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 <i>understand</i> 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 <i>he cannot pick off from the windup position</i>, turning his shoulders, whether slowly or rapidly, cannot deceive a runner.

They have it backwards. It <i>should</i> 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]

"Perhaps the "restriction" possibility prevents the player from having to sit out an additional game or games for being "ejected."

This is the case in Illinois - an "unsportsmanlike" ejection results in a "next-game" suspension as well as the game from which the player is ejected. The wording allows the ejection to be deemed not unsportsmanlike, though I'm with you, Carl - how will we know it's just a simple oversight or an intentional (unsportsmanlike) deception?

The turning of the shoulders wording is unclear as well - is it allowed before the pitcher comes set, after the pitcher comes set, or both? Clarifications, clarifications - where is the clarifications department?? Is it anywhere near the clue department? :)

I understand that once the pitcher pauses, <i>any</> movement of the shoulders is a balk.

Sounds like basically in a round about way they are going back to the OBR as far as the set position.

Still don't understand what they are trying to do with the restriction in the wind-up. Makes no sense.

Personally I liked the old balk rule, made it much easier to enforce across the board. Now we are back to "did he actually feint," "did he committ an illegal act" or not?

Coaches are going to say they like it, but there will be a lot more discussions with umpires now - Coach 1 - "that's a balk" Coach 2 - "no that's not a balk"

Can we say "lots of grey area"

Thanks
David

<b>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."</b>

The change could simply be to insert "his or her," just to show how non-sexist they are. Or maybe it's to specify that a coach not in uniform cannot go onto the field to tend to an <i>opposing</i> player. Maybe there were a lot of problems with that happening. If you were a coach, would you want an opposing coach tending to an ill or injured player on your team if that coach was not wearing the uniform of his or her team?

Will they his/her the football rules next?

Why not contact any number of FED rules interpeters with which you are acquainted, like Tim Stevens, or, Elliot directly and ask?

I would speculate that the intent of the change is to tighten up and be specific about when and why a coach may enter the field, by taking the general statement "to attend to a player" and making it the more specific "if one of his or her players is ill or injured." Perhaps the rulesmakers were hearing reports of coaches "abusing" the privilege and conducting strategy sessions under the ruse that they were "attending to a player." With the new clarification, the umpire can require more concrete evidence that the player being attended to is actually ill or injured.

Just idle speculation, of coure, but it seems more logical to me than simply to be making the statement gender neutral, which they didn't completely anyway.

I think your explanation of the intent of the FED Rule is a good one. I think FED means it as you explain it.

What FED should do is rewrite the rule describing the set position (rule 6 art 3) as it is poorly written, contradictory, and does a poor job of defining and explaining what the set position is versus what is considered "the stretch" before coming to the set position. In this instance, the OBR are more clearly written.