Properly Equipped
 

FED. The opposing coach made a pitching change. While this was being done, one of the players involved in the switch removed his cup and took it to the dugout. PU told the coach that all of his players needed to be wearing a cup. The coach said that they did not have to and PU turned to me and said, "You heard that. If I get sued, you are a witness. He told me his team was properly equipped." I later heard the coach saying that properly equipped had nothing to do with wearing a cup. It had to do with helmets, bats, jewelry, etc.

Who is correct here?

harmbu,

Under FED rules, there is no provision requiring anyone other than the catcher to wear a protective cup.

JM

Both right & both wrong.

The catcher is the only player required to wear the cup, unless your league has more stringent rules. So the ump was wrong not everybody has to wear a cup.

When asked if his team is properly equipped that includes the cup the catcher is required to wear as well as all other safety measures. So the coach was wrong.

As I understand the conversation, the coach denied the claim that all of his players must wear a cup. That denial is correct: not all players must wear a cup.

It does not follow, and the coach is not reported to have said, that no player must wear a cup.

I think that's included with what the coach "later said." :)

What the coach said was that properly equipped has nothing to do with wearing a cup, when it most certainly does. Properly equipped means that your male catcher is wearing his protective cup, and that nobody is wearing jewelry other than medical alert jewelry.

And the coaches are not allowed to say any of that "to the best of my knowledge" crap, either. They must directly state "Yes" when asked if their players are properly equipped, and that includes the catcher wearing his cup.

In our association, it also includes any player who warms up a pitcher either on the diamond or in the bullpen.

And in every other association in the country.

Or, Harmbu said that the coach said this, so we're getting a second hand account and something might be getting lost in the translation.

Regardless or who said what, the rule is the rule. In FED baseball a cup must be worn by the catcher or any non-adult warming up a pitcher at any location- and only then if the catcher or warm-up person is a male!

The umpire who reportedly said all this was trying to enforce a rule that doesn't exist. He's kind of goofy, too, for making comments about lawsuits and witnesses. If you really think that a player is violating an equpment or safety rule, why would you just go ahead and let the player play and worry more about covering your own butt? If you know for a fact that a player is not properly equipped- no matter what the coach told you at the pre-game conference- you do not allow him to participate!

As long as they squat, yes. If they don't squat (crouch), neither head gear nor a cup is required.

I guess you do know squat after all.:)

I once had a partner tell a coach he had to wear a cup to warm up a pitcher. That led to an interesting discussion.

I originally worded it, "It also includes any player who warms up a pitcher either on the diamond or in the bullpen."

I included, "In our association" so that you would not pick my statement apart.

You did anyway. How long must your games take?

It must be a FED thing, because in 36 years (and some 2200 games), I have never once posed the question, "Is your team properly equipped."

Properly Equipped
 

Yes it is, goes right along with inspecting bats, batting helments, and catcher's helmet.

And some of the moms. Yes, it's a FED thing.

Duh
 

Let's see...we are disucussing FED rules...hmmm.....good chance it's a FED thing.

If you had been working a full schedule of high school games all these years, in addition to the games you worked, you would have amassed over 4300 games over that same time period.

Why would you say "in our association" when it is a standard rule used everywhere?

My bad for not having had my location in my profile (since fixed). I'm from Massachusetts, where thankfully we don't have to deal with FED rules. I have umpired nearly 400 high school games, all OBR-based.

Luke,

Still picking, I see. Hey, I've got an idea....drop it!

Okay, all is forgiven!:D Not having to use FED rules makes me want to move to a state like Massachusetts.:cool:

Because it's not, and I was trying to avoid being too general, and giving you something to pick apart.

You did anyway.

Reference please, for "everywhere."

IOW, I agree with Steve -- drop it, please.

Now that's moderating.

Thank you!

Well, all I know is that everywhere is no where around here.

I don't know what your definition of everywhere is but it is used everywhere NFHS rules are used. 1-5-4 "While in a crouch position, any non-adult warming up a pitcher at any location shall wear a head protector, a mask with a throat protector and a protective cup (male only)."

LDUB,

That certainly is the FED rule.

What, exactly, do you do to enforce it?

My approach, when the PU, is to ask the coaches at the plate conference if all their players are propely and legally equipped and make sure I ge an affirmative response from each. Other than that, I don't give it a thought.

I do, however, plan to be a little more observant with respect to catchers' headgear next season. :o

JM

Nothing. I was just responding to Kevin Finnerty who thought it was not a NFHS rule.

He knows the rules. Probably knows them as well as anyone here, as a matter of fact.

Bob said "Drop it." Would you please now do so?

Again, reference, please.

Is that what I thought? I thought that I thought that there was a FED rule.

You're giving too much thought to other peoples' thoughts, and obviously too little to your own.

Virtually everyone, including me, knows it's a FED rule. Virtually everyone knows that not every association everywhere uses FED and not every association everywhere stresses enforcement of the rule.

Now you know it, also.

SDS said that the properly equipped statement meant that the catcher had to wear a cup. KF said that it includes anyone who warms up the pitcher, not just the catcher. But he said that is in effect in his association. If he thought it was in effect in all NFHS games then there would be no reason to say "in our association". No one says "in my association the on deck batter must wear a helmet" because it is a standard rule, not a local rule. Adding in my association in front of it makes it sound like a local rule (In my association the pitcher is ejected if he hits 2 batters in one inning.) If Kevin Finnerty wanted to say that his association stresses enforcement of the rule then he should have said that.

I'll bet you were the one who kept demanding an explanation even after the bell rang at the end of class.

No matter how you phrased your statement, some people would find something to pick at it about.

Like someone will tell me not to end the sentence with a preposition, but only someone extremely anal.:)

Reference, please.

IOW, please drop it, also.

That last comment was my I'm-dropping-it comment.

Bob Jenkins?
 

What happened to my post?

Rita

You'll note that this thread is 2 years old, and was only re-opened by a spammer.