Most significant FED rules change of the last say...20 years?

[SeeingEyeDog]

So, you guys who have been around a few years...what in your opinion is the most significant rule change you have seen to FED? Could be one recently, could be one from years ago...what was the one rule change that really stands out for you? Good or bad for the game...
 

~Dawg

[ousafe]

Jewelry ftw

[Senor Azul]

Just to help get things started--

The force play slide rule took effect in 1998.

It's not a playing rule but in 2018 (I think) the FED finally joined the rest of baseball in how they identify base runners in case plays (R1, R2, and R3). Also in 2018 (I think) batter-runner was finally allowed to overrun first base on the base on balls award. 

2017 the pitch count rule came in. About 2014-2015 they differentiated between follow through interference and backswing interference. 

[SeeingEyeDog]

7 hours ago, ousafe said:

Jewelry ftw

I knew this would be mentioned! Hah!

~Dawg

[lawump]

10 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

 

It's not a playing rule but in 2018 (I think) the FED finally joined the rest of baseball in how they identify base runners in case plays (R1, R2, and R3). Also in 2018 (I think) batter-runner was finally allowed to overrun first base on the base on balls award. 

To respond to your signature block:  No, you're welcome!  (LOL)

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, lawump said:

To respond to your signature block:  No, you're welcome!  (LOL)

My choice of change would be the pitching stance change. My choice of change except for S. Carolina is requiring an appeal instead of the umpire immediately calling an out🙂

[lawump]

I will say that my proudest rule was the complete re-write of the verbal warning, written warning, ejection rule.  The year they first tried to create this rule (2015 rulebook) it was a complete disaster.  The summer of 2015 was my first year on the committee.  I told them it was a disaster and some at the NFHS appeared a little insulted that I said that.  However, all of the state administrators who were on the committee at that time quickly spoke up and whole-heartedly agreed with me.  It was, in my opinion, an example of all the administrators telling the NFHS staff that the rule was not working and was causing them nightmares in their state offices.  We literally had some states interpreting the rule as saying a coach could not be ejected unless he had both been verbally warned and restricted.  Other states took a different interpretation.  It was bad; there was no consistency.

I re-wrote the rule (including making sure that it was clear that an umpire can eject without any warnings if the game participant's behavior so warrants.)  I know that no constituency today outright loves the rule, and that every constituency (umpires, coaches, administrators) has gripes.  However, the fact is that the number of complaints about this rule went from "too many to count" in 2015 to zero in 2016.  It was the best case of putting out a fire I have ever done in my life.  Now, eight years later, pretty much everyone has bought in to the verbal warning, written warning, ejection process as it exists in the NFHS rulebook and casebook and how it is to be applied.  

It took a long time to re-write the rule and case plays on that one.  And while it may not be universally loved...at this point its been there for eight years and no one is clamoring for it to be changed or modified.  (There hasn't been a proposal since I re-wrote the rule to modify, amend, or change it.)  So, it has stood the test of time.  And, I'm proud of that.