NFHS Rules 10 Commandments

[NavyBlue]

Asked some guys to put together the NFHS Rules 10 Commandments; the foundational things which underpin many of our rulings.  When you get a complex situation, what are the mantras that help us untangle what has happened?  These are NOT umpiring mantras, nor are they mechanics related.  These are purely associated with the rules.  Yes, they are shortened, we didn't want to write out entire rules.  Just a fun project to see if we can create something useful to pass out to new umpires (or old ones).  Welcome your comments/additions/deletions/expansion to 15, whatever. 

1.  Ball is dead when a pitch hits a batter.
2.  Obstruction is a minimum of one base award.
3.  No run can score when the BR is third out before touching 1B.
4.  Balks are immediate dead ball.
5.  DH can never have a CR.
6.  Only one fielder can be protected.
7.  Cannot block a runner without possession of the ball.
8.  Starters and substitutes are locked into a batting position.
9.  A runner never has to slide.
10.  One from the rubber, two from the field (F1)
     

[lawump]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:07 PM, NavyBlue said:

 9.  A runner never has to slide, but on a force play if he does not slide he must avoid

I added the language that many NFHS umpires fail to grasp.  There were numerous arguments (mostly on Facebook) that said a runner could not be called out for a FPSR violation if he didn't actually slide (went straight into the bag standing) because the rule says a runner never has to slide.  It got so heated...and there was so much misinformation..,that I actually reached out to my contacts in Indianapolis and strongly suggested that they re-insert plays in the casebook that confirm that if the runner does not slide on a FPSR, he must avoid.  After I reached out them, they did a little informal research of their own (thinking that I may have been blowing the scope of the problem out of proportion).  However, they were quickly very surprised at how many umpires did not understand this requirement and how this requirement to avoid had been lost to a great number of umpires over the prior decade or two.  So, they re-inserted those plays in the casebook two or three years ago.   See 8.4.2 SITUATION Y (pg. 86, 2025)

(I apologize for the incorrect number when quoting you...the system did it automatically and I cannot change the "1" back to a "9".)

Edited February 6 by johnnyg08
Fixed it for you.

[lawump]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:07 PM, NavyBlue said:

 

3. No run can score when the BR is third out before touching 1B. the third out is recorded and that third out is a force out or against the B/R before he legally acquires 1B.

Your original post misses the other half...its not just that no run can score when the third out is against the B/R before touching 1B, its that no run can score on any play where the third out is recorded and that third out is a force out (against R1, R2, or R3).

 

(I apologize for the incorrect number when quoting you...the system did it automatically and I cannot change the "1" back to a "3".)

Edited February 6 by johnnyg08
Fixed it for you

[lawump]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:07 PM, NavyBlue said:

10. One from the rubber, two from the field (F1)
 

Not as catchy but I would replace with:  "All overthrows are two bases (except by a pitcher in-contact with the rubber which is one) either from the time-of-the-pitch or the time-of-the throw."

 

(I apologize for the incorrect number when quoting you...the system did it automatically and I cannot change the "1" back to a "10".)

Edited February 6 by johnnyg08
Fixed it for you

[lawump]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:07 PM, NavyBlue said:

 

5. DH can never have a CR. No player can have a CR except the player who was playing F1 or F2 at the end of that team's last defensive half inning.

Instead of saying who can't be the CR (there are eight players who cannot have a CR), say the two that can.

(I apologize for the incorrect number when quoting you...the system did it automatically and I cannot change the "1" back to a "5".)

Edited February 6 by johnnyg08
FIFY

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, lawump said:

I added the language that many NFHS umpires fail to grasp.  There were numerous arguments (mostly on Facebook) that said a runner could not be called out for a FPSR violation if he didn't actually slide (went straight into the bag standing) because the rule says a runner never has to slide.  It got so heated...and there was so much misinformation..,that I actually reached out to my contacts in Indianapolis and strongly suggested that they re-insert plays in the casebook that confirm that if the runner does not slide on a FPSR, he must avoid.  After I reached out them, they did a little informal research of their own (thinking that I may have been blowing the scope of the problem out of proportion).  However, they were quickly very surprised at how many umpires did not understand this requirement and how this requirement to avoid had been lost to a great number of umpires over the prior decade or two.  So, they re-inserted those plays in the casebook two or three years ago.   See 8.4.2 SITUATION Y (pg. 86, 2025)

(I apologize for the incorrect number when quoting you...the system did it automatically and I cannot change the "1" back to a "9".)

@lawump, since you seem to be on the side of rational thought and actually helping umpires (not going to comment what the NFHS response seems to say) . . . maybe you can shed some light on this debate (apologies if we did reach a confirmable conclusion here and I missed it): 

I recall we were debating the language that stated the runner must slide or veer away.  The debate was whether the language meant "make an attempt to avoid", in which case ducking could be acceptable; or if the language was literal and ducking was NOT acceptable, as sliding or veering away were the only legal attempts to avoid.

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, NavyBlue said:

DH can never have a CR.

(I know this is correct, just having fun.)

"But, Blue, I listed my pitcher as my pitcher/DH . . . "

How do you reply?

[The Man in Blue]

Not rules, sorry, but . . . 

 

1.) The runner beat the ball; the ball beat the runner.  Only one of those can be true.

2.) Accept that angles make a difference.  Yours is the one that matters; be able to listen and explain.

3.) You are fallible, so be humble.

4.) Repeat #2.  Repeat #3.  Now, remember you are not alone, so ask for help when needed.

5.) YOU ARE NOT ALONE.  NEVER UMPIRE ALONE.

6.) You are not alone, so be a good partner.

7.) 30 minutes early is late.

8.) Black OR navy.  Both is NEVER an answer, even when "powder" is the answer.

 

I need two more . . . 

[BLWizzRanger]

How about:

Even though baseball is a game, you are not there to socialize. Dont go near the dugouts or stands unless absolutely necessary.

Take your time, see everything, make your call.

No ball bags or indicators while on the bases....😁

 

[lawump]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

@lawump, since you seem to be on the side of rational thought and actually helping umpires (not going to comment what the NFHS response seems to say) . . . maybe you can shed some light on this debate (apologies if we did reach a confirmable conclusion here and I missed it): 

I recall we were debating the language that stated the runner must slide or veer away.  The debate was whether the language meant "make an attempt to avoid", in which case ducking could be acceptable; or if the language was literal and ducking was NOT acceptable, as sliding or veering away were the only legal attempts to avoid.

The case play says "...if R1 chooses not to slide, R1 must veer away from the base if the fielder is there attempting a play."

My initial thought in reading your post was that the word "veer" could mean ducking as that would be getting out of the way.  However, that is not what the casebook says.  It reads, "veer away from the base".  I don't think ducking would be "away from the base".  If anything, his head would actually be closer to the physical location of the base as a result of ducking.  So the lawyer in me says that the only way one can give substance to the phrase "away from the base" is by holding that if he doesn't slide, he must avoid by physically moving away from the base.  Ducking obviously doesn't move one away from the base.

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

The case play says "...if R1 chooses not to slide, R1 must veer away from the base if the fielder is there attempting a play."

My initial thought in reading your post was that the word "veer" could mean ducking as that would be getting out of the way.  However, that is not what the casebook says.  It reads, "veer away from the base".  I don't think ducking would be "away from the base".  If anything, his head would actually be closer to the physical location of the base as a result of ducking.  So the lawyer in me says that the only way one can give substance to the phrase "away from the base" is by holding that if he doesn't slide, he must avoid by physically moving away from the base.  Ducking obviously doesn't move one away from the base.

Would it help if this was approached keeping in mind the spirt and intent of the rule?

Thus, by ducking, in the judgment of the umpire, did the runner avoid the fielder?  That, to me, is the central question.  If the answer is "yes," play on.  If the answer is no, we have interference. 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Would it help if this was approached keeping in mind the spirt and intent of the rule?

Thus, by ducking, in the judgment of the umpire, did the runner avoid the fielder?  That, to me, is the central question.  If the answer is "yes," play on.  If the answer is no, we have interference. 

This rule isn't an interference rule. It's a safety rule. The intent is to keep runners from hurting fielders or themselves by minimizing them creating conditions where there is the risk of contact while one or both are in vulnerable positions. 

[johnnyg08]

On 2/4/2025 at 1:03 PM, lawump said:

I added the language that many NFHS umpires fail to grasp. 

Couldn't agree more. Too many umpires stop reading after that sentence. There is definitely nuance here. 

[johnnyg08]

10 hours ago, lawump said:

The case play says "...if R1 chooses not to slide, R1 must veer away from the base if the fielder is there attempting a play."

My initial thought in reading your post was that the word "veer" could mean ducking as that would be getting out of the way.  However, that is not what the casebook says.  It reads, "veer away from the base".  I don't think ducking would be "away from the base".  If anything, his head would actually be closer to the physical location of the base as a result of ducking.  So the lawyer in me says that the only way one can give substance to the phrase "away from the base" is by holding that if he doesn't slide, he must avoid by physically moving away from the base.  Ducking obviously doesn't move one away from the base.

Ducking is not considered a veer. If they wanted us to permit ducking, they wouldn't have stated "veer"

Slide or get out of the way or we're grabbing two. 

Adding the "veer" case play might have been one of the best case plays added in the last decade. That is a very important case play and I think we should call those plays with that play in mind. 

FSPR...okay, runner is more than 1/2 way, now we're looking for a veer or a legal slide to stay clean. 

[The Man in Blue]

Yet, the rulebook contains no "Out for being unsafe" call.  It is, by title, interference.

Agreeing with you though, @Replacematt . . . the book needs to be explicit on why some of these rules are actually there so we can put some of these misperceptions to bed.

[MadMax]

On 2/4/2025 at 12:07 PM, NavyBlue said:

 Ball is dead when a pitch hits a batter.

Not so. The ball is dead because we (Umpires) called “Time!”. There are two (well, three, in the recently (< 10 years?) abridged NFHS vernacular) “killing words” – “Time” and “Foul” (and “Balk” in (most*) NFHS). I realize I’m being pedantic, but it’s for a reason. 

Everything, regarding the ball’s Live/Dead status, stems from this simple truth – An umpire (ideally, the PU) is the only participant who can make the ball Live. Once Live, an(y) Umpire makes the ball Dead by calling one of the two (er, three) killing words. That’s it! 

Then we put the question to the act (of killing the Live ball)… “Why did you call Time?” 
- Because the pitch hit the batter. 
- Because the (thrown, for example) ball touched out-of-play. 
- Because the Runner committed INT. 
- Because the batted ball hit the Runner**. 
- Etc. 

 

* - A few states – most prominently, Arizona – have instituted “live” Balks; therein, the call of Balk creates a (potential) delayed Dead ball, ala OBR and NCAA. Thus, “Balk” is not a killing word. 
** - because the ball hit the Runner is, unto itself, not the reason for killing the baseball; if we (Umpires) judge that the batted ball is past the infielder, or if we observe that the batted ball ricocheted off an infielder, if it subsequently touches a Runner, we deem the ball to be Live and in play. This is why we can’t simply state “The ball is dead when it hits a Runner”. The ball is Dead when we call “Time!”, and then, “We called Time because the batted ball hit a Runner before passing an infielder… “

[Richvee]

On 2/4/2025 at 8:15 PM, The Man in Blue said:

8.) Black. OR Navy  Both is NEVER an answer, even when "powder" is the answer.  better.

FIFY

[The Man in Blue]

I was referring to those who wear black accoutrements with the (softball) powder and navy, or navy accoutrements with the (old baseball) powder and black.

Ultimately, I like your version better, @Richvee . . . but then there is the sad reality we live in.

[ilyazhito]

On 2/4/2025 at 7:57 PM, The Man in Blue said:

(I know this is correct, just having fun.)

"But, Blue, I listed my pitcher as my pitcher/DH . . . "

How do you reply?

There is a specific exception for the visiting pitcher/catcher of record in the top of the 1st inning. If either of those players gets on base, they are allowed a courtesy runner, because they are due to pitch or catch in the upcoming half-inning. 

[The Man in Blue]

Good addition, @ilyazhito . . . but it still does not apply if they are listed as the DH.  They are not participating on offense as a pitcher or catcher; they are they DH.

[The Man in Blue]

Sorry, double post.

Edited February 11 by The Man in Blue