The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   2017 NFHS Softball Rule Changes (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/101684-2017-nfhs-softball-rule-changes.html)

Stat-Man Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:33pm

2017 NFHS Softball Rule Changes
 
Posted on September 28th:

http://nfhs.org/sports-resource-cont...-changes-2017/

Dakota Sat Oct 01, 2016 07:59pm

Quote:

Rationale: Multi-color undergarments and sleeves are a distraction and create a possible safety concern.
Really? A possible safety concern? Really? :rolleyes:

Quote:

3-2-15 NEW: All equipment shall be inspected by the umpire, and is to be placed outside the dugout/bench prior to the start of the game.
Does this expand the list of what is to be inspected beyond batting helmets, the catcher's helmet, and bats? Or, did they mean to say:

3-2-15 NEW: All equipment that is to be inspected by the umpire is to be placed outside the dugout/bench prior to the start of the game.

With NFHS you can never be sure they write what they actually mean...

IRISHMAFIA Sat Oct 01, 2016 08:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 991330)
Really? A possible safety concern? Really? :rolleyes:

That's what happens when someone pays attention to a coach who comes up with a stupid justification for weak/poor play.

SWFLguy Sat Oct 15, 2016 05:02pm

Really? A possible safety concern? Really?

What I'm still wondering is why the masks worn by defensive players haven't come under the codification of NOCSAE or the Federation.

IRISHMAFIA Sun Oct 16, 2016 09:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWFLguy (Post 991868)
Really? A possible safety concern? Really?

What I'm still wondering is why the masks worn by defensive players haven't come under the codification of NOCSAE or the Federation.


I don't believe this would be done unless mandated by a sanctioning body. Mandating the wearing of a piece of equipment becomes a logistical nightmare that gets a lot of push back from the idiot parents.

Then there is the time and costs of such certification. Because of that, I don't believe any manufacturer would voluntarily pay to have their equipment tested to set the standards and possibly change their existing product to accommodate any required changes.

AtlUmpSteve Sun Oct 16, 2016 09:58am

And why would a sanctioning body mandate performance standards for an optional piece of equipment? If they MAKE you use it, there needs to be a performance standard to protect against liability issues; if YOU choose to use it (and it isn't illegal), why should there be a standard? Anything short of aluminum foil hanging off a bent coat hanger wrapped around the player's ears provides more protection than what is required (none).

Start down that road, and you will be needing performance standards for sweatbands, sliding shorts, socks ..........

CecilOne Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:05am

I often wish Mike and Steve were on the rules committees :rolleyes:

Andy Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 991887)
I often wish Mike and Steve were on the rules committees :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, it often seems that the various governing bodies don't really seek input from the umpires when considering rule changes and the cascading effects.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1