Removing Boundary Lines

[BretMan]

I would interpret the "team warning" exactly the same as it is interpreted in articles 1 through 10 under that same section. The team gets warned and the next offender on that same team triggers the restrictions.

But then again, I'm not a certified NFHS softball umpire and have neither read nor been offered any interpretation that says otherwise.

By the way, while the rule is not new- it was enacted last year, as WMB notes- the penalty is slightly different for 2007. Last year only the head coach was restricted to the bench on the second offense. Also benching the offending player is new for this year and is the reason that 3-6-17 is listed under the 2007 "rule changes".

[rj]

So now I'm confused; we have a difference of opinion. The clinic I attended said both teams get the warning as of the first offense by either team so both teams have been moved to what you refer to as "second-level".
I think I'm reading IRISHMAFIA's & CLBUFFALO's response in agreement with that but WESTMICHBLUE & BRETMAN disagree. They think each team gets to violate the rule before they get a warning.
So now what?

[BretMan]

Now, we wait until someone comes along and breaks the tie!

As I said, my interpretation is just that- mine. I am reading the 2006 rule from my rule book and the 2007 rule from the on-line book posted on the NFHS website.

That section of rule 3 has about ten other examples of infractions where a team warning is issued, and then clearly states that a member of the same team must repeat the infraction before the penalty kicks in.

Reading rule 3-6-17 doesn't give me anything to make an assumption that it would be enforced any differently.

Having been a FED certified baseball umpire for several years, I do know that sometimes they will issue an interpretation that varies from what you might see in the book, or clarifies some point that wasn't made clear with a new rule. It does happen...

If that is the case here, I am not aware of it.

[Skahtboi]

My understanding from reading the rule books and attending the TASO state meeting was that the team warning refers to the offending team. Not to both teams.

[CecilOne]

In the 2006 book, 2006 interps and 2007 changes, the word team is singular, offending team only.

2006 Interp.:

SITUATION 10: In the top of the first inning, the lead-off batter for the visiting team starts kicking out the front line of the batter's box as she enters the box. The umpire calls "time" and issues a strike on the batter. The umpire also issues a team warning to the offending head coach. Four innings later, the base umpire notices the first base coach on the visiting team removing the lines of the coach's box.
RULING: The base umpire shall call "time" and restrict the head coach to the dugout for the remainder of the game. Also, the plate umpire shall issue a "strike" on the batter. (3-6-17)

[argodad]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

My understanding from reading the rule books and attending the TASO state meeting was that the team warning refers to the offending team. Not to both teams.

Same in Florida. Warning goes to the offending team. ( So I envision this scenario -- the visitors' lead off erases the front of the left hand box and gets a strike. The catcher erases the front of the right hand box, and gets a ball. Both teams get a warning, we have a 1-1 count, and I don't have to worry about the front of the batter's box. )

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rj

So now I'm confused; we have a difference of opinion. The clinic I attended said both teams get the warning as of the first offense by either team so both teams have been moved to what you refer to as "second-level".
I think I'm reading IRISHMAFIA's & CLBUFFALO's response in agreement with that but WESTMICHBLUE & BRETMAN disagree. They think each team gets to violate the rule before they get a warning.
So now what?

Please note: I agree with WMB & Bretman. I just related what was stated, or mistated as some believe, at the clinic.

There isn't much detail at the HS clinics in this area, so most questions go back to the local associations.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by rj

So now I'm confused; we have a difference of opinion. The clinic I attended said both teams get the warning as of the first offense by either team so both teams have been moved to what you refer to as "second-level".
I think I'm reading IRISHMAFIA's & CLBUFFALO's response in agreement with that but WESTMICHBLUE & BRETMAN disagree. They think each team gets to violate the rule before they get a warning.
So now what?

RJ,
I think that either you misunderstood OR that the presenter(s) misunderstood. Team B does not get a warning for Team A's violation - Team A gets the warning for their member's violation and then faces the prescribed penalty for future violations.
Did you get a rule citing that both teams get warned for one's violation?

I am looking at the Fed presentation right now - I have Fed's powerpoint with Pennsylvania's administrative additions & comments. No where do I see anything about warning both teams for one team's violation.

[rj]

Okay, thanks for the responses. I'm going to go back to the clinician who gave the clinic and relate the input I've received.