2016 Fed changes

[RKBUmp]

I sent an email to their "contact us" department with a link to both websites asking which one is the actual ruling. Will have to see if they actually respond, big note at bottom of page saying all rules interpretations must go to state association. But, this really isn't a rule interpretation, it is conflicting statements on their own websites.

[Little Jimmy]

Any thoughts on the point of emphasis on pitching? The new rule book says in part the committee "encourages umpires to call the strike zone according to the rule". Meaning the full zone, armpit to top of knees?

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Any thoughts on the point of emphasis on pitching? The new rule book says in part the committee "encourages umpires to call the strike zone according to the rule". Meaning the full zone, armpit to top of knees?

I know that this is what our Instructional chair will teach but in So Cal the top teams will be pissed if we call that zone.

[RKBUmp]

Considering the rule is any part of the ball passing through the zone is a strike, and the armpit is the top of the strike zone that would make a ball up around the chin a strike. You call strikes up that high and more than a few coaches are going to be headed to the parking lot .

[Little Jimmy]

I don't have any problem using the full ball at or below armpit as a strike. I can quote the rule book to any coach and feel like I did the right thing. I'll take that over the "nothing over the belt" approach that some of the locals use.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Considering the rule is any part of the ball passing through the zone is a strike, and the armpit is the top of the strike zone that would make a ball up around the chin a strike. You call strikes up that high and more than a few coaches are going to be headed to the parking lot .

Isn't the general teaching the whole ball based on zone height (arm pit or knee), any part on zone width?
i.e., "tight on height, wide on side"

Also, when did coaches' temperament become part of the rules?

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Isn't the general teaching the whole ball based on zone height (arm pit or knee), any part on zone width?
i.e., "tight on height, wide on side"

Also, when did coaches' temperament become part of the rules?

This has nothing to do with general "teachings" of the strike zone. For that matter I have heard I dont know how many different versions of what strike zone should be called. It seems every instructor has their own version, shorten the top and extend the outside corner, call the river both sides, call the college strike zone, call the letters etc etc etc.

The point of emphasis put out by the NFHS says to call the strike zone by the book. The book says the zone is the the armpits to the knees and any part of the ball passing through this zone is a strike. So, take the armpit, measure up 3.8" and you have the top of the ball up near the chin. That is the "rule" strike zone.

And no, I generally dont care what coaches think. But, you start calling strikes up around the chin that have never historically been a strike and you are going to have coaches going to the parking lot.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

But, you start calling strikes up around the chin that have never historically been a strike and you are going to have coaches going to the parking lot.

Of course, many batters will swing at that pitch, because they see it best.

[BlueDevilRef]

Can you imagine how much more dominant pitchers could become if we rung up armpit high strikes? I know it is the rule and always has been BUT it's always been an unwritten that it is not called up there. Again, I don't care where your personal belief is regarding the top but I promise you, mine ain't a while ball at the armpit. Neither is any umps in college or for that matter, in the major leagues. I just can't imagine the NFHS will ever make this a big deal i.e. The four automatics in basketball etc. or at least I hope they don't. I just don't feel that would be a very fun transition, for anyone


I wish I had a cool signature

[DaveASA/FED]

I believe they have updated the conflicting information about projected subs.

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....20Rules(1).pdf

[RKBUmp]

They never responded to me directly but apparently they got my or someone else's email who may have contacted them. Would be interesting to hear the story behind their first release and then the major backtrack a month later.

But, now the problem is they issued that first release and if you Google nfhs projected substitution there are literally dozens of web pages of various high school associations and news articles that are still showing the first release. The first release they seemed to make a lot of effort to get it out and in the press and then never seemed to say a word about the second release.

[Umpire@1]

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....20Rules(1).pdf

Was told this was supposed to be the official statement from rules interpreter? Hope this helps

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....20Rules(1).pdf

Was told this was supposed to be the official statement from rules interpreter? Hope this helps

Up until yesterday that link still had the original press release they issued in June that said you could not accept offensive subs until they were actually coming up to bat.

[BretMan]

Today I received the 2016 NFHS Preseason Guide. It has interpretations that match up with the "revised" ruling.

In other words...the definition of a projected sub is now "officially" what most of the umpires here have said it always was!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

https://nfhs-softball.arbitersports....20Rules(1).pdf

Was told this was supposed to be the official statement from rules interpreter? Hope this helps

Still an absurdly written rule change. These people ain't too smart