Skinny on FED Going to Mouth Change

[David B]

Originally Posted by JJ

Here's the rub with the way the FED has set things up: If a pitcher gets a new ball (pearl) from the umpire, and goes down on the grass and spits on his hands and then goes right to the ball (doesn't wipe off) with the intent of "rubbing up " that new ball, it's a ball on the batter. They make no allowance for on the dirt, off the dirt, live ball, dead ball, or any timeframe. If he goes mouth-to-ball without wiping, it's a ball.

They've also said that if the pitcher is on the rubber with runners on base, and is working from the set position, if he reaches up to lick his fingers (goes to his mouth) before he comes set and does not wipe off, it's a BALL on the batter. Hmmm... That should be a BALK since he starts his hand up and then stops.

In Illinois we've revised the FED position to say essentially this: If the pitcher is in contact with the rubber working from the WINDUP position WITH NO RUNNERS ON BASE and he goes to his mouth and then the ball without wiping, it is a BALL on the batter. That is the ONLY time he will be penalized with a BALL - he must be in contact with the rubber with no runners on base. If he is working from the SET position and goes to his mouth (either before OR after he comes set), it will be a BALK, because he has started his hands and stopped.

The better choice for the FED IMHO would have been to just go to the Pro rule, or else leave it alone. The way it's written now is just too restrictive (when the intent of the change was to make the penalty more lenient). That's why we are going with a different interp in Illinois.

JJ

I may be wrong, but from my reading etc., I think all FED was trying to do is try and get the umpires to actually call a ball on the batter for a violation by F1.

In the past, its basically been ignored as a don't do that.


Thanks
David

[PeteBooth]

In the past, its basically been ignored as a don't do that.

and it will be ignored in the future as well.

As I mentioned it's amzaing that so much time is spent on this type of ruling to begin with.

I once had a coach ask me

"Blue he is not wiping the ball off when going to his mouth" and his team is winning by a good margin.

Whenever I get a coach who says these types of things, I go Nit-pickn myself and say ok Skip your clean-up hitter is not in uniform with the rest of his teammates so you will have to replace him. The coach will then keep his mouth shut.

Pete Booth

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

It would seem you are confusing modifying the rules with changing an interpretation of a rule left unmodified.

Fed states that member associations may modify the rules. (There is a penalty for that, however) But, FED does not sanction states changing the interpretations of rules.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm looking at this realistically.

[PeteBooth]

Rich I am not speaking for Garth but I think (that could be dangerous) he means the following:

In the FED rule book, there are the Mercy / Speed-up Rules

Here in NY we did not adopt the Mercy Rule or Speed-up Rules. I do not know why NY didn't adopt these rules but that's a different discussion altogether. We do have a 15 run rule in modified.

If you do adopt the Mercy Rule / Speed-up Rules, then one has to apply them the way they are outlined in both the rule /case books. In other words a particular state can not modify the rule if they adopt it.

A state does have the option of accepting certian rules or not but once a state adopts it, they cannot on their own change it.

Garth if that's not what you meant then please clarify with examples

thanks

Pete Booth

[JJ]

Originally Posted by David B

I may be wrong, but from my reading etc., I think all FED was trying to do is try and get the umpires to actually call a ball on the batter for a violation by F1.

In the past, its basically been ignored as a don't do that.


Thanks
David

In the past it's been a balk IF it's been penalized. Unfortunately, if it's ignored and a coach complains, HE has the rule book to back up enforcement. Sometimes it's not easy to say "OK, if you want that enforced then you'll have to get YOUR guys in line with...."
This has never really been a big problem in Illinois, either. For all I used to care in high school ball, if a pitcher wanted to reach in his mouth and scratch his tonsils, as long as it helped him throw strikes I never made an issue of it. However, it's become an issue SOMEWHERE, so the FED is trying to crack down.

JJ

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Forgot last year's mess with the "gorilla arm", didn't you Tee? There was no unanimous enforcement from State to State on that issue either. It seems that every State Board has a different opinion, couple that with the rules interpreter for each board and you can get a real mess!

Hail, hail FED-landia. Land of the free and brave! (ala Marx Bros Duck Soup)

Tee's statement stands. Fed does not endorse and has no provision for states interpreting the rules differently. The fact that some states have rules interpreters who make mistakes doesn't change that.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Rich I am not speaking for Garth but I think (that could be dangerous) he means the following:

In the FED rule book, there are the Mercy / Speed-up Rules

Here in NY we did not adopt the Mercy Rule or Speed-up Rules. I do not know why NY didn't adopt these rules but that's a different discussion altogether. We do have a 15 run rule in modified.

If you do adopt the Mercy Rule / Speed-up Rules, then one has to apply them the way they are outlined in both the rule /case books. In other words a particular state can not modify the rule if they adopt it.

A state does have the option of accepting certian rules or not but once a state adopts it, they cannot on their own change it.

Garth if that's not what you meant then please clarify with examples

thanks

Pete Booth

Pete, what I meant was this: Fed, in the first paragraph on page one in all sports rulebooks allows that member states may modify the rules. For example in Washington in basketball, we have added a shot clock for women's games. In North Carolina, apparently, they have gone back to the old missed base appeal rule. That is allowed by FED. As I said, there is a price for that. Washington cannot have a representative serve on the rules committee as long as we modify the rules.

What FED had no provision for is to accept the Rules, but change the interpretation as in last year's debat over the "Gorillar Arm" move. While there was disagreement over the interp, FED had no provision for allowing any interpretation other than theirs. As another example, a state cannot decide to leave the FPSR in, but intepret it differently.

I'm sure Rich understood what I meant. He was just a bit overreaching in his initital post.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Pete, what I meant was this: Fed, in the first paragraph on page one in all sports rulebooks allows that member states may modify the rules. For example in Washington in basketball, we have added a shot clock for women's games. In North Carolina, apparently, they have gone back to the old missed base appeal rule. That is allowed by FED. As I said, there is a price for that. Washington cannot have a representative serve on the rules committee as long as we modify the rules.

What FED had no provision for is to accept the Rules, but change the interpretation as in last year's debat over the "Gorillar Arm" move. While there was disagreement over the interp, FED had no provision for allowing any interpretation other than theirs. As another example, a state cannot decide to leave the FPSR in, but intepret it differently.

I'm sure Rich understood what I meant. He was just a bit overreaching in his initital post.

A state could most certainly do that. What penalty would they face, other than losing it's seat on the rules committee?

It's a Federation of State HS Associations. Will the NFHS throw a state out who interprets differently? I've not heard of any such thing.

But if you wish to "win" this "academically" rather than acknowledge that a state can really do anything it wants, feel free. You "win." You and Tee can high five or whatever it is you two do all you wish.

[David B]

Originally Posted by JJ

In the past it's been a balk IF it's been penalized. Unfortunately, if it's ignored and a coach complains, HE has the rule book to back up enforcement. Sometimes it's not easy to say "OK, if you want that enforced then you'll have to get YOUR guys in line with...."
This has never really been a big problem in Illinois, either. For all I used to care in high school ball, if a pitcher wanted to reach in his mouth and scratch his tonsils, as long as it helped him throw strikes I never made an issue of it. However, it's become an issue SOMEWHERE, so the FED is trying to crack down.

JJ

I agree totally. Its never been an issue when I was in TX and now in MS.

But obviously its a problem somewhere. Kind of like asking coaches to be in their box.

Who cares ... but obviously someone does.

Thanks
David

[LMan]

Its funny, but I've never seen one of these rules come up and someone say, "oh, that's cuz its a BIG problem around here!" It's always, "where on earth is this an issue?"

You'd think eventually we'd happen upon an area of FED where there's a situation these changes address.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am confused:

When did Fed allow individual states to write their own interpretations?

My head hurts.

Afaik, the FED promotes that. On the second page of most rule books, they insert the boilerplate language "Requests for (insert sport) rules interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school (insert sport) program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations whenever called upon." The state-issued interpretations are supposed to be based solely on existing rules. The FED doesn't like you modifying or changing those existing rules though, so any interpretations issued should not do so.

That's my understanding.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

A state could most certainly do that. What penalty would they face, other than losing it's seat on the rules committee?

It's a Federation of State HS Associations. Will the NFHS throw a state out who interprets differently? I've not heard of any such thing.

But if you wish to "win" this "academically" rather than acknowledge that a state can really do anything it wants, feel free. You "win." You and Tee can high five or whatever it is you two do all you wish.

Wow. How times have changed.

As a mutual friend often advises, "words have meaning." If you don't want people to respond to the words you use, use other ones.

The question was whether or not FED permits states to alter interpretations. They do not.

Now if your position is they do so anyway, I would suggest they do not do so formally nor on purpose, as they do when they modify or add rules, but rather through a lack of understanding.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Afaik, the FED promotes that. On the second page of most rule books, they insert the boilerplate language "Requests for (insert sport) rules interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school (insert sport) program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations whenever called upon." The state-issued interpretations are supposed to be based solely on existing rules. The FED doesn't like you modifying or changing those existing rules though, so any interpretations issued should not do so.

That's my understanding.

According to Elliot Hopkins, that language is intended to keep FED from having to answer a hundred phone calls a day from individual umpires. They want the the questions funnelled throught the state offices to which they provide uniform rulings.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Pete, what I meant was this: Fed, in the first paragraph on page one in all sports rulebooks allows that member states may modify the rules...

...In North Carolina, apparently, they have gone back to the old missed base appeal rule. That is allowed by FED.

That would be South Carolina, just for the record.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

That would be South Carolina, just for the record.

South Carolina, North Carolina, I had a 50/50 chance.