Skinny on FED Going to Mouth Change
 

Hello again,

Sadly, this year for some reason I was not invited to the annual local rules interp meeting the state organizations holds. So, I am still confused on all the ins and outs of the change in the going to the mouth rule in FED.

My imnpression:

Very little difference:

1. If nobody on base, doesn't wipe before he puts a hand on the ball or gets set, it's a ball.
2. If someone is on base,
A. He has not gotten set on the mound (i.e. before he takes a sign) goes to his mouth, ball.
B. If he has come set, or finished his preliminaries to pich, then goes to his mouth, Balk.
C. If he is not on the mound w/runners on, goes to his mouth and doesn't wipe off, Ball (not a balk as it used to be).

On the NFHS board, there is a long, and frankly confusing discussion, since I guess the Rules committee did not really get what they wanted in the change. The Case Book and FED web site interps are also incorrect. Okay, fine by me, so what is it FED and or your state wants called?

Thanks a lot!

jk,

from what i understand, you are correct on all of those examples, however, if the pitcher wipes off before touching the ball in any of those examples, there is no violation (except B, it's a balk for separating hands).

Also, if he is on the rubber taking signs, goes to his mouth, then wipes, legal.

I'm 90% sure i've gotten these right. We get our new rule/case books tomorrow, so i'll know for sure.

Nevermind,

Listen to Tee. haha

It has not been explained that way here. If a pitcher is on the rubber and goes to his mouth it's a BALL, regardless of whether we have runners, or if he wipes afterward.

If he is in contact with the rubber with runner on, has his hands together and separates to go to his mouth, it's a balk, not becuase he went to his mouth but because he separated his hands after coming set.

It is clear FED wants to be more lenient with pitchers who go to their mouth, but why I don't know.

:eek: Errrrrrrr, I sure hope he could.......yeesh ;)

This is the way we had it "FED" to us in our rules interpretation meeting with the SCHSL. We all agreed it was poorly written, but any going to the mouth that doesn't also involve another illegal act shall result in a ball being added to the count. The addition of another illegal act (such as the separation of hands after coming set without delivering the pitch) would constitute a balk.

And, if somebody starts whipping off on MY field, they can stay in the dugout and take care of that!

Here's the story I got...

Our local association's rule interpretor followed-up with the state and national NFHS representatives to help clarify this point. Much of the confusion stems from the fact that the Case Book play covering this is in error. The same incorrect Case Book play was distributed in the NFHS "Preseason" baseball packets widely distributed to its members.

- Case Book play 6.2.1 situation A, part (b) is incorrect.

This example play states that a pitcher going to the mouth while engaged on the rubber is illegal.

That was the ruling for previous years. That Case Book play was inadvertantly left in the book and is in direct conflict with the 2007 rule change. The error was not discovered until the Case Books had been printed and distributed.

- The 2007 interpretations on the NFHS website are correct and reflect how this rule should be called.

The two examples where an engaged pitcher goes to his mouth and a balk is subsequently called involve the pitcher doing something else that is a balkable offense.

For example, after coming set with his hands together, the pitcher separates the hands to lick his fingers. It is a balk because of the hand separation, not for going to the mouth while in contact with the rubber.

- The correct ruling for 2007 is that a pitcher engaged on the rubber may go to the mouth.

If he wipes off there is no penalty. If he fails to wipe, the ball is dead and the penalty is a ball added to the batter's count. This is no longer enforced as a balk.

[QUOTE]I do not know about the rest but IMO this type rule falls under the category of "nit-pick'n" and IMO one should not spend that much time on as there are other more important matters / rules that should be focused on during HS Assoicating meetings .

Yes the FED made an error but at least in my area this is a non issue. Preventative umpiring can avoid this.

The main problem comes "into play" when you umpire leagues that are OBR based and the kids pitching are used to FED rules. A prime example is in legion ball where they have a hybrid of rules but the pitching regs are OBR based. Some F1's without thinking do what they did in HS, however, in OBR F1 must not be in the 18ft. circle when going to the mouth.

Again preventative umpiring can avoid this.

Side Note: One of my pet peeves in association meeting is that too much time is taken up discussing these type rulings when Mechanics / Game management skills should be focused on.

Pete Booth

Thankfully, my local association spent a few minutes on this- along with the other 2007 rule changes- in our first meeting then moved on. Our interpreter had got the info on the botched Case Book rewrite before the meeting, so that conflicting issue didn't garner much discussion.

Our local meetings do generally stay on-point and don't wander off into "what-if's", war stories or third world plays. If something warrants further discussion we hold it for after the scheduled agenda.

I can see where there might be some confusion about this new rule. The FED has issued one set of interpretations, but issued a conflicting one in their Case Book and in their preseason informational materials. It's bound to create some confusion when two diametrically opposed interps are issued for the same rule.

This rule has generated a long, and somewhat absurd, discussion on the NFHS baseball discussion boards at their website. Apparently many states are either misinterpreting this change, accepting the erroneous Case Book play as accurate, retaining bits and pieces from last year's rule or choosing to reinvent their own versions of how this should be called.

But you are right, Pete. Hash it and move on! With the limited amount of time most associations get with their members, there are more important things to cover that can have a much more positive effect on how games are called and managed.

My question is: how the helll does FED f*ck up these rulings every year in the casebook? Doesn't Elliot Hopkins proofread the new casebook entries? Shouldn't he at least WRITE the case book entries? How do the interpretations get screwed up every year? This is a shotty operation they have running over there regarding their publications.

If they would stop f**king around with this disgusting habit (pitchers licking thier fingers) and make it like OBR, we could all get on with our lives!

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

What prevents them from doing so? We have adaptations to FED rules in WI in all sports.

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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?" :confused:

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

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.

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.

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.

That would be South Carolina, just for the record.

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

If you mean there is no appeal and umpire calls it when he sees it this statement is not correct for NC. You must appeal a missed base in accordance with FED rules.

Tee's statement makes perfect sense but the issue is not that, it is (as I posted previously) 50 representatives explaining to God knows how many rules interpretors who in turn explain to thousands of umpires.

Here, let me make it easy to understand. 2005 the FED said (basically) NO GORILLA ARM! Well the CT Representative screwed up the explanation to the 4 association rules interpretors that handle CT and we had four different ways of dealing with the Gorilla Arm. One board (mine) didn't call it at all because that is what we were told. Yet I knew (from the huge argument on this board last season) that this was incorrect. I could not call it because I had no backing to do so. This is what we face with the FED-landia! It is not always a perfect world like in your's or Tee's State! It stinks,but that is reality!

Like Washington and Montana, hard to tell apart...from 2500 miles away.

A better and more SAT like analogy would be North Carolina is to South Carolina as Washington is to Oregon.

Nothing is like Montana. Hell, yogurt has more culture.

Hard to base any conclusions on SAT scores. Participation rates vary. Washington and Oregon appear neck and neck on participation rates and scores, while Montana appears higher on scores but with lower participation.

What's it like in BC?

http://www.sde.state.ok.us/test/SAT/SATstateSCORES.pdf

http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/...scores2003.pdf