2010 Rules Changes (NFHS Document)
 

2010 Baseball Rules Changes Include Bat Standards Adjustment



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Elliot Hopkins

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (July 6, 2009) - The clarification of
baseball bat specifications was among four rules adjusted by the
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Baseball
Rules Committee at its annual meeting June 7-9 in Indianapolis. The
rules changes subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.


A change to Rule 1-3-2 regarding bat specifications was made
in the hope it will clarify bat compliance. The rule, which will be
effective January 1, 2012, specifies that the bat should be a "smooth
cylinder implement from the top of the cap to the top of the knob."

"The committee was looking to clarify the rule and make the
purchase of bats an easier process," said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director
of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee. "We
want to make sure that kids and parents know what is permissible."

The change will also require that all non-wood bats meet the
Batted Ball Coefficient of Restitution (BBCOR) performance standard,
which is the standard used by the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA). Formerly, non-wood bats had to meet the Ball Exit
Speed Ratio (BESR) standard.

The new rule also states that non-wood bats must be labeled
with a rectangular certification mark "a minimum of a half-inch on each
side and located on the barrel of the bat in any contrasting color." The
new standard ensures that performances by non-wood bats are more
comparable to those of wood bats. It's also expected to minimize risk,
improve play and increase teaching opportunities.

"After working with the NCAA and having access to its
research, we've concluded it's in our best interest to make this
change," Hopkins said. "BBCOR includes the BESR standard, so we're
actually expanding upon our current standard, which will be more
appropriate for our age and skill level."

Another major rule addition applies to assistant coaches and
their behavior during the game. 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.

The intention of this change is to cut down on the disruptive
and counterproductive behavior of assistant coaches. It also reinforces
to head coaches that they are responsible for their staff and players.

"The committee found that assistant coaches were taking
license with their roles and becoming disruptive," Hopkins said. "By
doing that, they're sending the wrong message to their players. It's one
thing to ask the official for a clarification, but it's another to
challenge and charge an umpire. We cannot and will not allow that."

A clarification was made to Rule 1-2-4 concerning the
temporary extension of dugouts. The modified rule explains that when the
dugout is to be temporarily extended, it shall be extended toward the
outfield and not toward home plate.

The final adjustment was made to Rule 7-4-1f, concerning the
instances when a batter will be declared out. The change reads that the
batter is out if "any member of the offensive team or coach other than
the runner interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a foul
fly ball." The addition of the phrase "other than the runner" clarifies
the responsibility of the runner and that the runner - not the batter -
will be declared out for the runner's interference.

"Previously, it just wasn't fair to the batter," Hopkins
explained. "If the runner interferes with the defense, it's not the
batter's fault. It was the runner who created the infraction, so the
runner will be called out."

Baseball is the fourth-most popular sport among boys at the
high school level with 478,029 participants during the 2007-08 season,
according to the High School Athletics Participation Survey conducted by
the NFHS. It also ranks third in school sponsorship across the nation
with 15,720 participating schools.

Good info thanks Tim C

Thank you for passing this information along. The rule change regarding assistant coaches is much needed.

Thanks Tim. I forwarded this to our President & Rules Interpreter. Keep the Information coming as you get it.

Oh yeah, when are we going to not have to check the equipment like NCAA????????? :rolleyes:

hopefully soon

TEE What about Points of Emphasis?
 

Are they out yet? Are they the same as last year?

Thanks Tee! Now, if you can just get the NFHS to print the dead ball table on 2 adjacent pages instead of having to turn the page to read the second half of it, we would be ok! haha

Thanks Tee. I can't wait to see the assistant coaches squirm and try to restrain themselves. Should be a riot!:)

I don't see this as an improvement. Coaches and AD's will be expecting benchings instead of the ejections they get now.

Benchings are bullsh!t.

They can expect whatever they want. I've never one single time in all the many HS games I've worked, ever restricted a coach to the bench, even when the option was available. I'm not about to start now. If an assistant comes out on me and doesn't leave immediately when told, he's a done Tom turkey, just like always!

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!!!!:D

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

Even if he does leave immediately he would be restricted to the dugout.

You and I are old school. There is no way we can be kinder and gentler when on the diamond!

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.

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.

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?

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.

I agree with you.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. (As I read it.)

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.

Pretty sure it isn't to take "sportsmanship up a notch." That's not what the memo said. Here is what it said, and is more in line with what I was saying, which is that umpires have been lax in dealing with unruly assistants. Which is weak.

The intention of this change is to cut down on the disruptive and counterproductive behavior of assistant coaches. It also reinforces to head coaches that they are responsible for their staff and players.

"The committee found that assistant coaches were taking license with their roles and becoming disruptive," Hopkins said. "By
doing that, they're sending the wrong message to their players. It's one thing to ask the official for a clarification, but it's another to challenge and charge an umpire. We cannot and will not allow that."

Sounds like some umpires have let behavior slide and did not send the proper message.

If sportsmanship had been taken up a notch, rules like this would not be neccessary.

I thought the old code of conduct was just fine, ignore assistants until they say something that get's them tossed, then they leave.

I thought that the part about assistant coaches was already a rule ... :D
I've never given an Asst. coach the time of day anyway, now it will cost the head coach also is the only change I see.

Kidding aside, this will be a good help for young umpires who sometimes let the asst. coaches get the best of them. Now they have the rule book to back them up.

Thanks
David

I believe this is a good change. Although many umpires don't put up with assistant coaches' inappropriate outburst and displays, this rule draws the line very clearly for everyone to see that the assistant coach is not in charge and his place within the game is not to address the umpires.

My question is where is the line drawn where after the assistant coach is ejected for his severe conduct that you eject the head coach as well? I cannot imagine a situation, short of a riot, that I would dump the head coach for the assistant coaches conduct (as an alternative to restricting the HC).

-Josh

Assistant coaches' behavior and appropriate consequences have been POEs a couple of times in the recent past. This isn't a re-affirmation, it is a change.

Personally, I prefer the old way. I just know that now, after an ejection, I'm going to be hearing, "You're supposed to bench him first."

Screw benching.

I am curious
 

In the state I work HS baseball in, at least in my area, I have seen or heard few problems with assistant coaches. The one asst I had to throw this year (the first one in many, many years) was a lemming. The HC got pitched after kicking dirt on HP, then me. Then the lemming 1B coach waited until the HC was gone to the dugout, then went and did the exact some thing the HC did in the same order! Even said the same words! Couldn't help but laugh, he not only acted like his HC, he threw his team under the bus at the same time.

But, back on point, in my state there have not been a lot of problems reported with asst. coaches.

Is there that much of a problem with this where the rest of you work HS baseball?

It is very rare here as well. However, I probably should have tossed one the other night but I was bewildered he was even out there to begin with.

-Josh

No, not here. Very, very rare.

...and this has what to do with my post? The intended subject of my post was expressing some disapproval at BOTH coaches being restricted - that perhaps ejecting the assistant would effect his removal from the scene and facilitate the head coach doing his own job on the field, from the field.

JJ

For the most part, we have very few problems with assisitant coaches. Our assc. has made it clear to the head coaches that we will only participate discussions that come from them.
The big problem we face in Alabama is that the State expects there to be a restriction before any ejection, except in the most egregious situations.