2008 NFHS Interps

[Rich]

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/02/2008...s_interpr.aspx

My "favorites":

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

SITUATION 15: With the pregame conference ready to begin, the home team head coach is in the bullpen and refuses to attend. He sends his assistant coach and a captain to be present. The assistant coach provides his team's lineup and verifies to the umpire-in-chief that his team is properly equipped. RULING: The umpire-in-chief will accept the assistant coach's verification and conclude all needed activity at the pregame conference. The head coach will be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. (3-2-4 Penalty, 4-1-3a)

SITUATION 19: The umpire-in-chief notices that the head coach coaching at third base is not in the coach's box. The coach is not gaining an advantage or causing any problems. RULING: There is no violation. If the umpire believes that the coach was gaining an advantage for his team, he would require the coach to be within the confines of the coach's box. (3-2-1)

SITUATION 20: With the bases empty, the visiting team is at bat and the assistant coach in the first base coach's box is wearing a dual flap helmet while the head coach in the third base coach's box is wearing a hard liner under his team cap. The home team coach complains to the umpire-in-chief that both coaches must wear the same type of protective helmet in accordance with MLB rules. RULING: The NFHS has not mandated that adult coaches shall wear protective head gear while occupying a coach's box. It is the prerogative of the respective coach to wear such protective equipment. The NFHS is conducting research to determine if protective head gear should be required and, if so, which type (hard liner, flapless, one-flap, dual flap) would be most effective. However, it is mandatory that when occupying a coach's box, a coach shall wear the team cap and that players/students wear a batting helmet that meets the NOCSAE standard and has dual ear flaps. (3-2-1, 1-5-1, 1-4-1)

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/02/2008...s_interpr.aspx

SITUATION 20: With the bases empty, the visiting team is at bat and the assistant coach in the first base coach's box is wearing a dual flap helmet while the head coach in the third base coach's box is wearing a hard liner under his team cap. The home team coach complains to the umpire-in-chief that both coaches must wear the same type of protective helmet in accordance with MLB rules. RULING: The NFHS has not mandated that adult coaches shall wear protective head gear while occupying a coach's box. It is the prerogative of the respective coach to wear such protective equipment. The NFHS is conducting research to determine if protective head gear should be required and, if so, which type (hard liner, flapless, one-flap, dual flap) would be most effective. However, it is mandatory that when occupying a coach's box, a coach shall wear the team cap and that players/students wear a batting helmet that meets the NOCSAE standard and has dual ear flaps. (3-2-1, 1-5-1, 1-4-1)

Does the last sentence really mean what it says about it being MANDATORY for the the coach to wear the team cap in the coaching box? What if he wants to wear a dual flap batting helmet? Is he supposed to put the hat over the helmet? Is he supposed to put the helmet over the cap?

My guess is they meant to say the coach must wear the team cap unless he is wearing protective head gear, as they do not want bare heads in the coaches boxes. If I am right, why didn't they say it that way?

[johnnyg08]

because most umpires have the judgement and foresight to not be a smitty and try and micromanage what hat the coach is wearing. IMO, as an umpire, while yes, it is a rule, we have better things to worry about. .02

[ManInBlue]

Coach: Hey, Blue. That coach is not wearing his team hat.

Me: OK, coach. I'm could watch the 3B coach's box to make sure he has it on at all times, and to make sure he doesn't change back to this one he's wearing. But wouldn't you rather I watch the pitch and call balls and strikes?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Coach: Hey, Blue. That coach is not wearing his team hat.

Looks like he's wearing it under his helmet. Can we play ball now?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Blue37

Does the last sentence really mean what it says about it being MANDATORY for the the coach to wear the team cap in the coaching box? What if he wants to wear a dual flap batting helmet? Is he supposed to put the hat over the helmet? Is he supposed to put the helmet over the cap?

My guess is they meant to say the coach must wear the team cap unless he is wearing protective head gear, as they do not want bare heads in the coaches boxes. If I am right, why didn't they say it that way?

They didn't say it that way because it is specificially written in the rules that caps are required but when a helmet is used it replaces the cap as mandatory equipment.

"Caps and shoes are required equipment (no track spikes allowed). When a player is required to wear a head protector, it replaces the cap as mandatory equipment."

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by LDUB

They didn't say it that way because it is specificially written in the rules that caps are required but when a helmet is used it replaces the cap as mandatory equipment.

"Caps and shoes are required equipment (no track spikes allowed). When a player is required to wear a head protector, it replaces the cap as mandatory equipment."

LDUB,

This is the point I wanted to make. The exception you quoted specifically refers to players and uses the phrase "required to wear". It does not address coaches who choose to wear protective gear. It would have been a simple matter to add a sentence to this paragraph extending the same replacement rights to coaches who choose to wear protective gear. It would have been simple to add an exception to the interpretation, but they did not do so and even quoted the rule they seemingly want us to ignore.

Why can't an organization as large as the NFHS make the necessary changes to the rules to accomplish their goals? And if they issue interpretations, why do they include language that precludes what they want us to do? It is frustrating to be forced to deal with literalist coaches just because a rule or interpretation is poorly written.

These are rhetorical questions. Just venting!