2022 Annual NFHS Interpretations

[MadMax]

48 minutes ago, boyinr said:

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

How is the game considered, then? As a completed game? As a forfeit? 

One of my Vultures and I were in a situation for a HS game just like this… 3-25 after 3 innings (and how the visitors got 3 was an aberration in the 1st inning). The visiting team had notified us (umpires and HTHC) prior to the game, that if it got out of hand, they’d just up and leave, conceding the loss. Well, they began to do just that, and my PU partner and I were walking across the adjacent parking lot when the AD intercepted us in his golf cart, insisting that we had to resume and complete the game to regulation (4.5 innings) because a forfeiture would affect postseason standings, and imperil their seeding. 

So how is this game termination ascribed?

[Catch18]

I believe it’s a complete game, not forfeited. The HCs and Umpires agreed to end the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maven]

2 hours ago, Catch18 said:

I believe it’s a complete game, not forfeited. The HCs and Umpires agreed to end the game.

That's correct. Coaches ending the game by mutual agreement constitutes a complete game.

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

The visiting team had notified us (umpires and HTHC) prior to the game, that if it got out of hand, they’d just up and leave, conceding the loss. Well, they began to do just that, and my PU partner and I were walking across the adjacent parking lot when the AD intercepted us in his golf cart, insisting that we had to resume and complete the game to regulation (4.5 innings) because a forfeiture would affect postseason standings, and imperil their seeding.

Tell the AD to speak to his coach.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

3-25 after 3 innings (and how the visitors got 3 was an aberration in the 1st inning).

Curious (if you recall) had the winning team substituted everyone in?

I don't understand why coaches don't in that situation. The last 2-3 (or 7) players on he roster need some love. Have a heart.

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Tell the AD to speak to his coach.

The game in question occurred in 2018. Has this rule always been there, or is this new or added just this year?

[maven]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

The game in question occurred in 2018. Has this rule always been there, or is this new or added just this year?

The rule allowing coaches to shorten a game by mutual agreement exists in every sport I've officiated, including baseball, basketball, and football. It's not new. I've only ever used it twice, both in JV football, and both when tiny squads were being blown out in the first half (> 50 points) on horrendously hot days. I don't imagine it's used often in varsity contests.

In my state at least, we're supposed to avoid forfeits at all costs. In almost all instances, our instructions are to suspend the game and let the state deal with it. If they deem it a forfeit, then so be it. And this is precisely to avoid standings issues.

[Richvee]

Wow. I don’t like to be such a contrarian, but there’s so much wrong with so many of these. 
 
1. As stated above,  not allowing a play card on a belt is ridiculous. 
2. 17- The ball sticks in the fence and falls to ground before F2 even gets there?  Is there a time limit on how long a ball has to stick on the fence to be lodged. 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Seems to me if the  ball’s free on the ground when a fielder gets there, it’s not lodged. 
 

3- 19 shows the lunacy of “ the batter can only interfere with a  D3K if it’s intentional”.  FED needs to get onboard with “ clearly hinders the play” that NCAA and OBR use. 
 

4- 20  So… R1/R3, 2 outs fly ball to F9, or F8….r3 runs home, R1 mistakenly runs back to 1b. Ball falls. 1BC, seeing R1 is a dead duck to be forced out at 2B, reaches out pushes R1 to get the timing play 3rd out and score the run? 

[Catch18]

Wow. I don’t like to be such a contrarian, but there’s so much wrong with so many of these.
 
3- 19 shows the lunacy of “ the batter can only interfere with a  D3K if it’s intentional”.  FED needs to get onboard with “ clearly hinders the play” that NCAA and OBR use. 

Your feeling aside of the rules, is the the tangle/untangle I’ve heard used to rule no interference, but it’s “incidental” contact?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Richvee]

46 minutes ago, Catch18 said:

 

Your feeling aside of the rules, is the the tangle/untangle I’ve heard used to rule no interference, but it’s “incidental” contact?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No. This is a batter runner interfering with the catcher’s ability to field an uncaught third strike. 
NCAA and OBR says if a batter swings and misses at a third strike, if his actions “clearly hinder” F2’s ability to make a play, intentional or not, interference is called and the batter runner is out. 
 

FED says the interference by the batter runner needs to be intentional, or it’s nothing. 
example.  Strike 3, ball rolls out on to the plate. Batter takes off for 1B, and inadvertently kicks the ball up the 1B line. Batter runner makes it to 1B. 

OBR and NCAA say this is interference and the batter is out because he clearly hindered F2’s ability to make a play. 
FED would call this runner safe - play stands because he didn’t kick the ball away from F2 intentionally. 
 

The case play is not wrong, I just think it’s an insane rules difference. 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. MadMax, according to FED rule 4-2-1 a forfeited game is a regulation game no matter how many innings were played. Heck, rule 4-4-2 even tells us what the score of the game will be for a forfeit victory.

SECTION 2 ENDING A REGULATION GAME

ART. 1 . . . A regulation interscholastic game consists of seven innings (turns at bat) unless extra inning(s) are necessary because of a tie score, or unless shortened because the home team needs none of its half of the seventh or only a fraction of it (Art. 2); or because of weather, or darkness (Art. 3). Each team must have nine players in its lineup throughout the game (see 4-4-1f Note 2). Otherwise, the game will be forfeited. A forfeited game is regulation, regardless of innings played (4- 4-2).

As for when did the option for coaches and umpires to terminate a game enter the rule book—I have a 2004 edition and the option was in it then as rule 4-2-4 if there were no game-ending procedures in place by the state association. Considering some information in the 2016 BRD, I think the option to terminate a lopsided game entered the rule book in 2002 or 2003.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Richvee said:

20  So… R1/R3, 2 outs fly ball to F9, or F8….r3 runs home, R1 mistakenly runs back to 1b. Ball falls. 1BC, seeing R1 is a dead duck to be forced out at 2B, reaches out pushes R1 to get the timing play 3rd out and score the run? 

ahh, very tricky...

[johnnyg08]

18 hours ago, Velho said:

Curious (if you recall) had the winning team substituted everyone in?

I don't understand why coaches don't in that situation. The last 2-3 (or 7) players on he roster need some love. Have a heart.

This is also when players start playing out of position...and if that player is an inexperienced F2, as umpires we need to be aware of the increased safety issues that have now entered into the fray. 

[maven]

13 hours ago, Catch18 said:

Your feeling aside of the rules, is the the tangle/untangle I’ve heard used to rule no interference, but it’s “incidental” contact?

Rich told you no, and the correct ruling.

The reason it's not tangle/untangle is that it's not a batted ball. The batter struck out, so he is not afforded the same privileges as a BR who has hit a fair batted ball.

[blue23ll]

On 2/9/2022 at 5:51 PM, maven said:

I have nightmares like situation 9.

Nightmares about the score or calling the game early? 

[Catch18]

Rich told you no, and the correct ruling.
The reason it's not tangle/untangle is that it's not a batted ball. The batter struck out, so he is not afforded the same privileges as a BR who has hit a fair batted ball.

Ah yes, batted ball was what I was thinking of. Thanks, to you both, for the clarification!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maven]

2 hours ago, blue23ll said:

Nightmares about the score or calling the game early? 

Not exactly either. I just hate officiating shîtty baseball. 

I'd happily officiate 2.5 hours of 1–1 baseball, deep into extra innings.

[umpstu]

On 2/10/2022 at 6:46 AM, kylehutson said:

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.

Is the eye high strike zone unusual?

[umpstu]

On 2/10/2022 at 5:06 PM, maven said:

The rule allowing coaches to shorten a game by mutual agreement exists in every sport I've officiated, including baseball, basketball, and football. It's not new. I've only ever used it twice, both in JV football, and both when tiny squads were being blown out in the first half (> 50 points) on horrendously hot days. I don't imagine it's used often in varsity contests.

In my state at least, we're supposed to avoid forfeits at all costs. In almost all instances, our instructions are to suspend the game and let the state deal with it. If they deem it a forfeit, then so be it. And this is precisely to avoid standings issues.

Speaking of horrendously hot days, we hit 93 degrees here yesterday.  Today our high school season officially begins.  Can't wait for the discussions from local HS umpires at the end of the day today.

[umpstu]

On 2/10/2022 at 7:44 PM, Senor Azul said:

Mr. MadMax, according to FED rule 4-2-1 a forfeited game is a regulation game no matter how many innings were played. Heck, rule 4-4-2 even tells us what the score of the game will be for a forfeit victory.

SECTION 2 ENDING A REGULATION GAME

ART. 1 . . . A regulation interscholastic game consists of seven innings (turns at bat) unless extra inning(s) are necessary because of a tie score, or unless shortened because the home team needs none of its half of the seventh or only a fraction of it (Art. 2); or because of weather, or darkness (Art. 3). Each team must have nine players in its lineup throughout the game (see 4-4-1f Note 2). Otherwise, the game will be forfeited. A forfeited game is regulation, regardless of innings played (4- 4-2).

As for when did the option for coaches and umpires to terminate a game enter the rule book—I have a 2004 edition and the option was in it then as rule 4-2-4 if there were no game-ending procedures in place by the state association. Considering some information in the 2016 BRD, I think the option to terminate a lopsided game entered the rule book in 2002 or 2003.

Maybe in Az they have a point system for playoff contention and a forfeit counts as less then a win?

[Thunderheads]

On 2/9/2022 at 3:54 PM, MadMax said:

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! 

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. 

 

More on this POST CAMP (Michigan) ... oddly enough ...in Michigan, they are not permitting F1 to wear the playing card on any arm, but THEY ARE allowing him to wear it on his belt as long as it's not some stupid bright color, or shiny or 'destracting' ........

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

but THEY ARE allowing him to wear it on his belt

Well, that means in Michigan, they’re allowing an Equipment Violation. 

What good are Fed rules, then, if you ain’t gonna use them? 

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Well, that means in Michigan, they’re allowing an Equipment Violation. 

What good are Fed rules, then, if you ain’t gonna use them? 

I'm clarifying just to be sure, and also clarifying that this may be for F1 only ... I'll let you know

P.S. Kidding or not ...I still have a problem w/ a "play calling card" being 'equipment' as in a 'wrist band' because we all know, ... it's not a 'wristband'  

[johnnyg08]

On 2/14/2022 at 8:32 AM, Thunderheads said:

More on this POST CAMP (Michigan) ... oddly enough ...in Michigan, they are not permitting F1 to wear the playing card on any arm, but THEY ARE allowing him to wear it on his belt as long as it's not some stupid bright color, or shiny or 'destracting' ........

That's kind of silly. We allow one compression sleeve. There's really no difference. 

[maven]

18 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

That's kind of silly. We allow one compression sleeve. There's really no difference. 

I don't think it's a uniform rule, I think it's an equipment rule, namely, the enforcement of the "worn properly" requirement.

If we start making exceptions, that would be a slippery slope. Next we'd see phitin necklaces...cuz, ya know, they're not distracting...

[johnnyg08]

24 minutes ago, maven said:

I don't think it's a uniform rule, I think it's an equipment rule, namely, the enforcement of the "worn properly" requirement.

If we start making exceptions, that would be a slippery slope. Next we'd see phitin necklaces...cuz, ya know, they're not distracting...

I understand your point. I won't be surprised if the NFHS loosens their jewelry restrictions in the near future.