Already got it wrong, so....

[HokieUmp]

Took the test two days ago, and did just fine.  I got more wrong than last year, but I'm okay with it, as one was that %^#^& new DH rule, and at least one other was not reading the question properly and/or just not paying close enough attention.

But one I'm "protesting" is one of those Section 1 questions, where we get down in the weeds with a lot of things that either we don't care about**, or aren't as enforced as the rule book - or test writers - would have you believe.  I don't have all the options or even the full question, since it's done and graded, but I will summarize the best I can.

What's in the re-cap section of the TASO site reads:  "A Team has only baseballs for the game that has the NFHS logo but not the NOCSAE seal on them."  You are given four choices.  The correct answer is:  "The game is played but the umpires shall fill out an Incident Report."  I chose "The game cannot be played."

Now, I KNOW there's been guidance before from one of the states I've worked, where the test answer was how we covered it.  BUT, in my defense, I decided to use the rule book language only - since this is written by the same kind of people that wrote the question @JaxRoloasked about.  And the test, after I got it wrong, pointed me to 1-3-1.  Well, I read 1-3-1 at the time, and even read it again before writing this post, and I don't see what I missed.

In there, they used all KINDS of "shall"s in the wording, versus "may"s or "should"s.  So I don't see the wiggle-room that plays the game.  There's the line that says "a minimum of three umpire-approved baseballs" - is that the escape clause?  Where we can say "ahhhh, good enough"?  Since the rest of that rule says the ball SHALL have the NFHS mark and the NOSCAE mark is *required*, I don't see where that answer is right.

Is this a case - like last year - where looking the case book gives the answer up?  Unlike last year, I have access to the case book, now, via the NFHS app.  Or am I not putting the rule book language together right?  THIS is the question that irritates me the most from the other night.  Thanks, guys.

 

**I care about ALL the rules, of course.  All Rules Matter.  Please don't send me your angry responses/PMs.

[Kevin_K]

Here is what the rules writers say on the language:

Situation 12: At the plate conference, the home team head coach provides to the plate umpire three baseballs. The plate umpire notices that while the baseballs have the NFHS Authenticating Mark, they do not have the SEI/NOCSAE mark. RULING: The game shall be played, but the home plate umpire shall provide a report to the state association. The baseballs are required to have both marks to ensure that proper testing has been done on the baseballs. SEI/NOCSAE testing provides a means to maintain a consistent and uniform standard for high school competition and to ensure that every baseball manufactured meets the same level of quality and playability.

https://nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/baseball-rules-interpretations-2020

Suddenly, I feel like I am trampling on @Senor Azul's territory. 

[Thunderheads]

10 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Here is what the rules writers say on the language:

Situation 12: At the plate conference, the home team head coach provides to the plate umpire three baseballs. The plate umpire notices that while the baseballs have the NFHS Authenticating Mark, they do not have the SEI/NOCSAE mark. RULING: The game shall be played, but the home plate umpire shall provide a report to the state association. The baseballs are required to have both marks to ensure that proper testing has been done on the baseballs. SEI/NOCSAE testing provides a means to maintain a consistent and uniform standard for high school competition and to ensure that every baseball manufactured meets the same level of quality and playability.

https://nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/baseball-rules-interpretations-2020

Suddenly, I feel like I am trampling on @Senor Azul's territory. 

That's funny ....... Michigan told us last year (before the season was cancelled) that we are NOT to play the game.  Basically, ... find some baseballs within a reasonable amount of time or we're done here. (not verbatim)

Anyhow ..........

[wolfe_man]

After 4 years of warnings, we were told no marks, then no game as of last year.   They've all had time (and now another year) to get some approved baseballs.

[humanbackstop19]

In Iowa, we were told if unapproved baseballs were provided, and the home team had none, to check with the visiting team to see if they had approved baseballs.  If neither team had compliant baseballs, we used what we had, but reported it to the AD of the home team and state association.

[maven]

State interpreters are the ultimate authority, especially regarding game procedures. If they say play only with approved baseballs, do that.

[Mudisfun]

7 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

That's funny ....... Michigan told us last year (before the season was cancelled) that we are NOT to play the game.  Basically, ... find some baseballs within a reasonable amount of time or we're done here. (not verbatim)

Anyhow ..........

Same guidance we were given in So. Cal... get them, find them, but without them, we do not play.

[BT_Blue]

Speaking of the new-old-new DH rule. I am TOTALLY () looking forward to getting yelled at in the forums about the fact that three states, Washington included, is allowing a Courtesy Runner for DH/F1 and DH/F2.

[GreyhoundAggie]

On 1/25/2021 at 5:40 PM, HokieUmp said:

Took the test two days ago, and did just fine.  I got more wrong than last year, but I'm okay with it, as one was that %^#^& new DH rule, and at least one other was not reading the question properly and/or just not paying close enough attention.

But one I'm "protesting" is one of those Section 1 questions, where we get down in the weeds with a lot of things that either we don't care about**, or aren't as enforced as the rule book - or test writers - would have you believe.  I don't have all the options or even the full question, since it's done and graded, but I will summarize the best I can.

What's in the re-cap section of the TASO site reads:  "A Team has only baseballs for the game that has the NFHS logo but not the NOCSAE seal on them."  You are given four choices.  The correct answer is:  "The game is played but the umpires shall fill out an Incident Report."  I chose "The game cannot be played."

Now, I KNOW there's been guidance before from one of the states I've worked, where the test answer was how we covered it.  BUT, in my defense, I decided to use the rule book language only - since this is written by the same kind of people that wrote the question @JaxRoloasked about.  And the test, after I got it wrong, pointed me to 1-3-1.  Well, I read 1-3-1 at the time, and even read it again before writing this post, and I don't see what I missed.

In there, they used all KINDS of "shall"s in the wording, versus "may"s or "should"s.  So I don't see the wiggle-room that plays the game.  There's the line that says "a minimum of three umpire-approved baseballs" - is that the escape clause?  Where we can say "ahhhh, good enough"?  Since the rest of that rule says the ball SHALL have the NFHS mark and the NOSCAE mark is *required*, I don't see where that answer is right.

Is this a case - like last year - where looking the case book gives the answer up?  Unlike last year, I have access to the case book, now, via the NFHS app.  Or am I not putting the rule book language together right?  THIS is the question that irritates me the most from the other night.  Thanks, guys.

 

**I care about ALL the rules, of course.  All Rules Matter.  Please don't send me your angry responses/PMs.

I feel you  Hokie. There are always some weird questions. I missed a couple on the first pass from not reading carefully enough. Or missing that they were (A and C) type answers. 

[ATXBlue]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

I feel you  Hokie. There are always some weird questions. I missed a couple on the first pass from not reading carefully enough. Or missing that they were (A and C) type answers. 

Same here, they are leaning heavy on the multiple answer bit this year. 

[HokieUmp]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

I feel you  Hokie. There are always some weird questions. I missed a couple on the first pass from not reading carefully enough. Or missing that they were (A and C) type answers. 

This one was REALLY irritating to me, because the wording in the rule book makes it read as if:  if you don't have the approved baseballs, you don't play.  And there were none of those "PENALTY" or other sections after the rule that add or clarify.

And I know people point out the case book is where you get the details.  But we're not a casebook-every-year place like my previous gig, so it's awkward.  I DO have it now, thanks to the app access we were given, I guess by TASO.  But maybe I mostly feel like being a whiny %$%^@ about it.

[NorthTexasUmp]

17 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

This one was REALLY irritating to me, because the wording in the rule book makes it read as if:  if you don't have the approved baseballs, you don't play.  And there were none of those "PENALTY" or other sections after the rule that add or clarify.

And I know people point out the case book is where you get the details.  But we're not a casebook-every-year place like my previous gig, so it's awkward.  I DO have it now, thanks to the app access we were given, I guess by TASO.  But maybe I mostly feel like being a whiny %$%^@ about it.

Watch your email. A little birdie told me TASO will be coming out with a ruling on how to treat the situation when NOSCAE baseballs are not available. 

[HokieUmp]

7 hours ago, NorthTexasUmp said:

Watch your email. A little birdie told me TASO will be coming out with a ruling on how to treat the situation when NOSCAE baseballs are not available. 

.....and they won't be.  We all know this.

I don't suppose that ruling will be something like "get the %$^# out of here with these penny-ante #$!& rule enforcements, and just play with round, white(-ish) objects??"

A dude can dream....

[Richvee]

I understand you must do what the state dictates, and I understand they had another year to get the correct baseballs (Probably not a top priority given the events of the past 12 months). That said, finally, after 2 years for these kids, they're gonna play a varsity baseball game, and you're gonna send them all home because they don't have a NOCSAE stamp on their baseballs? Maybe these states that are saying don't play should reconsider, JMHO. 

[lawump]

On 1/27/2021 at 3:55 AM, BT_Blue said:

Speaking of the new-old-new DH rule. I am TOTALLY () looking forward to getting yelled at in the forums about the fact that three states, Washington included, is allowing a Courtesy Runner for DH/F1 and DH/F2.

As an aside to this thread, I think a CR should be allowed.  (Not that what I think counts anymore...it used to count 1/11th...but not anymore.)  The purpose of the CR rule is to speed up the game; that is, it is a "suggested speed-up rule".  I, personally, don't think that it should matter if F1 or F2 is also the DH.  The purpose of the rule is to speed up the game.  So, under this interpretation we don't allow the F2 to go into the dugout and get his gear on while his team is still batting (thus, speeding up the game) simply because he's also the DH?  That doesn't make sense to me.  If the CR rule had some other purpose, I could see the argument against allowing a CR.  But, when the purpose of the CR rule is to speed up the game, I don't see it as damaging the game (or tilting the competitive advantage unfairly toward the offense) to allow a CR for an F1 or F2 when they are also the DH.

As for baseballs, South Carolina's dictate is to play the game and report it to the league office.

[BT_Blue]

9 hours ago, lawump said:

As an aside to this thread, I think a CR should be allowed.  (Not that what I think counts anymore...it used to count 1/11th...but not anymore.)  The purpose of the CR rule is to speed up the game; that is, it is a "suggested speed-up rule".  I, personally, don't think that it should matter if F1 or F2 is also the DH.  The purpose of the rule is to speed up the game.  So, under this interpretation we don't allow the F2 to go into the dugout and get his gear on while his team is still batting (thus, speeding up the game) simply because he's also the DH?  That doesn't make sense to me.  If the CR rule had some other purpose, I could see the argument against allowing a CR.  But, when the purpose of the CR rule is to speed up the game, I don't see it as damaging the game (or tilting the competitive advantage unfairly toward the offense) to allow a CR for an F1 or F2 when they are also the DH.

As for baseballs, South Carolina's dictate is to play the game and report it to the league office.

This is the reasons that Washington, Colorado, and Hawaii went with this. If you have the ability to try and speed up the game. Why not do it. 

I feel like NFHS out thought the room on the Player/DH rule. They said "we like the NCAA idea of a P/DH. But we don't want all the other craziness. So let's take it and change it totally.

As for baseballs. I had to miss our last state meeting. But I did list to the CIF presentation to the South Bay unit from Los Angeles today on their YouTube channel. California looks, at this time, to be in the camp of "you don't have the proper balls. You won't play the game."

[kylehutson]

On 1/31/2021 at 3:40 PM, Richvee said:

I understand you must do what the state dictates, and I understand they had another year to get the correct baseballs (Probably not a top priority given the events of the past 12 months). That said, finally, after 2 years for these kids, they're gonna play a varsity baseball game, and you're gonna send them all home because they don't have a NOCSAE stamp on their baseballs? Maybe these states that are saying don't play should reconsider, JMHO. 

I won't disagree with you on any of this, so don't take this as me defending this.

But the flip side is that I would be willing to bet actual money that a coach never does this twice.

[Thunderheads]

20 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

I won't disagree with you on any of this, so don't take this as me defending this.

But the flip side is that I would be willing to bet actual money that a coach never does this twice.

Actually, that was part of the theory behind the Michigan edict ....  "it won't happen again" ....

[BLWizzRanger]

As I am learning here the do's and don'ts, the unwritten rules, proper protocol and such, take this as a novice question.

If improper balls were presented at the home plate conference and a short duration of time was given to present the proper ones, how long is your's or your associations grace period for someone to present them?  10 mins? 30 mins?  I know some would be an immediate suspension of the game, but if it is a trip to the AD's office at the school and it is a 40 min round trip on a good day, would you wait? I know I am nitpicking but some team just made an hour long trip to get to the game, (umpires made the trip as well), I would think some leeway could be given if reasonable.

And the most important question, just joking, really just joking, how does your association handle the game fees for such?  If the game was suspended at the conference, would fees be distributed?  I will assume once the first pitch is thrown, the fees are required. I will assume if a storm came through right after the conference, the fees would be held. So, at the fault of the teams presenting improper balls and the game being suspended at the conference, I will assume the fees will be held?  Just curious.

Better to ask now and understand up front than the unfilled expectation producing resentment...

[noumpere]

All dependent on your association /conference / district / state...  Some get paid a full game fee just for showing up.  Some don'tget a full game fee until the game is official (5 innings).  Some want to wait until it gets dark or there's a curfew to cancel; some want to cancel if the first pitch isn't thrown within 30 seconds of the scheduled start time (okay -- that's a little extreme).

[ousafe]

Check with your assigner about fee policies.  Just for reference, in our association, if we get canceled in Arbiter more than an hour ahead of time, we don't get paid.  If not cancelled or cancelled less than an hour ahead of time, we get paid, regardless of weather or teams showing up, etc.

[beerguy55]

On 1/26/2021 at 7:26 AM, humanbackstop19 said:

In Iowa, we were told if unapproved baseballs were provided, and the home team had none, to check with the visiting team to see if they had approved baseballs.  If neither team had compliant baseballs, we used what we had, but reported it to the AD of the home team and state association.

Sounds like begging for a lawsuit.  Umpire likely gets away unscathed if they're following direction, but SOMEBODY is getting sued if someone gets injured in a game played with unapproved baseballs.

On 1/27/2021 at 1:55 AM, BT_Blue said:

Speaking of the new-old-new DH rule. I am TOTALLY () looking forward to getting yelled at in the forums about the fact that three states, Washington included, is allowing a Courtesy Runner for DH/F1 and DH/F2.

 

On 2/1/2021 at 2:50 PM, lawump said:

As an aside to this thread, I think a CR should be allowed.  (Not that what I think counts anymore...it used to count 1/11th...but not anymore.)  The purpose of the CR rule is to speed up the game; that is, it is a "suggested speed-up rule".  I, personally, don't think that it should matter if F1 or F2 is also the DH.  The purpose of the rule is to speed up the game.  So, under this interpretation we don't allow the F2 to go into the dugout and get his gear on while his team is still batting (thus, speeding up the game) simply because he's also the DH?  That doesn't make sense to me.  If the CR rule had some other purpose, I could see the argument against allowing a CR.  But, when the purpose of the CR rule is to speed up the game, I don't see it as damaging the game (or tilting the competitive advantage unfairly toward the offense) to allow a CR for an F1 or F2 when they are also the DH.

American baseball and softball organizations make this far more complicated than it needs to be.    It's a rule administration method I never see in Canadian leagues or tournaments, and simply pisses me off when we go south of the border.

If the rule is supposed to be there to speed up the game (ie. F1 and/or F2 are ready to go when inning ends), then the typical Canadian CR method is by far the easiest to manage, and it actually achieves the goal (with two out the batter furthest away from F2 in the lineup can go in as a CR - and that could be a different person each time...doesn't matter...change happens in about three seconds and game goes on and catcher gets his pads on - 95% of the time it's the guy who just made the second out - not sure why F1 need the princess treatment).

This whole idea of only being able to use subs, and having to use the same CR each time, and updating the umpire, and documenting the lineup card, is nonsense...it is simply a ploy to get more players into a game...and then it's disguised as a "speed-up rule"...which it is does not do.

 

[JonnyCat]

32 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

American baseball and softball organizations make this far more complicated than it needs to be.    It's a rule administration method I never see in Canadian leagues or tournaments, and simply pisses me off when we go south of the border.

If the rule is supposed to be there to speed up the game (ie. F1 and/or F2 are ready to go when inning ends), then the typical Canadian CR method is by far the easiest to manage, and it actually achieves the goal (with two out the batter furthest away from F2 in the lineup can go in as a CR - and that could be a different person each time...doesn't matter...change happens in about three seconds and game goes on and catcher gets his pads on - 95% of the time it's the guy who just made the second out - not sure why F1 need the princess treatment).

This whole idea of only being able to use subs, and having to use the same CR each time, and updating the umpire, and documenting the lineup card, is nonsense...it is simply a ploy to get more players into a game...and then it's disguised as a "speed-up rule"...which it is does not do.

 

Agree, 100% correct! The CR rule could be so simple. If you want to speed up the game, fine, I'm all for that. But don't try and disguise it as participation, either.

They want to increase participation by most of the time have a kid stand on a base and then the next batter gets out? There you go kid, you got to play for 30 seconds, now go back and sit on the bench. Don't worry, your reward for working hard in practice will be riding the pine again while watching others play. Hopefully F2 will get on and you can have your minute or two of fun. If F2 doesn't get on, well maybe next game.

[MadMax]

On 2/5/2021 at 5:27 PM, JonnyCat said:

If you want to speed up the game, fine, I'm all for that.

Here's the thing, though. Aside from curfews and loss-of-daylight on an unlit field, there are no time limits on a sanctioned, official High School (Varsity) game. So, why is there a need to speed up the game? 

Where we get the most amount of chafing on this issue is with tournament baseball, which is heavily dependent upon time limits... and they still use a complete, unaltered NFHS Ruleset! (*cough cough* biggest culprit? *cough* USA Baseball *cough!*) So, for most of the tournament series I've worked, there's typically a provision for courtesy runners being a sub not in the current lineup, a starter on the bench, a burned starter (if using OBR w/o starter reentry), a last batted out, a last recorded out... all for the sake of getting the catcher (and/or pitcher) off the bases so he can prepare for the next defensive inning. And to heck with the formalities of notifying the umpire and recording it in the lineup card, beyond a cursory, "Time! You're a sub / idle starter / last batted out / etc. acting as a courtesy runner? That's your catcher of record? Cool! ... alright, Play!"

[BT_Blue]

The ones I hate the most regarding the courtesy runner, is those stupid tournaments that don't allow the CR until there are 2 outs!