NF 2012 Rules Changes

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We are to review the equipment before the game and ask the coach the same things (in all NF sports BTW). So no it is not a complete unequal thing when the NF tends to review rules changes with other committees.

Yes, Jeff, it is. They are unequal - 'complete' was not a word I used.

You are not required to check EVERY football helmet on every player, are you? In baseball, EVERY helmet must be checked by the umpire pre-game. Every bat was to be checked as well.

For example the concussion language is the same language used in other sports. The old baseball rule was just silly to have when in other sports where the equipment is much more dangerous to the players we only ask the coach "Are your players properly and legally equip?"

Concussions? Huh? I don't mention them at my plate conferences. If you do, it is unnecessary. It is not relevant to our discussion though.

As for the "Are your players properly and legally equipped?", we were REQUIRED to ask that for many years and still are.

And if we discovered an illegal item we removed it in accordance to those specific sport's rules. A helmet in baseball rarely comes into play in a baseball game compared to football where every play might have some head contact.

Sigh. It is pointless to argue with you. There is a reason why helmets are employed in baseball. Clearly you believe otherwise.

I disagree when you said it was really on us. All we did was check before the game. During the game coaches had more knowledge what their players used or did not use more than us.

No, Jeff, you are wrong.

We were REQUIRED to see that players were compliant with safety standards. The rule book mandated it and our interpretation meetings stressed the need to do this check. The responsibility was entirely ours.

Once a game starts, most coaches are not aware of what players use for equipment. I see every batter when he steps into the box. I can see his helmet, bat and if he is wearing anything illegal. Can't you?

And considering I have never had a single opposing coach ask to check the legality of the bat or helmet, this was a silly practices. We would just check before the game and unless something changed we would not know necessarily that they were using illegal equipment like a cracked helmet unless we spot checked it and saw the crack ourselves.

I suggest you read up on why we checked bats. Coaches didn't know, care or bother. There are numerous articles online about illegal bats being used this year and what happened.

I have had a couple coaches ask me to check bats that were involved in games. One was the -10 I mentioned in an earlier post. Maybe you have heard of Phil Garner, Chris Sabo, Albert Belle, Wilton Guerrero, George Brett, Sammy Sosa or Robin Ventura using illegal bats. I know I have.

And the reason I mentioned football is the fact that is the same exact procedure that is used in that sport in the pre-game meeting that is also required with the coaches before the game. The difference is that we do not bring the coaches together to ask in the same meeting, but we still ask.

No. You simply showed why the new rule will be useless. In football, all you do is ask for a coach to confirm that his players are compliant. You did not physically inspect their equipment, as we were required to do by the rules in baseball. Jeff, you are comparing unequal things.

This new baseball rule is more in line with other sports as if you work other sports you will realize they like to use something in one sport that works and require it in other sports.

edited for brevity

I could care less about basketball, name dropping or the other non-sequitors you employ. The fact remains that the new rule is useless in its present form. Why ask a coach to confirm player equipment if there is no penalty involved for him/her? Why not simply call the game without the inquiry since they won't have consequences? That is the way we officiate in collegiate and OBR ruled ball. Asking a question of a coach that is unnecessary is pointless.

[zm1283]

Isn't there an Illinois forum you two can go to since you derail every thread on this board with this nonsense?

[MrUmpire]

Thank God for the ignore feature. You can still see the poster's name, but are spared their posts.

Some, however, don't take to being ignored too well. The last poster I added to ignore then proceeded to PM me. I asked him to stop. He PM'd me again. I asked again that he stop. He PM'd me a third time. Finally I had to disable the PM feature to get rid of him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Isn't there an Illinois forum you two can go to since you derail every thread on this board with this nonsense?

Dude, I started the damn thread. If you do not like the conversation, then go somewhere else. No one is asking you to care what is said. I do not read all the crap here I do not like and I certainly do not complain about it. Don't read and you will be happier. I do not read most of the crap here and I do not need a little button to tell me what to ignore.

Peace

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Dude, I started the damn thread. If you do not like the conversation, then go somewhere else. No one is asking you to care what is said. I do not read all the crap here I do not like and I certainly do not complain about it. Don't read and you will be happier. I do not read most of the crap here and I do not need a little button to tell me what to ignore.

Peace

Dude, the point is that the conversation was about the FED rule changes for 2012, which is fine. You two had to get into your petty, nonsensical argument and derail the thread off topic like the both of you have done in the past in other threads. PM each other if you want to. You two have an uncanny ability to talk in circles trying to prove to everyone that you're right, when in reality you just turn threads into piles of crap.

The ignore button doesn't tell you what to ignore, it simply lets you ignore other forum members.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Dude, the point is that the conversation was about the FED rule changes for 2012, which is fine. You two had to get into your petty, nonsensical argument and derail the thread off topic like the both of you have done in the past in other threads. PM each other if you want to. You two have an uncanny ability to talk in circles trying to prove to everyone that you're right, when in reality you just turn threads into piles of crap.

The ignore button doesn't tell you what to ignore, it simply lets you ignore other forum members.

Grow up. You just displayed arrogance while condemning it.

I feel no need to shy from those who misstate the facts or cloud them. If you find it petty and nonsensical to state what the rule book mandates then you should hang up the gear. Finally, this is not an Illinois issue. While we may reside in this state, the rule being discussed is a national standard.

[MikeStrybel]

I find it hard to believe that officials cannot deal with those who challenge their opinions publicly. It must be tough for them on the field without an ignore feature for 'protection'.

A quick check of other forums shows that the guy who whined about being PMd is considered a troublemaker almost everywhere he shows up. That tells the tale.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Grow up. You just displayed arrogance while condemning it.

I feel no need to shy from those who misstate the facts or cloud them. If you find it petty and nonsensical to state what the rule book mandates then you should hang up the gear. Finally, this is not an Illinois issue. While we may reside in this state, the rule being discussed is a national standard.

Where did I say the rule book was petty and nonsensical? Quit making things up. I said you two derailing threads is petty and nonsensical. Which rule? The football rules you two are blabbering about?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I find it hard to believe that officials cannot deal with those who challenge their opinions publicly. It must be tough for them on the field without an ignore feature for 'protection'.

Nice red herring. While I don't need the ignore feature on the field, it is nice to have it on here for people like you who love to hear themselves talk. (Or see themselves post)

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, I started this topic and if you do not like it do not read the forum. This is not about who is right (and the problem with many here IMO), it is about opinion. I have a right to state why a rule was changed and what our role is in that. If you do not agree, you have a right to state your opinion. Remember this bothers you, I just ignore other conversations when I choose not to participate in those conversations I find silly or trivial. I do it all the time without any internet help. Usually the topic or who is saying something usually has me not read it. You know kind of like you do in real life at a public event. You see someone you do not choose to talk to or someone calls you on the phone and you do not feel like talking, you look and go the other way. See how easy that was?

Peace

I will say it again since you have a problem with comprehension: The thread started with a discussion about 2012 baseball rule changes and you two turned it into a cesspool like you've done in the past.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Where did I say the rule book was petty and nonsensical? Quit making things up. I said you two derailing threads is petty and nonsensical. Which rule? The football rules you two are blabbering about?

Maybe you missed the rule quote in my first couple posts here. Maybe you missed the part where I told Jeff to not compare baseball and football. Maybe you missed the part where I told Jeff that checking all helmets in baseball has been mandatory for years. Maybe you missed the part where I told Jeff that he was comparing unequal things. If so, then I can see why you believe what I wrote is nonsensical and petty.

[Nice red herring. While I don't need the ignore feature on the field, it is nice to have it on here for people like you who love to hear themselves talk. (Or see themselves post)

I suggest you purchase Linda McMeniman's "From Inquiry to Argument". It will explain what a red herring is (you erred) and improve your debating abilities.

It is hardly improper to state that some officials cannot deal with others criticizing their calls, in a forum dedicated to the profession. I further stated that the person who mentioned its use is not highly regarded here or on other umpire forums. A Google search shows that.

I remind you that this new rule regarding equipment checking is flawed. It has not penalty, other than what exists already. If the NFHS wants to make coaches more responsible they need to include appropriate penalty for not ensuring compliance. Otherwise, get rid of the rule and just play ball - like OBR and NCAA ruled games do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Dude, the point is that the conversation was about the FED rule changes for 2012, which is fine. You two had to get into your petty, nonsensical argument and derail the thread off topic like the both of you have done in the past in other threads. PM each other if you want to. You two have an uncanny ability to talk in circles trying to prove to everyone that you're right, when in reality you just turn threads into piles of crap.

The ignore button doesn't tell you what to ignore, it simply lets you ignore other forum members.

Again, I started this topic and if you do not like it do not read the forum. This is not about who is right (and the problem with many here IMO), it is about opinion. I have a right to state why a rule was changed and what our role is in that. If you do not agree, you have a right to state your opinion. Remember this bothers you, I just ignore other conversations when I choose not to participate in those conversations I find silly or trivial. I do it all the time without any internet help. Usually the topic or who is saying something usually has me not read it. You know kind of like you do in real life at a public event. You see someone you do not choose to talk to or someone calls you on the phone and you do not feel like talking, you look and go the other way. See how easy that was?

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Yes, Jeff, it is. They are unequal - 'complete' was not a word I used.

You are not required to check EVERY football helmet on every player, are you? In baseball, EVERY helmet must be checked by the umpire pre-game. Every bat was to be checked as well.

Every baseball helmet used to have to be checked.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Concussions? Huh? I don't mention them at my plate conferences. If you do, it is unnecessary. It is not relevant to our discussion though.

I did not say anything about mentioning concussions. I said that the rules on what we ask the coaches are the same and that the concussion rules are the same amongst many NF sports.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

As for the "Are your players properly and legally equipped?", we were REQUIRED to ask that for many years and still are.

So has every other sport.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Sigh. It is pointless to argue with you. There is a reason why helmets are employed in baseball. Clearly you believe otherwise.

This was my post that I started. No one is arguing with you at all, at least I am not. Just pointing out some facts.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

No, Jeff, you are wrong.

We were REQUIRED to see that players were compliant with safety standards. The rule book mandated it and our interpretation meetings stressed the need to do this check. The responsibility was entirely ours.

I am not wrong about anything, you just disagree which is fine with me. And I thought you did not do HS baseball anymore, but somehow you know the role of a HS official and you only do one sport to my knowledge. I find that kind of interesting.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Once a game starts, most coaches are not aware of what players use for equipment. I see every batter when he steps into the box. I can see his helmet, bat and if he is wearing anything illegal. Can't you?

If they are unaware then they are the dumbest coaches I have ever been around if other sports who do not have some of the dealings with their players as other sports and they have no idea what one player uses at one time. At least in baseball there can only be one bat used at a time and you are telling me a coach is clueless to what they use? Really?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I suggest you read up on why we checked bats. Coaches didn't know, care or bother. There are numerous articles online about illegal bats being used this year and what happened.

Again, if they did not know, then coaches in baseball are the dumbest coaches around. Because when in a football game the coaches are asking off the bat if an eye shield can be used and the football team in many cases triples or quadruples the number of kids that play baseball, those are the weakest excuses I have ever heard for passing the buck. We cannot have a coach in football that does not know about the cleats they are using and a baseball coach cannot figure out what bat his player uses on any given time. And he has to worry about one person at a time?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I have had a couple coaches ask me to check bats that were involved in games. One was the -10 I mentioned in an earlier post. Maybe you have heard of Phil Garner, Chris Sabo, Albert Belle, Wilton Guerrero, George Brett, Sammy Sosa or Robin Ventura using illegal bats. I know I have.

You are really comparing the pros to HS programs? Great comparison. Maybe at the pro level they also require the umpires to x-ray every bat too.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

No. You simply showed why the new rule will be useless. In football, all you do is ask for a coach to confirm that his players are compliant. You did not physically inspect their equipment, as we were required to do by the rules in baseball. Jeff, you are comparing unequal things.

I never said that we do not check, I said we do not sit around and go look to make sure every helmet has a sticker. And not the baseball rule is in line with other sports that also do not check any equipment. So what is your point? Now what they do in any other sport, baseball has to do.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I could care less about basketball, name dropping or the other non-sequitors you employ. The fact remains that the new rule is useless in its present form. Why ask a coach to confirm player equipment if there is no penalty involved for him/her? Why not simply call the game without the inquiry since they won't have consequences? That is the way we officiate in collegiate and OBR ruled ball. Asking a question of a coach that is unnecessary is pointless.

Well here is the thing. I really do not give a crap what you care about or who I referenced. I referenced the people that create the rules and referenced the philosophy that they employ. And I have been here a lot longer than you and people for years talk about other sports and will continue to do so in these conversations. And they will really do it when rules changes come up because they often reflect other sports (like the concussion rule last year that was changed). And if you think that this rule did not come with others saying "Why does baseball do something that other sports do not have to do?" Then you are not using much common sense. Also college got rid of this rule for the very same reason. It was silly to make umpires check something that the coaches should know more about. Now you can disagree, but the rule was changed for some reason. And if they felt that the umpires were that to be held ultimately responsible then they would keep up this practice. Again, baseball is one of the safer sports as it relates to what bats can or cannot do. The main player that is in any real danger from a bat is the pitcher (which is why all these bat changes were ultimately made to protect). If they really wanted to worry about safety of all the player they could change the ball to the safer kind.

Peace