Proposed Rule Changes

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

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

Thats what I’m saying.  Thank you for this tool that will collect dust, because I can’t think of a good way/reason to use it.

[Replacematt]

Or, since suspensions are a state-specific and state-implemented punishment, the individual state can decide and publish if certain rule violations warrant no suspension. That to me seems to be the easy way to do this, but what do I know...

[Richvee]

On 5/23/2025 at 12:23 PM, Kevin_K said:

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

 

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

 

 

Interesting for sure. As is Bob’s excessive use of “that’s going to be interesting “. “Listening between the lines”, it sounds like there’s a lot of baseball people looking to fix a lot of FED things, and are very frustrated with the “non baseball executives” of the NFHS. 

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Richvee said:

Interesting for sure. As is Bob’s excessive use of “that’s going to be interesting “. “Listening between the lines”, it sounds like there’s a lot of baseball people looking to fix a lot of FED things, and are very frustrated with the “non baseball executives” of the NFHS. 

 

Seriously!  I mean, how many years have they been dealing with the real issues, like eye black, and not been able to take care of them!

I'm still not sure if I should read that as fɛd or effd.

[Richvee]

Another thing that jumped out at me on that podcast.....37 proposals, and we'e still not looking at fakes to third to align the codes? 

[SeeingEyeDog]

29 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Another thing that jumped out at me on that podcast.....37 proposals, and we'e still not looking at fakes to third to align the codes? 

Well, remember Rich..."the amateur umpire does not have the acumen to adjudicate such advanced situations on the baseball field"...

~Dawg

[834k3r]

1 hour ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Well, remember Rich..."the amateur umpire does not have the acumen to adjudicate such advanced situations on the baseball field"...

~Dawg

[dumbdumb]

1 hour ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Well, remember Rich..."the amateur umpire does not have the acumen to adjudicate such advanced situations on the baseball field"...

~Dawg

how do we adjudicate/acumen for check swing help in a one man situation

[BLWizzRanger]

how do we adjudicate/acumen for check swing help in a one man situation

Easy. Ask the first or third base coach. Heck, ask for noise for either choice from the bleachers.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[Velho]

54 minutes ago, BLWizzRanger said:

8 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

how do we adjudicate/acumen for check swing help in a one man situation

Easy. Ask the first or third base coach. Heck, ask for noise for either choice from the bleachers.

Nice. I’ll remember this for local fall ball - the only time I’ll work alone since it’s October and I’m desperate. LOL

[The Man in Blue]

10 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

how do we adjudicate/acumen for check swing help in a one man situation

Like this:

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Nice. I’ll remember this for local fall ball - the only time I’ll work alone since it’s October and I’m desperate. LOL

 

We usually are desperate when we are alone.  

Wait, was that response meant for the dating app?  I'm getting so confused.

 

[JSam21]

I'm good with everything outside of the mandatory double first base and the 10 seconds for the batter. If they want to make the action clock enforceable, just make it like the NCAA rule and give the batter 12 seconds to be ready. I don't want to spend another $80 for a HS clock. 

If they truly add the action clock, they need to remove the requirement on the batter to keep one foot in the box as well. 

[johnnyg08]

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

I'm good with everything outside of the mandatory double first base and the 10 seconds for the batter. If they want to make the action clock enforceable, just make it like the NCAA rule and give the batter 12 seconds to be ready. I don't want to spend another $80 for a HS clock. 

If they truly add the action clock, they need to remove the requirement on the batter to keep one foot in the box as well. 

And honestly...require clocks. We have way too many new umpires out there and I want them focused on everything else..not their stopwatch which will be enforced inconsistently anyway...furthermore...it's hard enough to get umpires to buy a new shirt, much less an $80 stopwatch. 

That would be an awful rule for nfhs if they were to implement it. 

[grayhawk]

25 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

And honestly...require clocks.

They are expeeeeenive! Some colleges around here have said it cost them up to $20k to have their clocks installed. The clocks themselves are outrageous, and then you are talking about getting electrical lines run as well. 

[BLWizzRanger]

2 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

you are talking about getting electrical lines run as well. 

And to save costs here, some have placed the clocks with the scoreboards, which are located down the lines.  They are almost useless because which HP is going to take their eye off of the pitcher to look down the line?  If they aren't going to be placed in the line of sight, I see them being rarely used.

[johnnyg08]

11 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

They are expeeeeenive! Some colleges around here have said it cost them up to $20k to have their clocks installed. The clocks themselves are outrageous, and then you are talking about getting electrical lines run as well. 

Fair enough...then we probably don't need the rule at the NFHS level. There's no reason to pass the cost along to the umpires. 

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

Fair enough...then we probably don't need the rule at the NFHS level. There's no reason to pass the cost along to the umpires. 

When your three hour games regularly go under 2 1/2, you won’t regret paying $80 for a timer.

[Richvee]

41 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

When your three hour games regularly go under 2 1/2, you won’t regret paying $80 for a timer.

There are those of us that agree, and will buy the timer. Unfortunately , as mentioned above, there’s just too many haven’t bought a new shirt or pants in 5 years. (Or more). We still have umpires without a black shirt, which we’ve been allowed to wear for at least 5 years now….. and they still have one pair of pink pants. And it’s not just one or two umpires. That’s the high school issue with timers 

[grayhawk]

4 minutes ago, Richvee said:

There are those of us that agree, and will buy the timer. Unfortunately , as mentioned above, there’s just too many haven’t bought a new shirt or pants in 5 years. (Or more). We still have umpires without a black shirt, which we’ve been allowed to wear for at least 5 years now….. and they still have one pair of pink pants. And it’s not just one or two umpires. That’s the high school issue with timers 

Those guys can buy a $5 stopwatch. 

[beerguy55]

On 5/20/2025 at 7:25 PM, DevildogUmp said:

#5 Malicious contact

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

On 5/21/2025 at 2:44 PM, 834k3r said:

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.

Yup - hate it...forces the umpire into the mind of the player AND eliminates any consideration for depravity, disregard or indifference.

You can certainly have intentional, excessive force without "intent to injure"...but where there isn't intent you will have blatant disregard for the safety/well-being of the other player.

It shouldn't really matter if you tried to injure someone, or just didn't give a SH*# if you injured someone or not...but the language in this rule separates these two mindsets - and now the umpire gets to guess.

"I wasn't trying to injure him; I was just trying to knock the ball loose".   

"You broke his leg and gave him a concussion"

"That wasn't my intent"

...and here's the thing - 9 times out of 10 he's telling the truth.

 

[The Man in Blue]

@JSam21 … curious about your objection to the double first base.  (Other than not trusting NFHS to not screw it up.)

As for malicious contact, if you have A (intentional excessive force), you have B (intent to injure).  That’s my judgement.  Easy enough.

[beerguy55]

46 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

@JSam21 … curious about your objection to the double first base.  (Other than not trusting NFHS to not screw it up.)

As for malicious contact, if you have A (intentional excessive force), you have B (intent to injure).  That’s my judgement.  Easy enough.

The double base was screwed up decades ago when someone got the bright idea to allow crossovers - if FED keeps it simple (which seems to be their MO) and keeps it the way it's described in the OP here it will be fine...if they start outsmarting themselves with bright ideas, it will be a clusterF*#K.

I'm good with your approach on MC...I think it would be significantly better if you didn't even have to have B.

 

[The Man in Blue]

For what it is worth, here is the NFHS Softball version:

 

I think they overcomplicate it and some of their verbiage is seemingly contradictory.  

Allow the defense to use the colored portion ONLY on a U3K play originating from the foul side.  Plain and simple, that is the ONLY time that side should exist for the defense.  If a throw pulls the fielder off the bag, they shouldn't get an extra 15" into foul territory to make a play.  If a fielder kicks a ball into foul territory, they shouldn't get an extra 15" to make a play.  

With the double first base, strictly enforce RLI to keep the batter-runner on that side.

Require the offense to use it anytime a play is being made at first base from a batted ball.  Allow them to use it for U3K.  Beyond that, it doesn't exist.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

For what it is worth, here is the NFHS Softball version:

 

I think they overcomplicate it and some of their verbiage is seemingly contradictory.  

Allow the defense to use the colored portion ONLY on a U3K play originating from the foul side.  Plain and simple, that is the ONLY time that side should exist for the defense.  If a throw pulls the fielder off the bag, they shouldn't get an extra 15" into foul territory to make a play.  If a fielder kicks a ball into foul territory, they shouldn't get an extra 15" to make a play.  

With the double first base, strictly enforce RLI to keep the batter-runner on that side.

Require the offense to use it anytime a play is being made at first base from a batted ball.  Allow them to use it for U3K.  Beyond that, it doesn't exist.

So...you want the NCAA rule.