|
Bruce Howard's press release of the new FED baseball rule changes has me puzzled.
There are four reported changes:
ONE: Coach uniforms
1. OLD RULE: Coach: "While occupying a coach's box, he shall be in the uniform of his team." (3-2-1)
NEW RULE: "Along the same lines, any coach occupying the coach's box must be dressed in his or her team's uniform."
?
2. OLD RULE: Coach: A coach not in his team's uniform "may go onto the field to attend a player." (3.2.1d)
NEW RULE: Coach: He may enter the field "if one of his or her players is ill or injured."
?
I hope the "change" is not simply acknowledging that a baseball coach may be female.
TWO: Penalty for illegal substitution
1. OLD RULE: Illegal substitute: An illegal substitute shall be restricted to the dugout for the duration of the game. (3-1-1)
NEW RULE: An illegal player "either on offense or defense ...shall be restrictred to the dugout for the rest of the game.
?
2. OLD RULE: "An illegal player on offense shall be called out immediately and ejected." (3-1-1)
NEW RULE: "If an illegal offensive player re-enters the game, he will be called out immediately and ejected."
?
I can't figure out when an illegal substitute is restricted and when he is ejected. Listen to two consecutive sentences from 2004 3-1-1:
"For discovery of an illegal player by an umpire or either team, that player shall be restricted to the dugout for the duration of the game. An illegal player on offense, whether as a batter or runner, shall be called out immediately and ejected upon discovey by an umpire or either team."
?
Now the "rationale" for last year's change is: "The penalty [ejection] was too severe for a typical accidental oversight. The restriciton to the dugout is a reasonable punishment for such an infraction."
But if a player is restricted to the dugout, that has the same effect as an ejection. The only difference is: He's there under the watchful eye of his coach. In either instance, he can't play.
Perhaps the "restriction" possibility prevents the player from having to sit out an additional game or games for being "ejected."
But where are the guidelines to help an umpire understand a "typical accidental oversight"?
ALSO: 2005 press release: While an offensive player is out, "an illegal defensive player will simply be ejected."
Too bad: I was hoping to have an out already in his position the next time that spot came up to bat. (Just kidding, Mr. Howard.)
I understand the other two changes:
THREE: Pitcher turns shoulders to check runner(s)
A pitcher in the set position now may move his shoulders to check a runner on base. "The prohibition of such actually creates a disadvantage."
But I don't see that. The point of not allowing the shoulder move was to simplify whether a look/turn to first was a "look" or a "feint." One umpire's "That's a balk!" was another's "That's nothing." Now, the "speed of the look" can be deceptive once again.
A pitcher in the wind-up position is still forbidden to turn his shoulders.
I don't see why. Since he cannot pick off from the windup position, turning his shoulders, whether slowly or rapidly, cannot deceive a runner.
They have it backwards. It should be: F1 can't turn in the set (where he can deceive); F1 can turn in the windup (where he can't deceive).
Of course, I've read messages on the internet from scores of "FED" umpires who said: "F*** it! We don't call that shoulder turn a balk in our neck of the woods." The rule change now lets them once again be honest, upright defenders of truth, justice, and the American way. They get to honor their oath to umpire by the rules of the game. That is, until some other unfashionable, un-OBR-like rule arrives.
FOUR: Face masks
The one the NFHS got absolutely right, beyond question, is requiring face masks to have the NOCSAE seal.
Any help or insights would be greatly appreciated. I'm preparing the 2005 BRD and ....
[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 4th, 2004 at 01:49 PM]
|