NFHS Rules Change (Proposal)
 

Folks:

Oregon has begun an organized effort to communicate with the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee for changes in the 2009 Rules Book.

We ask your help.

Please review the request as written below. If you (and your group) agrees with it feel free to copy the information and send it through channels to the National Federation.

IF enough information is placed at the committee's disposal perhaps we can influence change.

Thanks in advance,

*****

Umpire Pregame Inspection of Equipment, Batting Helmets and Bats.
Current Rule: NFHS Rule 10-2-3a.

Rule 10 Section 2 Umpire-In-Chief

Article 3. . . His duties include those listed in Rules 10-2-1,2 and the following:

a. Inspect equipment and condition of field, receive batting order of both teams, announce special ground rules and formulate such if the two teams cannot agree, designate official scorer (9-2-2) and see that each player takes his glove and loose equipment to the bench at the end of his term in the field.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Remove the words "equipment and".

RATIONALE:

This eliminates the need for umpires to enter the teams dugouts to inspect equipment prior to a contest.

Many times the helmets and bats are not ready for inspection (10-20 minutes) prior to pregame plate conference or game time.

It reduces the opportunity for conflicts with coaches and players.

Currently the head coaches verify at the plate conference that their players are properly equipped and in compliance with the rules.

This puts the responsibility upon the coach to be knowledgeable as to the safety of his players and equipment, as it should be.

The umpire-in-chief can still rule on the legality of equipment.

There are no conflicts with other rules or the language of those rules governing bats, helmets or defective equipment.

Equipment: Bats: Rules 1-3-2,3,4

Defective: Rule 1-5-6

Helmets: Rule 1-4-5

There are no conflicts with Pregame procedures.

Rule 1-5-10, Player Equipment: head coach shall be responsible for verifying to the umpire-in chief that all his players are equipped and in compliance with the rules. stated in Rule 2. Any questions regarding legality of a players equipment shall be resolved by the umpire- in-chief. legality of equipment.

Rule 4-1-3, Starting a game: Umpire-in-chief receives verification from the both head coaches that all participants are properly equipped...

This is about the third time this has been proposed. However, with the change NCAA made in this area and the propensity for FED to look to NCAA for guidance in administrative rules, I think your chances are excellent this time around.

Tee,

I will circulate on my FED association's listserv.

Lawrence

We have our rules meeting tomorrow. I will present this to the Board of Directors. I know that many of us here in New Haven County, CT are tired of waiting for this change.

I take it you mean the term "and loose equipment", as the term "equipment and" does not appear in the quoted rule.

To me, "...takes his glove and loose equipment to the bench at the end of his term in the field" is referring to between half-innings and applies to an action once the game has started.

I've never run across this being a problem before the game even starts, and certainly never had a case where a coach made his players remove their loose gear from the field before a game started, just to comply with rule 10-2-3a!

Is this really causing a problem for folks out there- one big enough or frequent enough to warrant a rule change?

Bretman,

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but the rule Tim cited appears in the (2008) book exactly as he quoted it and there ain't no "loose" anywhere to be seen in the vicinity.

While "loose equipment" is certainly addressed elsewhere in the text of the rules(1-3-7 comes most prominently to my mind), it has NOTHING to do with the change Tim is suggesting.

JM

Okay, that term is in the first part of the rule- my bad. But I took it, from the "rationale" offered, that the propsed rule change is to prevent players from removing equipment from the field prior to the game, to "eliminate the need for umpires to enter the teams dugouts to inspect equipment prior to a contest".

But now I get it- somebody wants to remove the pre-game equipment inspection entirely from our responsibilities.

Why not just say that! :rolleyes:

JM: I might have misinterpreted the intent of the proposal, but I didn't add words that aren't even there. The word "loose" is definitely there. It is the 38th word in the sentence, and being within the same sentence seems to qualify as being "in the vicinity".

Bret,

It was put in that format because that's how the NFHS wants proposals to be submitted.