FED Mandatory Helmet Rule

[Dave Sirbu]

FED Rule 1.1.5 states that non-adult ball shaggers must wear a 2 flap helmet in a live-ball area even when the ball is dead. My question is two part: Are rostered players considered non-adult ball shaggers when they have left the dugout to retrieve a foul ball down the right field corner? And if they are, should they be wearing a helmet? This came up last night in our association meeting and there was a great deal of disagreement. One of our officials claimed that players shagging foul balls must wear a helmet, and most said they would allow them to retrieve foul balls without a helmet on. Your opinions would be appreciated.

Regards, Dave Sirbu

[Rog]

What does Your association "interpreter" state?????

[Ump20]

I think safety is paramount but I have never insisted that players on the bench wear helmets to retrieve foul balls. Of course in almost every case these are in dead ball area, not live ball area. Let the outfielders retrieve baseballs in live ball are. That would seem quicker than having someone from the dugout unless you're playing on quite a huge filed. Just my opinion. Jim/NY

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dave Sirbu
FED Rule 1.1.5 states that non-adult ball shaggers must wear a 2 flap helmet in a live-ball area even when the ball is dead. My question is two part: Are rostered players considered non-adult ball shaggers when they have left the dugout to retrieve a foul ball down the right field corner? And if they are, should they be wearing a helmet? This came up last night in our association meeting and there was a great deal of disagreement. One of our officials claimed that players shagging foul balls must wear a helmet, and most said they would allow them to retrieve foul balls without a helmet on. Your opinions would be appreciated.

Regards, Dave Sirbu

I've always interpreted it as "the coach's son / daughter who is helping out." That's why the penalty is "not being allowed on the field." If it was a player / substitute, then the penalty would be ejection.

[dani]

Frequently fields in our region have several feet of foul area past first/third base where it is much quicker to send a new ball to the mound and have a non-playing team member, from the dugout nearest to the foul ball, retrieve the ball.

Yes, officially there would be two baseballs on the field at the same time. I do not put the new ball into play on the mound until the foul ball has been picked up by the non-playing team member.

We have all watched umpires/players stand around while an outfielder retrieves a foul ball, throws it to the middle infielder, who relays it to the catcher, who hands it to the umpire who then checks the ball for damage and then puts the same ball back into play. This feat occurs only if all of the players can actually play catch (often they can't).

Given my practice detailed above, is the non-playing team member retrieving the foul ball required by Federation Rule to wear a helmet even though he is at least 100 feet away from the live ball that was not put into play until he is returning to the dugout?

[TxUmp]

The letter of the rule clearly requires ALL non-adult ball shaggers to have ona helmet during live ball action. In the interests of safety from litigation, you should enforce it rigorously. However, I believe the intent of the rule was to require helmets in the area between the first and third base dugouts. In the interests of keeping the game moving briskly, I instruct the outfielder NOT to chase foul balls in the outfield. Let the bench players do that (without requiring helmets) - it gives them SOMETHING to do other than yell at the officials. The likelyhood of a head injury to such a ball-shagger in the outfield foul area is miniscule.

[chris s]

Originally posted by dani
Frequently fields in our region have several feet of foul area past first/third base where it is much quicker to send a new ball to the mound and have a non-playing team member, from the dugout nearest to the foul ball, retrieve the ball.

Yes, officially there would be two baseballs on the field at the same time. I do not put the new ball into play on the mound until the foul ball has been picked up by the non-playing team member.

We have all watched umpires/players stand around while an outfielder retrieves a foul ball, throws it to the middle infielder, who relays it to the catcher, who hands it to the umpire who then checks the ball for damage and then puts the same ball back into play. This feat occurs only if all of the players can actually play catch (often they can't).

Given my practice detailed above, is the non-playing team member retrieving the foul ball required by Federation Rule to wear a helmet even though he is at least 100 feet away from the live ball that was not put into play until he is returning to the dugout?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan, what we do around here is with fouls to the backstop, on deck batter gets it, I give new ball to catcher(also passed balls with no one on). A lot of my fields have a lot of foul ground down the outfield lines, LF line yesterday had at least 90 feet to deadball. If a foul gets down that way, send a helmeted kid to get it, and put ball in play. Save them kids' legs so they can get some outs!
I do not have a problem with a helmeted ball shagger in foul ground and putting ball in play, these kids aint that dumb as to not pay attention;o My take with this type of sit is to remember that scholastic events ARE an extension of the classroom, kids are getting PE credit for practice and (I think, playing time). But, none the less, safety first...who's gonna argue that??

[Bfair]

Fed Casebook plays 1.1.5 G & H both support Herb's position. These items used to be regularly tested items on Fed tests I took.

Fed tests would talk a lot of baseball, but they seemed to talk as much about the conduct and red tape issues. Keep in mind, they are responsible for putting out the umps in NFHS contests. They need to show their employeees are aware of these rules if only for the sake of covering potentially NFHS liability positions. There is discussion those of you seeing take home and open book exams may be in for a surprise. I have heard rumors that because of potential liability, Fed exams may turn to total closed book exams. Only rumored at this time, but seems to have some logic behind it.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Tim C]

Oregon has always taken Test One as an Open Book non-binding practice test.

Exam Two has always been taken closed book in all sports in Oregon.

Test two scores ONLY are what get your certification.

[Rog]

This should really help increase the number of umps:

"There is discussion those of you seeing take home and open book exams may be in for a surprise. I have heard rumors that because of potential liability, Fed exams may turn to total closed book exams. Only rumored at this time, but seems to have some logic behind it."

NOT!

Originally posted by Bfair
Fed Casebook plays 1.1.5 G & H both support Herb's position. These items used to be regularly tested items on Fed tests I took.

Fed tests would talk a lot of baseball, but they seemed to talk as much about the conduct and red tape issues. Keep in mind, they are responsible for putting out the umps in NFHS contests. They need to show their employeees are aware of these rules if only for the sake of covering potentially NFHS liability positions. There is discussion those of you seeing take home and open book exams may be in for a surprise. I have heard rumors that because of potential liability, Fed exams may turn to total closed book exams. Only rumored at this time, but seems to have some logic behind it.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS