wiping out b.box lines

[cloverdale]

i try to read alot and view this fourm frequently...nfhs rules, mhsaa web site, referee mag, and some where i have read that if a batter intentionally wipes out the batters box lines and after a warning she can be called out...looked through rules and case book cannot find anything...am i nuts? even did a search on this forum...thanks

[CajunNewBlue]

keep looking... its in there.

[HugoTafurst]

NFHS:

Strike and warning when it happens
Strike, Restriction for both offender and coach after warning (That means double EJ here in FL!!)


NFHS 3-6-17

ART. 17 . . . Team personnel shall not intentionally remove any lines of the batter’s box or on the field of play.
PENALTY: (Art. 17) A strike shall be called on the batter if a member of the
offense intentionally removes the line and a ball awarded to the batter if a
member of the defense intentionally erases a line. A team warning shall be
issued, with the next offense resulting in a strike/ball, the offender and the
head coach being restricted to the dugout.

[Skahtboi]

No out....the first offense is a strike on the batter and a warning. Next offense, strike on the batter and the player and coach are restricted to the bench.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

No out....the first offense is a strike on the batter and a warning. Next offense, strike on the batter and the player and coach are restricted to the bench.

Unless strike three, how can the player be restricted to the bench and continue to bat at the same time?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Unless strike three, how can the player be restricted to the bench and continue to bat at the same time?

Do I really need to answer this one, Mike?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Do I really need to answer this one, Mike?

long bat?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

long bat?

My wife been telling stories about me again?

I would surmise you would call the strike, ask the coach which substitute s/he's putting in for the current batter, then inform the coach that both s/he and the offending batter are restricted to the dugout.

Without any official interpretation, that's how I would read it.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Unless strike three, how can the player be restricted to the bench and continue to bat at the same time?

Uh substitution?

Or did this one go over my head?.....

[wadeintothem]

One of the lamer rules in NFHS...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Uh substitution?

Or did this one go over my head?.....

And if there is no sub available?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And if there is no sub available?

I've got an out. This is basically the same as an ejection, but NFHS likes to restrict to the dugout rather than remove them from the park.

Reminder: I do ASA, not NFHS.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

...This is basically the same as an ejection, but NFHS likes to restrict to the dugout rather than remove them from the park....

This is not correct, exactly.

NFHS has a 3 tier sanction system for players/coaches/teams infractions.

1) Warning. a) This is given for the first offense of a minor or less serious infraction, such as carelessly throwing a bat, illegal equipment, intentionally removing the lines, etc. b) A warning can also be given for an unsporting act judged to be minor.

2) Restriction to the dugout/bench. This is given for the second offense of the minor or less serious infraction of the kind in 1) a).

3) Ejection. This is given without warning for a serious unsporting act, such as malicious contact and fighting. It will also be given after a warning for a minor unsporting act that is repeated or if an infraction that resulted in restriction to the bench is repeated.

NFHS does not require minor children who are ejected to be removed from the ball park, but it does require ejected coaches to leave the area.

Also, typically, ejection carries additional penalties imposed by the state association (e.g. multi-game suspensions and the like) whereas restriction typically does not.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is not correct, exactly.

NFHS has a 3 tier sanction system for players/coaches/teams infractions.

1) Warning. a) This is given for the first offense of a minor or less serious infraction, such as carelessly throwing a bat, illegal equipment, intentionally removing the lines, etc. b) A warning can also be given for an unsporting act judged to be minor.

2) Restriction to the dugout/bench. This is given for the second offense of the minor or less serious infraction of the kind in 1) a).

3) Ejection. This is given without warning for a serious unsporting act, such as malicious contact and fighting. It will also be given after a warning for a minor unsporting act that is repeated or if an infraction that resulted in restriction to the bench is repeated.

NFHS does not require minor children who are ejected to be removed from the ball park, but it does require ejected coaches to leave the area.

Also, typically, ejection carries additional penalties imposed by the state association (e.g. multi-game suspensions and the like) whereas restriction typically does not.

I'm not seeing what you and I are saying as being mutually exclusive, nor was I implying that NFHS does not have ejections. I was saying that they prefer restrictions to the dugout rather than an ejection. My statement had more to do with how you handle "what comes next," which is roughly the same as if you had ejected the player.

But again, I reiterate that I'm ASA-only, so take my statements for what you will. This is just how it's been explained to me in the past by guys in our area who call HS softball.

[Dakota]

Well, the umpire does not EVER have a choice between restriction or ejection. A restriction is not ever given when an ejection could be an option.

Depending on the infraction, it goes like this:

Infraction type 1: Warn, if repeated, restrict, if repeated again, eject
Infraction type 2: Warn, if repeated, eject
Infraction type 3: Eject immediately