2022 Annual NFHS Interpretations

[johnnyg08]

https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/baseball-rules-interpretations-2022?ArtId=617605

 

[Thunderheads]

situation 3 / ruling is ridiculous

[GreyhoundAggie]

It's consistent with how our state organization has instructed us to enforce this.

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundAggie said:

It's consistent with how our state organization has instructed us to enforce this.

my comment still stands  

[GreyhoundAggie]

I am not disagreeing with you there. But gotta go with what the powers that be decree.

[umpstu]

8 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

situation 3 / ruling is ridiculous

Why?

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, umpstu said:

Why?

Because it is?  I mean... why? who cares?  It's not really a "wrist band" ... it's a "play calling card".  What harm/danger/issue is it being worn on a belt?  It's just petty, and silly.  (my opinion)

[MadMax]

6 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

why? who cares?

NFHS is notorious for these seemingly arbitrary rulings. In their rationale, it's because it is equipment, and it is equipment that is/was designed to be worn "on the wrist"; wearing it on the belt is not wearing it as it is/was designed or intended, and is an equipment violation. Equipment violations are the entry points to "safety issues" and litigation, and we know how much the NFHS loves litigations. 

Parallel this to NFHS soccer. They're all kerfluster about shinguards, and how they have to be NOCSAE-stamped, and how they have to be under the socks, and cannot be any higher than 2-inches above the ankle. So, to keep them in place, many soccer players – professional and amateur alike – wear guard stays, these velcro or elastic straps positioned under the guard, over the sock, to clamp it in place. The NFHS allows for this, but – get ready for this – they have to be same color as the sock, or if they are a contrasting color, everybody on the playable roster must wear them! Why? Well, there's this thing called "targeting" within soccer, where NFHS's concern is an unmeasurable perception of advantage to teammates being able to quickly discern one player-teammate from another. 

🤨

Yeah, I think the same thing... often. Just play soccer already!

[Thunderheads]

12 hours ago, MadMax said:

NFHS is notorious for these seemingly arbitrary rulings. In their rationale, it's because it is equipment, and it is equipment that is/was designed to be worn "on the wrist"; wearing it on the belt is not wearing it as it is/was designed or intended, and is an equipment violation. Equipment violations are the entry points to "safety issues" and litigation, and we know how much the NFHS loves litigations. 

Parallel this to NFHS soccer. They're all kerfluster about shinguards, and how they have to be NOCSAE-stamped, and how they have to be under the socks, and cannot be any higher than 2-inches above the ankle. So, to keep them in place, many soccer players – professional and amateur alike – wear guard stays, these velcro or elastic straps positioned under the guard, over the sock, to clamp it in place. The NFHS allows for this, but – get ready for this – they have to be same color as the sock, or if they are a contrasting color, everybody on the playable roster must wear them! Why? Well, there's this thing called "targeting" within soccer, where NFHS's concern is an unmeasurable perception of advantage to teammates being able to quickly discern one player-teammate from another. 

🤨

Yeah, I think the same thing... often. Just play soccer already!

two things .....

1) you just supported why I said what I said originally.  And, ... there's NOT A SAFETY issue by wearing a 'play card' that's a part of a wrist band on your belt.  IF ANYTHING, that play card-wrist band is MORE DANGEROUS on your wrist.  STUPID, and NOT LOGICAL.

2) I grew up playing soccer, and officiated as a kid, but ...I didn't know that craziness about the shin-guard stays .... MY GOD  

[Velho]

Self serving quote trim to get on my 🧼📥

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

there's NOT A SAFETY issue by wearing a 'play card'

only safety issue with play cards is they turn off the players brain in trying to turn them into robots and pumps up the coach's self aggrandizement & ego

🧼📤

Thank you, I feel better now.

[BLWizzRanger]

  So, a player wears the band on his belt and they are HBP only on the band (the pitch was a ball).  Since they are being worn improperly, are you awarding the base?

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, BLWizzRanger said:

  So, a player wears the band on his belt and they are HBP only on the band (the pitch was a ball).  Since they are being worn improperly, are you awarding the base?

TOTALLY VALID!

[MadMax]

On 2/9/2022 at 6:10 AM, Thunderheads said:

IF ANYTHING, that play card-wrist band is MORE DANGEROUS on your wrist.

If you’ll direct your attention to Situations 11 & 14 – (I can’t quote them because it’s a screen-cap attachment, so I’ll paraphrase) the NFHS is, via these situations, allowing F1’s to wear the code cards in the wrist reader… on the (non-throwing) wrist!!! 

Is this not in direct conflict with the direction that F1’s cannot wear wrist braces, or wristbands (either sweat or decorative), or non-continuous sleeves or an elbow brace, or K-tape (itself exposed), or a batting glove within their fielding glove? Of course, the solution to this would be a belt-mounted wrist-reader, but as we’ve indicated, ya can’t do that either, because it’s an equipment violation. 

I swear, and I’m not directing this ire to colleagues like @lawump, there’s times I think the NFHS rule book is maintained or edited by two distinctly opposed groups, at least! 

This is parallel to another conflicting dichotomy when it comes to NFHS’s latest POE – keeping everyone in their dugouts. I can understand why they need this to happen; however, the rule that works in opposition to this is the allowance for a HS coach to add anyone to the roster/lineup card at any time! So, an entire clutch of “JV players” can sit, in full uniform, behind the backstop, where you – as the grand poobah demigod UIC – have no governance over them, yet the HC can approach you and add one, two, or the whole lot to the lineup card in the 6th inning! 

Madness! Madness I say! 

On 2/8/2022 at 11:00 AM, GreyhoundAggie said:

But gotta go with what the powers that be decree.

We place so much attention on official (umpire) retention, and how abuse from participants and parents/fans is one of the primary causes of umpires leaving the ranks. While that’s valid, I want to point out, that complexities like this – like having to constantly, continuously, and consistently enforce an ever more vast and pedantic matrix of rules that, in the grand scheme of things, are minor – are just as much a draining burden on umpires as participant abuse, just not as immediate and published. 

 

[kylehutson]

Seems to me we just need one of these manufacturers to state on the package that it's meant to be worn around the wrist or belt. Then it's being worn properly. And if one brand does it, who am I to say that the brand they're using isn't? I don't have that packaging.

[kylehutson]

Also, if you're going to penalize a player for wearing a wristband on his belt, I expect you to also penalize all those wearing sunglasses on top of their heads.

[StatsUmp]

On 2/8/2022 at 12:52 PM, Thunderheads said:

situation 3 / ruling is ridiculous

If I understood the online rules meeting correctly, Michigan has made a state-specific interpretation that makes this situation legal. I imagine this might be discussed at this weekend's umpires camp and/or upcoming association meetings.

[maven]

I have nightmares like situation 9.

[Velho]

Did the person that wrote situation 8 lose a bet?

[dumbdumb]

2 hours ago, StatsUmp said:

If I understood the online rules meeting correctly, Michigan has made a state-specific interpretation that makes this situation legal. I imagine this might be discussed at this weekend's umpires camp and/or upcoming association meetings.

at least michigans high schools athletic association's executive director has worked 2 cws. bet he has (or should have) had a few conversations with law ump on nf baseball rules and regulations and interpretations.

[Thunderheads]

12 hours ago, StatsUmp said:

If I understood the online rules meeting correctly, Michigan has made a state-specific interpretation that makes this situation legal. I imagine this might be discussed at this weekend's umpires camp and/or upcoming association meetings.

That's right!  Maybe that's why I'm confused?  Are you going this weekend? And, where are you from?

[maven]

11 hours ago, Velho said:

Did the person that wrote situation 8 lose a bet?

Do we think situation 8 would be legal if the team had no spear? 

[kylehutson]

12 hours ago, maven said:

I have nightmares like situation 9.

I had a (high school JV) game that was 36-0 after 2-1/2. Fortunately, the home team was ahead, so we didn't have to play the bottom of the 3rd. And my state has a 15-after-3 run rule. By the second inning I was calling strikes on the home team at the eyes.

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Do we think situation 8 would be legal if the team had no spear?

What if this was a HS team from Hawaii? I’ve witnessed tournaments where the Hawaiian teams have asked / been asked to perform a Haka prior to the game. 

What’s the context here? What if we have a game between the Vikings and the Friars? The Highlanders and the Knights? Intimidation is implied! 

[maven]

35 minutes ago, MadMax said:

What if this was a HS team from Hawaii? I’ve witnessed tournaments where the Hawaiian teams have asked / been asked to perform a Haka prior to the game. 

Illegal if they're NOT from Hawaii. Cultural appropriation. 

[boyinr]

15 hours ago, maven said:

I have nightmares like situation 9.

My nightmare is that one coach, for some reason, wants to continue.