2010 Rules Changes (NFHS Document)

SanDiegoSteve · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 08:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

But sometimes, it is nice to see them have to sit there quietly because of the "adult supervision" rule of the FED! They know that if they screw up again, they are ejected and the game has to end!

Well maybe I'll give being "kinder and gentler" a try this coming season!

NOT!!!!

JJ · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 09:08am

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

johnnyg08 · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 11:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

If you're a head coach it sounds like it would be a good pre-season conversation to have w/ your assistants to make sure it doesn't happened. The rule appears to give more responsiblity to the head coach. This is a good rule.

Rich · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 12:32pm

Except it almost sounds like it's OK for the assistant to argue calls if they don't leave their position (dugout or coaching box). I guar-ON-tee it's not going to be interpreted that way by this umpire.

The best part is that even if an assistant coach gets ejected under this rule, the HC will also get restricted.

LDUB · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 01:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

Ok so you eject him; the head coach is still restricted to the dugout. Why do you care so much about who gets to coach a base?

Rich · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 01:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

Umm, no, he doesn't. Read it again.

This puts the responsibility square on the HC for his assistants. About damn time.

SanDiegoSteve · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 01:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Umm, no, he doesn't. Read it again.

This puts the responsibility square on the HC for his assistants. About damn time.

Rule 3-3-1g6 prohibits any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach from leaving "the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire." The penalty for this infraction is that both the head coach and the offending coach will be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. If severe enough, the umpire also has the authority to eject the offending coach and/or the head coach.

If any coach other than the head coach comes out on you, they both are restricted. I don't like that rule. Just get rid of the assistant, and it solves the problem just fine. This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

umpjong · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 02:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If any coach other than the head coach comes out on you, they both are restricted. I don't like that rule. Just get rid of the assistant, and it solves the problem just fine. This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

I agree with you.

Didnt care for the dugout restriction either, dump the offender and get it over with. Message sent.....

DonInKansas · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 03:43pm

Quote:

If severe enough, the umpire also has the authority to eject the offending coach and/or the head coach.

This is the only part I needed to hear. Dump the fool.

Kevin Finnerty · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 03:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpjong

... Didnt care for the dugout restriction either, dump the offender and get it over with. Message sent.....

Watching a coach sit in the corner of the dugout silently moping like a child is often more satisfying (and more appropriate) than dumping him.

Steven Tyler · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 05:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

Where do you get your information that this is the reason that the rule was put in specifically for this reason? I think you're way off base on your assertion.

SanDiegoSteve · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 05:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Where do you get your information that this is the reason that the rule was put in specifically for this reason? I think you're way off base on your assertion.

Don't just take a snipe at me, tell us what your opinion is. Why do you believe the rule was put in?

If assistants had been dealt with properly universally (hint here: ejected), this rule really wouldn't be necessary. Not that I think it's necessary now.

Steven Tyler · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 06:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Don't just take a snipe at me, tell us what your opinion is. Why do you believe the rule was put in?

If assistants had been dealt with properly universally (hint here: ejected), this rule really wouldn't be necessary. Not that I think it's necessary now.

Again, let me be clear. It was your bold statement. I just asked where you got your information from. I believe FED has taken sportsmanship up a notch. Rules aren't made because an umpire is weak. There has to be a better reason than what you suggest.

JRutledge · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 05:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

Is that not what already happens often? At least at first base there are a lot of players at that position. At least in my experience.

That being said, the ruling does not say that the umpire cannot dump the assistant. It just says that "if" they are restricted, the head coach must go to the bench. That is all.

Kevin Finnerty · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Jul 07, 2009, 05:48pm

Agreed. (As I read it.)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2009-2010 NCAA Rule Changes (Possibly)	JBleach85	Basketball	6	Fri May 08, 2009 02:32am
2009-2010 rule changes	Mark Padgett	Basketball	135	Wed May 06, 2009 06:59am
NFL overtime rules won't change [for 2009-2010]	JugglingReferee	Football	9	Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:34pm
NFHS Rules Changes	Tim C	Football	35	Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:46am
NEW - 2003 NFHS Football Rule Changes (as written by the NFHS Rules Committee)	KWH	Football	27	Tue Jan 21, 2003 11:30am