Why make this an issue?

[BLWizzRanger]

12 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

I love the NFHS. They have been on the forefront for many years to combat the shortage of sports officials. They organize coach outreach clinics in every state to educate coaches on behavior. They're really strict with on-field behavior and encourage ejections without the need for silly warnings. They mandate, mandate I tell you, proper coach behavior, and strictly penalize those offenders. They require coaches training, and continuing education, in the areas, of sportsmanship, decorum, and teach an understanding of the root problems in sports officials shortage endemic. They emphasize that the playing field is an extension of the classroom, and the on-field behavior should be above reproach. They emphasize that the athletes are still students, and if their poor behavior in the classroom was not to be tolerated, then their on-field behavior should meet the same standards. They teach all coaches to respect the decisions of the umpires, strictly forbid their players from negative comments and behavioral out bursts, as well as understand that there is a proper grievance policy. The NFHS makes sure that many behavior standards and regulations are strictly adhered to, or the consequences are severe.

Plus their strict qualifications to become a HS coach has made sure that most coaches have the necessary training to guide the players. I mean, it's never "I played pro ball so I'm qualified to coach your child. You're hired!"

And their organizational structure is second to none. You need an answer to something, or have an issue. They respond quickly and with genuine concern to address the issue. Try calling your local NFHS chapter and getting answers from someone who is not part of the good old boy network. You won't find those guys in the NFHS anywhere! They are so open and transparent, too!

Yes, they have done so much for HS sports and addressing the shortage of officials.

Sorry, late to this game, but this is the perfect example why we should follow site etiquette and color the text in blue for sarcasm.  😁    From Thunderheads: THERE YOU GO!! HOW'S THAT?! 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Thunderheads
Blue font for sarcasm - having fun w/BLWizzRanger

[ChrisUrbz]

13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

They are not regulating eye black. They are telling us to use existing sportsmanship rules if the use of eye black has images or verbiage that intimidates or taunts an opponent. I have not run across any such use. Do you have an example of a design that has been banned inappropriately?

Oh yes they are, and there is a handout regarding it. There is no such thing as existing sportsmanship rules. We were told if you see a player that is not wearing it as it was "originally intended with one line across under the eye" it is illegal period end of story. I could see if it was in some way mocking or degrading but when you start going after crap like that it is no longer about the game. 

The same thing can be said about the wrist bands with the number system. First it was, the pitcher cannot have anything on his arms unless it is part of the uniform but now it is illegal to wear on your belt. They must be worn on their arms as it was "originally intended" to include the pitcher lol. There is nothing in both of these rules that either protects the players or the integrity of the game and when you preface these with "As it was originally intended" you have made it about anything but the game. How a player wears his eye black or how he wears his wrist band is no different from a player who wears his pants up or down. 

[Velho]

14 hours ago, Jimurray said:

You don't even have to admit you were wrong. You just have to say your judgement has changed.

👆 "When the facts and assumptions change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, ChrisUrbz said:

Oh yes they are, and there is a handout regarding it. There is no such thing as existing sportsmanship rules. We were told if you see a player that is not wearing it as it was "originally intended with one line across under the eye" it is illegal period end of story. I could see if it was in some way mocking or degrading but when you start going after crap like that it is no longer about the game. 

The same thing can be said about the wrist bands with the number system. First it was, the pitcher cannot have anything on his arms unless it is part of the uniform but now it is illegal to wear on your belt. They must be worn on their arms as it was "originally intended" to include the pitcher lol. There is nothing in both of these rules that either protects the players or the integrity of the game and when you preface these with "As it was originally intended" you have made it about anything but the game. How a player wears his eye black or how he wears his wrist band is no different from a player who wears his pants up or down. 

I would have to agree with you regarding the "handout". My state organization had a preseason video that has us use common sense and did not restrict the shape to one line or any design. I'm assuming your handout came from CA and not NFHS.

[ChrisUrbz]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I would have to agree with you regarding the "handout". My state organization had a preseason video that has us use common sense and did not restrict the shape to one line or any design. I'm assuming your handout came from CA and not NFHS.

Yes, the handout came directly from headquarters in Sacramento saying it was the ruling of the NFHS. 

[ChrisUrbz]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I would have to agree with you regarding the "handout". My state organization had a preseason video that has us use common sense and did not restrict the shape to one line or any design. I'm assuming your handout came from CA and not NFHS.

Funny thing is the eye black issue is a point of emphasis in the NFHS rule book and does not quote the "As it was originally intended" So when we ask the question quoting what the book says versus what we were instructed the answer is "this is how the NFHS has interpreted this issue"  

[wolfe_man]

No matter how hard I try, I just cannot see where there is an issue (safety or anything else) with a kid wearing it on his belt.   It's secured to his body, not flopping around... So why all the fuss about it when even the manufacturer even says it can be worn on the belt?

Is this really an ego issue with the NFHS committee being unwilling to make an amendment to a definition that they made 13 years ago that these HAVE to be worn on the wrist only?   Does NFHS realize that they're losing credibility with coaches when you get rid of the jewelry rule - but then say something like a QB sleeve cannot be worn on the belt for "safety" reasons? 

Oh, it isn't safety-related? It's just because you said so back in 2010?  That's even worse!

Nothing says tone-deaf quite like navy umpire shirts and making up excuses for why you won't change when there is no truly good reason not to do so.

[JHumbert15]

1 hour ago, wolfe_man said:

No matter how hard I try, I just cannot see where there is an issue (safety or anything else) with a kid wearing it on his belt.   It's secured to his body, not flopping around... So why all the fuss about it when even the manufacturer even says it can be worn on the belt?

Is this really an ego issue with the NFHS committee being unwilling to make an amendment to a definition that they made 13 years ago that these HAVE to be worn on the wrist only?   Does NFHS realize that they're losing credibility with coaches when you get rid of the jewelry rule - but then say something like a QB sleeve cannot be worn on the belt for "safety" reasons? 

Oh, it isn't safety-related? It's just because you said so back in 2010?  That's even worse!

Nothing says tone-deaf quite like navy umpire shirts and making up excuses for why you won't change when there is no truly good reason not to do so.

Could be. They hate change, apparently.

Bold point #2 agrees with bold point #1. I don't do a ton of HS stuff anymore but I'm so tired of wearing navy and worrying about an extra set of everything uniform wise.

The fact they they are so concerned about where kids wear the signal cards, jewlery, and eye black rules should explain itself. It's just dumb. Why can't we move on from them treating it like it's still the 90s or something.

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

Nothing says tone-deaf quite like navy umpire shirts and

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, ChrisUrbz said:

We were told if you see a player that is not wearing it as it was "originally intended with one line across under the eye" it is illegal period end of story. I could see if it was in some way mocking or degrading but when you start going after crap like that it is no longer about the game. 

...

How a player wears his eye black or how he wears his wrist band is no different from a player who wears his pants up or down. 

 

Here is where state organizations are going to step in it ... In many sports NFHS has been loosening up the "dress code" to allow things that had potentially treaded on religious and cultural discrimination.  Hair beads in volleyball, head coverings, hair styles.

Even jewelry had carried a religious exception ... because a cross dangling from your neck is less dangerous than a soft paracord "chain" with nothing on it (biting my tongue on a religious comment, but I'll be good).

So, for the kids who paint crosses under their eyes with the eye black, are you going to direct them that they cannot do that?

Admittedly, I was THAT kid ... I was that kid who, if playing today, would have painted a pentagram under his eyes to make a point.  Now, are you going to tell me to take that off and allow that kid over there to keep his cross?

I will admit I did have a concern about the "war paint" with a softball team this season.  A girl for a rural (all white) team had the full face smear going on on a Thursday night.  I was concerned because I had them again on the Saturday coming up against an inner city (predominantly Black) team.  Honestly, the girl looked as if she was wearing black face.  I knew that wasn't the intent, but I was concerned about the game coming up.  Luckily on Saturday, she didn't wear it.  So ... what do you think in that case?

[ChrisUrbz]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Here is where state organizations are going to step in it ... In many sports NFHS has been loosening up the "dress code" to allow things that had potentially treaded on religious and cultural discrimination.  Hair beads in volleyball, head coverings, hair styles.

Even jewelry had carried a religious exception ... because a cross dangling from your neck is less dangerous than a soft paracord "chain" with nothing on it (biting my tongue on a religious comment, but I'll be good).

So, for the kids who paint crosses under their eyes with the eye black, are you going to direct them that they cannot do that?

Admittedly, I was THAT kid ... I was that kid who, if playing today, would have painted a pentagram under his eyes to make a point.  Now, are you going to tell me to take that off and allow that kid over there to keep his cross?

I will admit I did have a concern about the "war paint" with a softball team this season.  A girl for a rural (all white) team had the full face smear going on on a Thursday night.  I was concerned because I had them again on the Saturday coming up against an inner city (predominantly Black) team.  Honestly, the girl looked as if she was wearing black face.  I knew that wasn't the intent, but I was concerned about the game coming up.  Luckily on Saturday, she didn't wear it.  So ... what do you think in that case?

Here again it has nothing to do with the safety of the player(s) on the field or the integrity of the game unless it is blatant mocking of anyone(s) race, religion, or gender just leave it alone. Anything else is subjective. Everything we do as umpires on the field is subjective to someone else's opinion so are we supposed to police that and make up rules to shut people up, no it is their opinion and they are entitled to it. That is the problem with society now people are too damn woke and everything is racist, or does not show gender equality, or your religion violates my beliefs. It is baseball not politics keep that crap out of the game. 

[concertman1971]

On 4/5/2023 at 5:27 PM, JonnyCat said:

Rio Linda

Most under rated 2 words of this rant!!!

Funny story. Got my start umpiring Rio Linda LL back in like '05. Was a great league run by good people, then the president left and it went downhill. 

[MadMax]

8 hours ago, ChrisUrbz said:

Yes, the handout came directly from headquarters in Sacramento saying it was the ruling of the NFHS. 

Huh. I’m genuinely surprised California is allowing eyeblack at all. It likely causes cancer. Everything causes cancer, according to California. 

8 hours ago, wolfe_man said:

So why all the fuss about it when even the manufacturer even says it can be worn on the belt?

Because the lawyers on or adjacent to the NFHS committee love to discuss and determine the minutiae of individual words and how their meaning can influence a litigious action (ie. lawsuit). If something was to happen, and a “wrist reader” is not on the wrist, but is instead on the belt, then every freakin’ lawyer is envisioning a courtroom drama on par with A Few Good Men. 

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

So, for the kids who paint crosses under their eyes with the eye black, are you going to direct them that they cannot do that?

Nope, especially when I’ve got a Catholic school team – nicknamed the Friars, or Popes, or Crusaders – squaring off another school nicknamed with the Devils. 😈 

Double points if there are opposing religious schools, such as Seton Hall Catholic vs. Arizona Lutheran Academy. All those taunts of “Sword!” are fair game, too. 

[Thatsnotyou]

I’m not going to enforce this until playoff time, just as I did with jewelry. 

[ChrisUrbz]

2 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

I’m not going to enforce this until playoff time, just as I did with jewelry. 

I agree, funny that the NFHS will not put the verbiage into the point of emphasis that they tell the associations to preach in the clinics. This is just another way for the NFHS to circumvent any legal challenges by putting it on the associations and umpires that of course it was their judgement in how it was enforced. I see litigation in their future that will involve religious beliefs. "Mark my word remember this day" 

[concertman1971]

17 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

I’m not going to enforce this until playoff time, just as I did with jewelry. 

While I understand why people choose this, it is also what makes it difficult to umpire HS baseball. It "seems" that at each game there is an umpire that picks a different rule to enforce or not enforce. Like the hybrid a few years ago, when we let things go until the State tournament or the post season, it can lead to bigger issues. Some of the more common ones:

Coaches out of the dugout all game

12 batters on deck between innings

5 pitches/one minute between innings

The "pause" during the windup

Letting a coach come back out after the umpires got together because "he was just asking"

the list goes on , but i digress