Proposed Rule Changes

[DevildogUmp]

From the umpire representative to the baseball committee, a summary of the proposed rule changes:

 

#1 - Mandatory double 1st base:

1-2-9 Effective Jan 1, 2027 the double 1st base will be required.

fair ball bounds over any portion of the white base

foul ball bounds over the contrasting color of double 1st base 2-16-1h

batter/runner will use the colored base on the initial play at 1st base

once batter obtains 1st base-runner shall only use white portion of the base.

on extra base hit, B/R can use either section on the way to 2nd base

on tag up or pic off attempt runner can only use white section

BB batter can use either

 

#2 Uniform update:

Effective Jan 1 2027 players uniform may contain school name, nickname, logo, mascot &/or player’s name

 

#3 Electronic communication:

One way electronic communication devices are permissible in coaches boxes or a position player on the field..

—can be on wristband or device

No participating player shall wear any audio (microphone) or video camera device during the game

 

#4 Conferences

“player to player" is added to define charged conference 

A player to player defensive conference is a meeting which includes two or more players

Each team, while on defense, may be granted not more than 6 charged conferences in a 7 inning ball game without penalty

No more than 3 may include a coach or representative without normal penalty-pitching change

Each team while on defense, will be granted not more than 1 (one) player to player conference during an inning.

Umpire will deny any subsequent requests.

 

#5 Malicious contact

Malicious contact defined as contact being the result of intentional, excessive force judged as intent to injure a player

 

#6 Restriction/Ejection

2-27-1a PENALTY--restricting a coach or PLAYER to dugout (added player)

3-3-1 PENALTY-Players violating f(1-5) a verbal or written warning may be issued to player. If written, the player shall be restricted

to dugout for the remainder of the game. (Trying to have a lesser penalty than ejection)

 

#7 Designated Hitter

3-1-4b If a pinch hitter/ runner for the DH is used, that player becomes the new DH

 

#8 Balks

6-2-4 A balk is a delayed dead ball

6-2-1j NEW while in contact with the pitcher’s plate, feint a pitch to home

PENALTY- (j) an illegal pitch in windup; balk with runners on base.

 

#9 Interference

7-3-5 PENALTY interference on 3rd strike two outs SHALL be ruled if interference prevents double play (8-4-2g, 8-4-2l1)

8-3-3e dealing with spectator interference, runners will be awarded appropriate bases per umpire judgement

 

#10 Random restriction on runner's leading off

8-4-2o runner is out:

leading off of 1st, 2nd, 3rd base vertically (toward the outfield) to confuse opponents or make a travesty of the game

#29 10-1-4

 

#11 Meeting between head coach and umpire

3-3-1-L to ask a question about a call on the field, the head coach may only meet the umpire that made the call at midpoint of the respective foul line after

requesting and receiving time out.

after the start of the game, the head coach shall not enter the dirt circle or area surrounding home plate to ask about a call or make lineup changes

Non compliance will result in an immediate verbal warning with dugout restriction, followed by immediate ejection if coach fails to respond to warning

due to unsportsmanlike act

 

#12 Batter time limit

7-3-1 ...allow batter 10 seconds (change) to take position in batters box ready for pitch

 

[The Man in Blue]

 

[834k3r]

19 hours ago, DevildogUmp said:

Malicious contact defined as contact being the result of intentional, excessive force judged as intent to injure a player

I would have been fine with the definition had it ended with a period after force. But the rest of the definition doesn't really help.

And directing a specific area for a HC and Umpire meeting spot? Was that really that much of a problem?

[Velho]

9 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

And directing a specific area for a HC and Umpire meeting spot? Was that really that much of a problem?

I think this is following NCAA's lead, which has been considered to be successful in game control?

[Richvee]

So let’s see how many pass. I like them all. Except that “one player to player per inning”. You get six. Shouldn’t matter when they’re used. To not let an F2 go out a second time in an inning is overkill. 
 

Also agree we don't need “intent to injure” in the MC definition. Excessive force covers it well enough. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

And directing a specific area for a HC and Umpire meeting spot? Was that really that much of a problem?

It’s very effective in the college game. Especially for the base umpires. Coach stops at foul line… has a few seconds to decompress before BU arrives. BU has a few seconds to formulate a response and how to handle what’s coming. By the time the two meet, the chances of a civilized conversation have greatly increased. 

[dumbdumb]

ruh roh scooby do, is that the end of 'pepe le pew' on the right side of the field or the Texas left side of the field that i spy, or has my sense of smell gone bonkers.

[UMP45]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

I think this is following NCAA's lead, which has been considered to be successful in game control?

We have been doing it in NC for several years.

[Velho]

14 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

4 hours ago, Velho said:

I think this is following NCAA's lead, which has been considered to be successful in game control?

We have been doing it in NC for several years.

Nice. Wasn't aware (what is it with Carolinas? 🤔).

How do folks feel it's worked out?

[NVUmp]

43 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

We have been doing it in NC for several years.

And Virginia this year.

[The Man in Blue]

I thought Virginia was one of the Carolinas.  😉

[mw94]

Maybe a stupid question ? But wouldn't  restricting a player basically be the same as an ejection?? Can't leave the dugout there for he cant play in the game??? 

[DevildogUmp]

30 minutes ago, mw94 said:

Maybe a stupid question ? But wouldn't  restricting a player basically be the same as an ejection?? Can't leave the dugout there for he cant play in the game??? 

It would for the game, but I believe the rational is that without the ejection, there is no further penalty of being suspended for extra games.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, DevildogUmp said:

It would for the game, but I believe the rational is that without the ejection, there is no further penalty of being suspended for extra games.

 

While I agree that is the reason, I do NOT like that.  The suspension penalty was deliberately placed to dissuade poor behaviors.  I've already heard of the "peer pressure" exerted when a situation with a "big player" occurs, particularly at the end of the season.

Last night I heard one of our local "big" HCs was restricted to the bench twice in four days . . . because those were the last two games of the regular season and the umpires didn't want to be the ones that triggered a suspension to be served the first game or two of the post season.  

That added suspension is not the umpire's problem and should NEVER be part of the consideration on whether to eject or not.

[Velho]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

While I agree that is the reason, I do NOT like that.  The suspension penalty was deliberately placed to dissuade poor behaviors

This is discussed below as a pro/con of the proposed rule - along with all the rules as Patrick interviews someone on the committee.

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

My state has also been using the "45' line mechanic" for coach/umpire conferences in HS games at the start of this season and it has been going very well. I was surprised...I thought the coaches would forget themselves in the heat of the moment but, everyone has been extremely compliant with it all season long. We'll see how things go with playoffs here now...

And remember, that rule was added to HS baseball because of all those red a$$ umpires charging across the field at coaches...🙄

~Dawg

 

[MadMax]

17 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

My state has also been using the "45' line mechanic" for coach/umpire conferences in HS games at the start of this season and it has been going very well.

It’s incredibly easy to implement, even without a codified rule. Each/all umpires on the crew need to be onboard with it, in both theory and practice, and need to establish these set boundary locations – not at plate meetings, but in-game management.

This means, for BUs, stop yelling across swaths of territory, and stop this 🤬‘in stooopid practice of “making him (HC) come out to you”. Knock it off! Enough of the smarmy pretentiousness already! Be conciliatory – gesture or indicate that you’ll meet with him at the 45, and then jog or stride to it directly and with composure and your head/chin up. Body language is a significant component. So too, PUs can (and should) help by interdicting coaches running out there in a huff and a rage. Convey to them that your BU will talk to them at the 45 (and, ahem, hail and cue your BU), and there’s no need to go out there (beyond that point). 

Then, for PUs, this especially means, quit gallivanting all over foul territory, notably during the game as an auspice of “game management”. Certainly, there are logistical needs or occurrences (usually between innings), but when it comes to coaches, establish the edge of the HP dirt circle is the limit and location of interactions regarding substitutions, lineup issues, questions, and discussions. There is no need for you to leave your dirt circle to talk with him, nor is there a reason for him to come right to the plate and chew your ear off. I’m not saying for a PU to be aggressive, nor to be defensive, but instead be protective of that circle. 

[Kevin_K]

An interesting conversation with Patrick and Bob Leader from the NFHS rules committee

 

https://youtu.be/KlZQSgRXUMM?si=zhYeGHitEFnRr-SV

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 5/21/2025 at 1:44 PM, 834k3r said:

On 5/20/2025 at 6:25 PM, DevildogUmp said:

Malicious contact defined as contact being the result of intentional, excessive force judged as intent to injure a player

I would have been fine with the definition had it ended with a period after force. But the rest of the definition doesn't really help.

 

[BigBlue4u]

Just now, BigBlue4u said:

This the malicious contact definition that has been used in California for the past several years:

Malicious contact is violent, avoidable contact between two opposing players. It often occurs when a runner collides with a fielder in an effort to dislodge possession of the ball. Malicious contact can also occur when a fielder unnecessarily applies a hard tag to a runner. Intent and play situation must be a consideration in determining malicious contact. Hard contact is not, in itself, malicious contact.

[Replacematt]

21 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

 

It does, though. 

It makes intent a requirement for MC and thus, more defined. Whether one agrees with that is a different story.

I could officiate under that definition all day, every day, as it is clear what MC is with it.

[StatsUmp]

On 5/21/2025 at 4:54 PM, Velho said:

I think this is following NCAA's lead, which has been considered to be successful in game control?

My state adopted a modified version post-COVID requiring coaches to wait at the foul line and not come onto the field to question calls. From experience, reasonable coaches are fine with this protocol as long as they get to express their question or concern with a BU that's approachable and willing to talk with them.

 

On 5/22/2025 at 6:34 PM, mw94 said:

Maybe a stupid question ? But wouldn't  restricting a player basically be the same as an ejection?? Can't leave the dugout there for he cant play in the game??? 

When used appropriately, I liken the dugout restriction to a (non-flagrant) technical foul in basketball as an intermediate penalty for conduct that doesn't necessarily warrant immediate ejection but deserves more than just a warning to address it.

This proposed change also explains the vaguely-worded survey question asking about restriction to the dugout without any further context or explanation.

[BigBlue4u]

21 hours ago, StatsUmp said:

This proposed change also explains the vaguely-worded survey question asking about restriction to the dugout without any further context or explanation.

Some states, regardless of the situation, also penalize an ejection with a one game, or more, suspension.  This proposal would, under certain circumstances, remove the suspension aspect of the penalty.

[The Man in Blue]

The more I think about it, the less I like it.  Unless there is a line of demarcation established for what is an eject and what is a restrict, they are essentially kicking the suspension down to us to determine.

 

[BLWizzRanger]

The more I think about it, the less I like it.  Unless there is a line of demarcation established for what is an eject and what is a restrict, they are essentially kicking the suspension down to us to determine.
 

Nope. Eject them and they can appeal to 'New York' for a reduction.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk