Removing Boundary Lines

[rj]

I have read 2007 NFHS Rule 3-6-17 "Removing Boundary Lines" and thought I understood it until I attended a clinic this past weekend. The clinician said that the first offense by a player from either team results in a ball or strike (depending on the team that commits the foul) and a team warning is givin to both teams. The second offense by either team results in that offender and coach being restricted to the bench.

Is that the way you guys interpret the rule as well?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rj

I have read 2007 NFHS Rule 3-6-17 "Removing Boundary Lines" and thought I understood it until I attended a clinic this past weekend. The clinician said that the first offense by a player from either team results in a ball or strike (depending on the team that commits the foul) and a team warning is givin to both teams. The second offense by either team results in that offender and coach being restricted to the bench.

Is that the way you guys interpret the rule as well?

Pretty much what I heard at the state Fed clinic last night.

[CLBuffalo]

Same here. Both of our state associations stressed that it was to be enforced by all umpires.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Pretty much what I heard at the state Fed clinic last night.

Mike, are you going to be calling Fed games?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Mike, are you going to be calling Fed games?

No. I always attend the NFHS "clinic" for several reasons. First, so I can converse intelligently here, understand what an umpire may be thinking when confused between the rules set and, finally, so I can possibly provide an answer to an umpire's question instead of just telling him I'm not involved with HS ball.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by rj

I have read 2007 NFHS Rule 3-6-17 "Removing Boundary Lines" and thought I understood it until I attended a clinic this past weekend. The clinician said that the first offense by a player from either team results in a ball or strike (depending on the team that commits the foul) and a team warning is givin to both teams. The second offense by either team results in that offender and coach being restricted to the bench.

Is that the way you guys interpret the rule as well?

Not new, this is a 2006 rule. The penalty for a second offense is a strike (or ball) called and the coach restricted. The 2007 change also restricts the offending player.

The rules states that after the first offense a team warning is given. It is not plural! It should be the same as the penalties for the first ten violations - team warning to the offending team.

Remember that the first violation is a strike (or ball) called against the offending team. The second violation sets two people on the bench. You cannot moved the non-offending team to the second level without cause. They have to violate the rule before they get moved to the second level.

WMB

[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)

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No. I always attend the NFHS "clinic" for several reasons. First, so I can converse intelligently here, understand what an umpire may be thinking when confused between the rules set and, finally, so I can possibly provide an answer to an umpire's question instead of just telling him I'm not involved with HS ball.

Too modest, Mike, you conversing intelligently about SB rules would not require any extra clinics; although your attendance is always appreciated.
For those who don't know, besides being ASA UIC for the State, Mike also belongs to a multi-sanction association where he is expected to know everything; even without umpiring them.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

...where he is expected to know everything...

Kinda like here, too!

[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.

[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. )