The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
The game penalty for many minor offenses (3.6 -1 thru 12) is a team warning; subsequent violators will be restricted to the bench. Some of these 12 issues are typically discussed in the pre-game conference.

In the pre-game we could discuss appearance and ask the coach if all her players are legally equipped. We ask that they inform the PU of all substitutions. We may remind them to tell their players to keep the helmets on during live ball, or not to be carelessly throwing bats.

Now – during the game we have a violation. The batter has earrings; or a sub show up un-announced; or a helmet comes off or a bat rattles off our shin guards. The question is: “Will you follow the rule procedure (warning first, penalize next violator); or will your go directly to the Restriction phase?” (Claiming that the “warning” was already given during the pre-game conference.)

Side A: Warnings should not be part of the pre-game; they should be issued at time of the first violation.

Side B: That makes it too weak; we discussed it pre-game, and then still have to go through a warning phase before action can be taken.

Side C: Then why bother discussing this during the pre-game.

What side are you on?

WMB


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 01:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 517
Ill take option "C"
Way waste time at pregame.

Option B is not authorized by the rules.

Roger Greene
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 01:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
I'm more on the side of C as well, although I might mention a certain problem if it's habitual as a reminder in pregame (for example, a team that's accidentally thrown bats in the past - a mention in the pregame and a request that they remind their players about it before we start might prevent an injury), but even in those cases, the pregame is NOT an official warning (the rules tell us to give the team warning AFTER an offense occurs - and doesn't give us the latitude to issue blanket warnings before offenses occur).
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
How can you warn someone of a violation that has not yet occurred?

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 02:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Back in TX, formerly Seattle area
Posts: 1,279
Pre-game warnings

Mike (as usual) is right about this. You can't issue a "warning" for an action that has not occured. I always ask (NFHS, ASA, NCAA) if teams are legally and properly equipped AND if bats, helmets and other equipment is legal...even though I have checked bats and helmets...because I want to put the onus on the coach in case we have a problem of some sort later on.

But to consider what was done in the pregame as a "warning" is, IMHO, improper. And, personally, I feel that going in with preconceived notions about what a team might do/has done in the past is not a good idea. We usually have enough problems to handle without worrying is #3 is gonna chunk her bat or #6 flings her helmet or whatever. If ya go into it looking for trouble, chances are you will find it - and more.
__________________
John
An ucking fidiot
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 02:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
OK, lets narrow down the issue.

Rule 3-5-1 requires an adult coach to "verify to the plate umpire that all their players are equipped and in compliance with all NFHS rules." 10-3-a requires that you ask the coaches that question.

In the first inning you discover a player wearing jewelry. What is your response?

Have the jewelry removed and issue team warning? Or have the player removed?

WMB
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 03:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 517
Exactly what the rule requires.

Have the jewelry removed and issue team warning.

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 03:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Have the jewelry removed and issue team warning
As Roger said, there is no provision in the rules for a general-purpose all-seeing all-covering team warning.

The plate meeting is for going over the ground rules and other such duties as may be required or customary.

I will remind coaches of things that many teams / coaches seem to "forget" - but that is preventative, not a warning.

At the first violation, I will remind the coach we discussed this in the pregame and deliver the official warning.

Trying to use the plate meeting as a "team warning" is lazy umpiring, IMO.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 03:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
I thought our first responses were pretty clear. But if you want a specific, I would do what I'm required to do - tell her to take off the jewelry, issue the team warning, and eject the next person on that team wearing jewelry.

Admitting that I might be reading your intent incorrectly, the tone of the initial and this last post is that you seem to want us to back you up in your desire to eject the first offender. The rules seem exceedingly clear that this is not appropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 03:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Admitting that I might be reading your intent incorrectly, the tone of the initial and this last post is that you seem to want us to back you up in your desire to eject the first offender. The rules seem exceedingly clear that this is not appropriate.
My reading of WMB's intent is nearly the opposite. I doubt he does this, but he is a local NFHS instructor. Maybe he's looking for overhead material?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 04:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Fair enough, and probably a better assumption.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 04:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 964
Thanks Tom, you read me correctly. I won't use the pre-game for warnings, but I have umpires that are challenging me on this position. So, in a way, I am playing devils advocate here to get supporting (or conflicting) opinions.

The difficult part that most of you are missing is that the coach certifies that his/her team is compliant. Then you discover that they are not. WHY ask the coach to verify their team is legally equipped - IF it means nothing?

WMB
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 04:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
Interesting twist for Pennsylvania this year. The head coach has good reason to make sure the team is properly equipped & de-jewelled & all that. At the pre-game, coaches will agree that players are legally & properly equipped...

Sometime during the game, we have a jewelry violation - in addition to the Fed ruling - now the coach is restricted to the bench.

Later during the game, this same team has an illegal bat. In addition to the Fed penalty, this coach is now ejected.
__________________
Steve M
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 04:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
My apologies, then, WMB. You can tell your board that even though you slanted the question to illicite the response THEY are wanting, the responses all came back against them.

To me - the two issues are distinct and separate.

The rules tell me I MUST warn an offender and issue a team warning before any ejections. And the rules specifically do NOT tell the umpire to issue a preemptive warning.

The 2nd issue is - why do we have the coaches certify that everything on their side is kosher. Liability, folks. If we have them certify that nothing is amiss, then if something IS amiss, and we miss it (LF and CF collide, hooking an unseen earring, tearing off a girl's earlobe, etc), we have covered (or at least put forth our best efforts to cover) our legal liability in this litigious society by having the coaches tell us they had checked for jewelry.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 07, 2005, 04:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: north central Pa
Posts: 2,360
MCrowder,
Your second issue is exactly why the PIAA (Pa's governing body) made the change I listed. From what I hear, the Fed rules committee likes it too and will probably pass it as a rule for 2006. Give/make the coach & schools more responsible for this.
__________________
Steve M
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1