumb · January 15, 2017

On 1/10/2017 at 2:48 PM, lawump said:

First, have you read the 2017-18 NFHS Umpire Manual? We specifically adopted the NCAA system. You are now protected in writing if you employ the NCAA system in a FED game. And, in fact, because it is in the NFHS manual you should use the NCAA system.

Second, the NFHS has sent out a correction to all state directors. Specifically, the NFHS stated that the whole "plate umpire" language was a typo. It should be replaced with "it is the calling umpire..." Your state association and/or state rules interpreter should correct this for you.

In your response to the OP first two lines for #2, should be read with 1 single word added below in some areas of the country-or maybe the term "some areas" should be "far too many areas".

"Often during contests, a coach will """""often""""request that an umpire seek assistance from his partner for a particular call or play situation".

For some areas this could unfortunately result in a phone call and a major change in assignments, either in quantity or quality of assignment.

When you post your vast knowledge (no I am not busting your chops) could you also give some help for those trying to build their reputations without having to ask every time a coach requests, and not having a zillion phone calls later about how you cannot be talked to, or will not answer a question (yes, they will consider a denial of a conference/help request as not answering a question, and not being able to talk to you) and being belligerent and all those other terms they use (arrogant, bull headed, etc. etc.).

It is not so much the phone calls (but then again, yes it is), but when those phone calls are acted on and reflected in your schedule. No, I am not talking about never ever asking either.

And on the sliding to 2nd. What if the runner wants to play like rec league and just run straight to the base standing up but not interfering. Does the fielder now have to throw 'over or around' the runner wasting time or does the runner have to peal off to let the fielder make a straight line throw directly to the base.

thanks.

Or, I guess we could all take your open invitation to attend your HS clinic you mentioned and receive your rule, mechanics, and situational skill and knowledge.

grayhawk · January 15, 2017

In your response to the OP first two lines for #2, should be read with 1 single word added below in some areas of the country-or maybe the term "some areas" should be "far too many areas".
"Often during contests, a coach will """""often""""request that an umpire seek assistance from his partner for a particular call or play situation".

For some areas this could unfortunately result in a phone call and a major change in assignments, either in quantity or quality of assignment.

When you post your vast knowledge (no I am not busting your chops) could you also give some help for those trying to build their reputations without having to ask every time a coach requests, and not having a zillion phone calls later about how you cannot be talked to, or will not answer a question (yes, they will consider a denial of a conference/help request as not answering a question, and not being able to talk to you) and being belligerent and all those other terms they use (arrogant, bull headed, etc. etc.).

It is not so much the phone calls (but then again, yes it is), but when those phone calls are acting on and reflected in your schedule. No, I am not talking about never ever asking either.

And on the sliding to 2nd. What if the runner wants to play like rec league and just run straight to the base standing up but not interfering. Does the fielder now have to throw 'over or around' the runner wasting time or does the runner have to peal off to let the fielder make a straight line throw directly to the base.

thanks.

Or, I guess we could all take your open invitation to attend your HS clinic you mentioned and receive your rule, mechanics, and situational skill and knowledge.

If the fielder has to throw over or around the runner who went in standing, then he has been hindered so FPSR applies. Call it.

lawump · January 16, 2017

22 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

When you post your vast knowledge (no I am not busting your chops) could you also give some help for those trying to build their reputations without having to ask every time a coach requests, and not having a zillion phone calls later about how you cannot be talked to, or will not answer a question (yes, they will consider a denial of a conference/help request as not answering a question, and not being able to talk to you) and being belligerent and all those other terms they use (arrogant, bull headed, etc. etc.).

In all seriousness, part one of my answer would be that your association (or any association in this situation) needs get an assignor with a spine. If an assignor takes away games when a coach calls and complains about an umpire, that's a big problem. An assignor should take away games solely based on the assignor's or the umpire association's evaluation of an umpire. With that said, I know that I don't have knowledge of the politics that goes on in certain parts of the country. Thus, I know that replacing a spineless assignor may be easier said than done. [I also know that there are some travel ball leagues/entities (I use term "league" loosely when speaking about travel ball) that care more about the coaches because the coaches pay money to play whereas umpires are viewed as nothing more than a necessary expense. My only advice to you on that is either to not work travel ball, find a travel ball entity that supports its umpires, or work the travel ball games with full knowledge that you have no support from the "higher ups". There is not much more I can say about "for-profit" travel ball entities.]

Part two of my answer is: even though you are not going to get help, you should still be approachable. For instance, if the coach comes and asks you to get help explain (in a calm tone of voice) why you are not going to get help. By way of example,

Coach, "Matt, he pulled his foot on that. I need you to get help."

Umpire, "Jim, I was in perfect position to see that play. I had a clear view of the fielder's foot touching the bag and I was standing 12-feet away. I do not need to get help from my partner on this call."

Coach, "You need to get help. Don't be bigger than the game."

Umpire, "Jim, if I had been blocked by a player, or if I had been out of position I assure you I would get help to get the call right. But I was in perfect position and had a perfect view of this play and I have this call right. Its time to get the game going."

I have not read "Verbal Judo", yet (it is on my to-do list). But, in my example you've addressed the coach's concerns with your calm responses. First, the coach was concerned that you got the call wrong (missed a pulled foot.) You have informed him that you had a clear, unobstructed view of the fielder's foot and thus don't need to get help. Then, when he argues that you're refusing to get help because either you're stubborn, have a big ego, or are "bigger than the game", you've addressed that by assuring him that you would get help if your view had been blocked by a player or if you were out of position. Finally, you've then taken control of the situation by saying that its now time to get the game going. If he keeps arguing...and you're working a FED game...use your three warnings at this point. Give him a verbal warning, "Jim, this is your verbal warning. I have clearly explained to you why I do not need to get help on this play. If you continue to argue you are going to be restricted to the dugout or ejected. It is time to get the game going." If he continues to argue, proceed to the next steps.

That's the best I can do to answer your question.

RichMSN · January 16, 2017

I assign for 24 schools. I've tried to get the message out that umpires don't need to ask a partner just cause the coach requests it. Sadly, there are many umpires out there who think that it's their duty to do so, even if it is just to "appease" the coach.

We don't have assigning associations here -- I work for the schools. But I don't let schools black list and I don't get a whole lot of complaints from either coaches or umpires.

Sign In

Baseball Points of Emphasis - 2017

Recommended Posts

VolUmp