Taking off the helmet
 

NFHS. Bottom of the seventh, one runner on, two out, home team down by two. Batter hits a homer over the fence to tie it up. Runner scores. Batter/runner takes off his helmet between third and home and throws it up in the air. Umpire calls him out for doing that.

I don't dispute the call. As I understand it, that is the rule. But dang, that is a heck of a way to lose a game.

Thoughts?

It is NOT the rule. Blown big time. Look at the highlighted parts. It is not even a violation because the ball was dead. If done while the ball is live it is only a warning.

PENALTY: When an umpire observes anyone who is required to wear a batting helmet deliberately remove his batting helmet while in live-ball territory and the ball is live, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the involved team, unless the ball becomes dead without being touched by a fielder or, after being touched, goes directly to dead-ball area. A subsequent violation of the rule shall result in ejection.

You did not have umpires calling the game, you had clowns dressed up as umpires.

I suppose that you could warn for throwing equipment or something. But 3.3.1l says the penalty for deliberately throwing a helmet, bat and so on, is ejection. I don't see a lot of grey area there. It appears the umpires have rule support although I wouldn't have gone to that extent had it been me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

fairness
 

@falsecut. So if you believed you had a rule specific for the scenario, and you choose , as you stated, not to go "that far" and not call that in your game... what would you tell the opposing coach that ran out of the dugout yelling "thats an out! immediate ejection!" ?

Where is the rule support for an out?

Ejections only happen after the play is complete.

There is no rule that would stop the runs from scoring.

ART. 1 ... Ball becomes dead immediately when: (f). a fair batted ball: (4). goes over or through or wedges in the field fence,...

translation: Ball is dead, NO violation.

@BSBAL18 The rule doesn't call for an out so I have no problem telling the coach exactly that. @Rich Ives, agree with your comment, I think I didn't express that very well. I got runs all scoring and then you have rule support for the ejection. But both you and @rbmartin are reading the wrong rule in my opinion. You are referring to removing the helmet. Let's suppose the batter had rounded third and held his helmet over his head in joy. Then we have removing the helmet and then all the "ball is dead" statements would apply. But OP clearly stated that the batter takes off his helmet and throws it in the air, and that brings rule 3.3.1l into the picture (“deliberately throw a bat, helmet, etc.;”) and then the penalty is clearly ejection.

@BSBAL18, I would be shading the rule for not tossing the player as you state, but that's a nit which I would not pick. I do a lot of softball, and while the pitcher has the ball, runners can't leave the base. We had an umpire in a varsity game who, because the runner decided to take her left foot off the bag and and then put her right foot on the bag to get herself in her position to run, called her out for leaving the base. Well, she did leave the bag..... That's not a call I'm making either. Part of the job requirement is judgement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wrong rule; it's not applicable here. You want 1-1-5 in this situation

Please explain why a rule talking of removing a helmet is more applicable than one on throwing a helmet when OP says the helmet was thrown? I'd certainly prefer that interpretation but why? Case plays for 1-1-5 may be applicable but why?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The intent of 3-3-1l is that the item is thrown in anger or with danger.

The media report states "The Chattooga player had taken his helmet off and tossed it away before he reached home plate, and that is a violation of Georgia High School Association rules. So while the first run counted, the batter was ruled out by the umpires after they’d gotten together for a meeting."

Now I know we media folks don't always get things right. As a youth soccer referee, I give the benefit of the doubt to the officials if I can't quote the rule. Is it possible Georgia adjusted the rule so it is an out? Or do they have to go strictly by the NFHS rules? Any Georgia umpires care to chime in?

Red flag for me. Was the "media report" quoting the NFHS rule verbatim or just paraphrasing? People read or hear things from the media that are either just plain wrong, incomplete, or misquoted. Did the "media" who reported on this incident consult not only the rule book but the case book as well? How about a call to the NFHS and get the word from a knowledgeable source?
I wasn't there and didn't see the play, but I'm with Bob - the intent of the rule is to discourage poor displays of sportsmanship and/or prevent injury due to carelessness. Celebration is neither.

JJ