Copied from the NFHS site:
2006 NFHS SOFTBALL RULES CHANGES

3-5-1 & New Penalty: The head coach is now required to attend the pregame conference and verify the team is legally and properly equipped. Penalty has been established for non-compliance. First offense results in a team warning, subsequent offense results in the offender and the head coach being restricted to the dugout/bench.

3-6-19 New: If a participant intentionally removes a boundary line, a strike or ball shall be called on the batter for an infraction by the offense or defense, respectively. A team warning shall also be issued to the head coach. Any subsequent infraction will result in the head coach being restricted to the dugout/bench for the remainder of the game.

7-2-1h New: A strike will be called on the batter when, in the umpire’s judgment, she prevents a pitched ball from entering the strike zone.

7-4-1k: The batter will be called out when the bat hits the ball a second time outside the batter’s box.

2006 MAJOR EDITORIAL CHANGES

1-3-6 New; 1-5-5: Language added to clarify that softballs and bats may not be altered from their originally manufactured legal state by using any treatment or device.

1-6-6: Reminder that beginning January 1, 2006 batting helmets shall have a NOCSAE-approved face mask/guard protector.

1-8-4 New: A new article was added to clarify that players may wear face/head protection in the field.

1-7-3 (F.P.): Any non-adult warming up a pitcher at any location within the confines of the field shall wear an approved catcher's helmet and mask combination a mask and throat protector.

2-10: Section was reorganized for clarity. Reference to the fielder holding the ball “long enough” for a catch was removed.

2-15-2; 4-1-2; 10-2-3: Articles relating to the pregame conference and the umpire’s duties during the pregame conference were reorganized to reduce redundancies.

3-5-4 Penalty: The penalty for a coach physically assisting a runner was changed to be consistent with other rules.

8-6-4; 8-8-17 New: Clarified that a base runner passing an obstructed runner is not out.

8-6-14: Clarified that a base runner is out whenever malicious contact occurs and that malicious contact always supersedes obstruction.

2006 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

1. Obstruction
2. Huddles
3. Uniforms
4. Bunts – Slap Hits

1st change - this is the "experimental" ruling that we used in Pa this past season. It seemed to work pretty well.

I am told that in Pennsylvania, we'll be using the ITB for 2006.

Good way to handle this. Instead of making it a game of "fool the ump" it becomes someone's responsibility.

I guess this is really about the batter's boxes. What boundary line would the defense be trying to erase?

By, for example, hitting the ball?? ;)

I wonder if ASA will also adopt these. The runner passing an obstructed runner was discussed here at some length a few weeks ago. The flagrant misconduct OUT has existed in ASA for 2-3 years as a case play only. It would be good to see it in the actual rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Steve M
7-2-1h New: A strike will be called on the batter when, in the umpire’s judgment, she prevents a pitched ball from entering the strike zone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By, for example, hitting the ball??

Tom,
I think this one covers the running slapper who is hit by the pitch before it gets to the plate.

Comments from meeting
 

7-2-1h will be new.
It reads:
A strike is charged to the batter when:
h. in the umpire's judgment, a pitched ball is prevented from entering the strike zone by any actions of the batter.

According to the comments which accompany this, the defense has been improperly penalized by the current (old) rule because the pitch does not have the opportunity to become a strike.

There were many other changes considered by the NFHS Committee which either died for lack of action or were voted down.

Some included getting rid of the DP/FLEX, creating a 10th player who plays defense only and can never play offense, allowing baserunners to use helmets without face masks, a definition for incidental contact (for those glorious occasions when you have neither obstruction nor interference), and many others.

It remains to be seen how Mary et al will word the "point of emphasis" on bunts and slap hits. I'd almost bet a dollar that it will end up being similar to the language in the NCAA manual. I am personally surprised that definitions similar to or same as those in NCAA manual were not adopted for slap hits and bunts. IMHO this would make things easier for many umpires.

Rumor is that we will be cracking down on the fashion craze of rolling the top of the shorts down amongst others on the uniform POE.

Didn't you see the ;)?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve M 3-5-1 & New Penalty: The head coach is now required to attend the pregame conference and verify the team is legally and properly equipped. Penalty has been established for non-compliance. First offense results in a team warning, subsequent offense results in the offender and the head coach being restricted to the dugout/bench.

Good way to handle this. Instead of making it a game of "fool the ump" it becomes someone's responsibility.



Yes, but will this be a carry over into the next game? You only have one pregame
conference, you warn him/her on Tuesday, then Thursday, different set of umpires are
at the game, coach "no shows" for conference, another warning? This needs to be
reviewed and changed somewhat.
JMHO

2006???

We haven't even begun 2005 in Georgia yet!

Nice that you other guy's get to work out the "bugs" before we start in the fall!

"Yes, but will this be a carry over into the next game? You only have one pregame conference, you warn him/her on Tuesday, then Thursday, different set of umpires are
at the game, coach "no shows" for conference, another warning? This needs to be reviewed and changed somewhat.
JMHO"

Glen,
We used this rule in Pennsylvania this past year. Believe me, the coaches understood, from the very beginning. Each game resets any/all "counts" of warnings & all that.

The head coach is required to attend. So, if the head coach "no shows", then he's not coaching in that game. And since he's not a coach for that game, he's not on the bench, either.

We had very few problems with this ruling this past year. And, the only time I had to restrict a coach was in a state final. As much as I disliked doing it then - and I've known that coach for a long time & watched him do some very good things for the game - it was done.

"I guess this is really about the batter's boxes. What boundary line would the defense be trying to erase?"


NFHS: "Players and coaches are intentionally removing the lines of the batter’s box to gain an advantage, primarily for their “slap hitters.” Removal of any boundary line makes enforcement of the rules much more difficult for the umpires. A strike will be called on the batter if a member of the offense intentionally removes the line, and a ball will be awarded to the batter if a member of the defense intentionally erases a line. A team warning will be issued, with the next offense resulting in the head coach being restricted to the dugout. Players are being coached to remove these lines; therefore, the most severe penalty is assessed to the head coach."

WMB

This is a new penalty for an illegally equipped player, not for non-attendance at the pre-game meeting. As mentioned before, we used this in PA this year, but we were even stricter. On the first offense (jewelrey, etc), the team was warned and the coach restricted to the dugout. For any subsequent offense, the head coach was ejected (and suspended for the next game). You'd be amazed at how quickly jewelry disappeared by the second week of the season.

However, on first reading, I also thought what you did. It needs to be phrased more clearly in the rulebook.

My Pet Peeve
 

Rant on:

I wish more states would adhere to the "coach ejection" rules. I realize in some cases
you might be depriving the players of adult supervision, however, in most cases the players
we are speaking of are young adults. Nearly all NFHS and other teams have an assistant coach.

Too many NFHS violations are to either restrict or warn. Too many NFHS vilations are geared
to the player, when in 9 of 10 situtations it is not the player at fault, but the coach.
Illegal re-entry. Most players don't just jump up and re-enter a game. Enter a game un-
reported. Who sent them into the game. In 99.9 percent of the time, it is the COACH.
Most association require that we penaltize the player. Lets penaltize the person re-
sponsibile, The Coach. I have always hated it when I had to restrict or eject a player
because of what his/her coach did.

Rant off:

I actually like the bench restriction idea. I'm not 100% sold on the NFHS implementation of it, but the idea of a "non-carry-forward" ejection is worthwhile in youth games.

By "non-carry-forward" I mean it avoids the multi-game or remainder-of-tournament penalties that many times go with an ejection.

I think this has a place in youth sports. JMO, of course.