NFHS Rule Changes for 2024

[The Man in Blue]

23 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Unless my state tells me I need to manage this, I'm staying away from it. I've got bigger fish to fry out there. 

 

No, no, no ... the rule says THE COMMITTEE will manage it.  I am looking forward to seeing them at EVERY GAME so they can manage it.

[The Man in Blue]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:44 AM, Richvee said:

Again FED with doublespeak. Why not just say "both teams must have the technology available or it shall not be used"

..Or maybe they that's not what they mean? 

Or ... maybe they didn't even know what they meant.  I love this crap about "changing rules is a long and hard process" and then we get things like this that are slapped together and pushed through faster than an unchecked Congressional budgeting bill.

[MadMax]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I am looking forward to seeing them at EVERY GAME so they can manage it.

Oh good! What a relief! With a committee member present at every game, we can remove that wretched deification of the PU/UIC (the “god clause”) rule. 

Oh, and I’ll be sure to remind the coaches that with a NFHS committee member present, any/all questions or inquiries about the validity of certain rules should be directed to them promptly and in real-time. The Committee Member is sitting right over… there… and, in fact, would love to be sitting amongst any varsity reserve, JV, or freshman players you don’t have on your lineup cards, yet, but that you might be adding to your lineup card at some point in the game. Otherwise, all players must remain in the dugout at all times.

Oh! And I’ll leave the Committee Member to interpret what “too much eye black” means. 🙄

[The Man in Blue]

Too much eye black?

[Thunderheads]

47 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Too much eye black?

That would have been the only time I'd say something.  I didn't say anything to anyone last season.  Not going there unless the kid had F&%K YOU  written under his eyes ....

[johnnyg08]

It's a POE in our state

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

It's a POE in our state

Eye black or tech?  I'm confused . . . 

[Richvee]

On 9/28/2023 at 7:44 AM, Richvee said:

Again FED with doublespeak. Why not just say "both teams must have the technology available or it shall not be used"

..Or maybe they that's not what they mean? 

So now we see the ‘24 interps and looks like one team can use it even if the other doesn’t  have one or it’s broken. 
 

 Is there’s a “equal playing field” - FED style. 😞🙄

[ErichKeane]

4 minutes ago, Richvee said:

 

I suspect the intent to that is keep these from being gamed.  If, for example, I had a pitcher/catcher that could call their own pitches, I could 'forget' or 'break' our headset, thus making the other team (who likely have been using it all season) need to figure out how to deal with that.

The systems are not super expensive, and teams/divisions tend to be roughly equal financially, so I don't think it is THAT unfair.

[Richvee]

53 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I suspect the intent to that is keep these from being gamed.  If, for example, I had a pitcher/catcher that could call their own pitches, I could 'forget' or 'break' our headset, thus making the other team (who likely have been using it all season) need to figure out how to deal with that.

The systems are not super expensive, and teams/divisions tend to be roughly equal financially, so I don't think it is THAT unfair.

That makes sense. By keeping the playing field even they’re referring to all using just a one way transmitter to the catcher only. I wish they would just say what they mean sometimes. 

[johnnyg08]

18 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Eye black or tech?  I'm confused . . . 

At the risk of hijacking...eye black. 

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

So now we see the ‘24 interps and looks like one team can use it even if the other doesn’t  have one or it’s broken. 
 

 Is there’s a “equal playing field” - FED style. 😞🙄

That is true.  The purpose of the rule is to allow teams to use one-way communication between the dugout and the catcher.  There is no provision in the rule concerning if only one team has OWC for whatever reason.

[SeeingEyeDog]

On 9/27/2023 at 9:49 PM, Velho said:

Given the language:

 

"The committee... will responsibly manage technology so there is no advantaged gained by schools that have more available resources than some of their contemporaries. Creating a level playing field is paramount to education-based athletics.”

Is there a rule that either both teams uses them or neither team does?

 

My state athletic association covered this on our pre-season rules clinic. It was a recorded session so there was no opportunity for us to interact or ask questions but, we have been given specific direction that because the comm devices are supposed to help pace of play that if one team's device goes out, the other team may still use their comm devices because half the factor of increase is better than shutting both down and getting zero benefit to pace of play. I don't see anything in the 2024 rulebook on this specific point so, apparently it's being left up to the individual governing bodies to address this. A bigger concern for me would be, of the schools using e-comms, do y'all have a backup analog system ready to go?

I'll delightedly eat my words when the season ends in June and we can look back on this but, I have already spoken with a handful of coaches who have said they don't have these comm devices in their budget. I certainly endorse any and all measures that increase pace of play but, our only pace of play "problem schools" are 3 schools in my market where the coach insists on using an audible 3 digit code stated loudly before each pitch. I had maybe a half dozen instances last season where I spoke to the coaches between innings about the delay and it was not a problem for the remainder of that game. Is there a competitive advantage to be gained by one coach being able to notify his F2 of a possible pickoff/steal situation discreetly that the other team cannot communicate that as discreetly because they have no e-comms? I think these e-comms are going to create more problems that they are solving and hopefully, we can all agree to work through them in the coming years.

Schools in my area have used the "hand signals from the dugout to F2 and F2 relaying to F1" method for decades and for the most part keep things moving along smoothly. I don't see where there is much pace to be gained from e-comm devices. We'll see in June, I guess...

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

At the risk of hijacking...eye black. 

So what did they have to say?

[johnnyg08]

On 2/12/2024 at 8:13 PM, The Man in Blue said:

So what did they have to say?

It's a returning POE in our state. (Excessive Eye Black) 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

It's a returning POE in our state. (Excessive Eye Black) 

 

But what are they saying?  Are they claiming it is a rules violation, or lumping it in with sportsmanship?  If the former, what rule?  If the latter, what is their guideline?

Just wondering, because the hills they are choosing to die on over the last few years are ridiculous and pushing me closer to hanging it up.

I want to be the best damned umpire I can be.  This stuff?  Little Bobby has on too much makeup!  No, coach, that lineup card sticking 12 inches out of his back pocket counts as a hit by pitch, but the little SOB damned well better NOT put it on his belt again, or I have to toss you both.  Yes, coach, the electronic communication rule is designed to be fair and equitable to affluent schools.  None of that is not going to make me a good umpire.  If I can't be empowered to be good, I'd rather not go out and be bad by their methods.

[johnnyg08]

33 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

But what are they saying?  Are they claiming it is a rules violation, or lumping it in with sportsmanship?  If the former, what rule?  If the latter, what is their guideline?

It's not being used for its intent which is to reduce glare. 

[Richvee]

31 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

No, coach, that lineup card sticking 12 inches out of his back pocket counts as a hit by pitch, but the little SOB damned well better NOT put it on his belt again, or I have to toss you both

There’s lots of craziness in FED. This one drives me nuts. 
I’ve been watching more than my fair share of NCAA baseball this weekend. Almost every team has play cards on their belts. 
 

why does it bother me so much?? Because there’s no logical reason to not allow it on a belt. NONE 

[johnnyg08]

43 minutes ago, Richvee said:

There’s lots of craziness in FED. This one drives me nuts. 
I’ve been watching more than my fair share of NCAA baseball this weekend. Almost every team has play cards on their belts. 
 

why does it bother me so much?? Because there’s no logical reason to not allow it on a belt. NONE 

The Fed does not like being compared to NCAA or OBR. 

That is at least one reason. Like it or not, that's at least a piece of it. 

[Richvee]

9 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

The Fed does not like being compared to NCAA or OBR. 

That is at least one reason. Like it or not, that's at least a piece of it. 

I know. It’s just that this one bothers me because there’s absolutely no logical reason to not allow them on a belt. 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

The Fed does not like being compared to NCAA or OBR. 

That is at least one reason. Like it or not, that's at least a piece of it. 

4 hours ago, Richvee said:

I know. It’s just that this one bothers me because there’s absolutely no logical reason to not allow them on a belt. 

 

Therein lies the problem.  I totally understand and agree that safety should be the number one priority for NFHS rules.  These rules are not about safety.  They are about branding.  When organizations start playing that stupid game, the game suffers.

@johnnyg08, I am not poking at you, I am poking at your state association.  What design or size becomes not about the designed purpose?  One stripe?  Two stripes?  One stripe 2 inches wide?  One stripe 4 inches wide?  Does the stripe have to be horizontal or can it be vertical?  Does it have to be black or are colors allowable?  If I use face paint instead of eye black, then it actually IS the designed purpose.

Can somebody point me to the shortstop who was killed because a line drive hit him on the top of the head while he was looking down at his play card?  Or the wristband packages that says it is designed to be worn in the back pocket?

[MadMax]

18 hours ago, Richvee said:

It’s just that this one bothers me because there’s absolutely no logical reason to not allow them on a belt.

It’s because NFHS is heavily dependent on NOCSAE to set “clear & concise standards” so as to – pay attention to this – mitigate potential lawsuits. Oh sure, they can promote them for “fairness”, but at the end of the day, when the “rubber meets the road”, and a litigation review is conducted as to why Teenage Timmy got injured in this game, chief among the reviewed points  are: 

• Was the equipment school-supplied or user-purchased? 
• Was it NOCSAE-approved, if required? 
• Was it allowed by the “governing authority”* (pay attention to this carefully) 
• Was it worn or used in an approved or codified manner? 

The starred * point is where we (umpires) are in dire jeopardy, because the NFHS Rulebook codifies (deifies) the umpires (the PU, specifically) as the UIC and NFHS Representative. 

All it would take is for one… just one of the member manufacturers of NOCSAE’s coalition to brand/package the wrist card as a “belt card”, and the entire argument would be defeated. But no one has, and that inevitable NFHS Review will query, “So you had an incident where a batter was HBP in the waist, and it hit the wrist card that was… well will you look at that, worn on the belt. Improperly. And the umpire awarded 1B (or, conversely, he refuted the award), and you, Coach, are protesting?” 

The NCAA puts specific language in its rules for competitiveness. The NFHS puts specific language in (or omits it) to mitigate liability. 

[johnnyg08]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Therein lies the problem.  I totally understand and agree that safety should be the number one priority for NFHS rules.  These rules are not about safety.  They are about branding.  When organizations start playing that stupid game, the game suffers.

@johnnyg08, I am not poking at you, I am poking at your state association.  What design or size becomes not about the designed purpose?  One stripe?  Two stripes?  One stripe 2 inches wide?  One stripe 4 inches wide?  Does the stripe have to be horizontal or can it be vertical?  Does it have to be black or are colors allowable?  If I use face paint instead of eye black, then it actually IS the designed purpose.

Can somebody point me to the shortstop who was killed because a line drive hit him on the top of the head while he was looking down at his play card?  Or the wristband packages that says it is designed to be worn in the back pocket?

No offense taken....but I don't think we need to make it super difficult either. Nobody is going to have a ruler out there measuring width of eye black. It's not overly complicated. It could be as simple as this:

[Thunderheads]

26 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

No offense taken....but I don't think we need to make it super difficult either. Nobody is going to have a ruler out there measuring width of eye black. It's not overly complicated. It could be as simple as this:

Agree here.   There's nothing spelling out any paremeters,.. what's ok and what's not.  I "pictogram" that they always use would go a LONG way to correct this.   And, let's face it, ... 99% of all HS kids DO NOT use eye-black as in the 'legal' photo.

I look at it from an 'offensive' point of view.  If the eye-black says "you suck" well, then, ...it has to go 😉

[The Man in Blue]

Make it super difficult?  Why are we making it anything?  There is nothing objectionable in either picture.

If picture B reduces glare, picture A should be doing an even better job and providing a safer environment.  Is there a study proving otherwise?  Is there a study even proving eye black works?  Well, more studies actually show it doesn't work.  For a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_black

Still waiting for the first blown up incident of telling a kid he can't paint a cross under his eyes.  

The sportsmanship rules were sufficient.  This is ignorant over-reaching and self-justification.

When will we get rules stating uniforms can only be white with plain, Arial font writing?  These bright and colorful uniforms are encouraging tribalism and poor sportsmanship.  Besides, they are distracting.