NFHS 2008 rule changes

[Dakota]

2008 rule changes:

3-2-11 will be changed to allow metal cleats.

1-5-4 will be changed to state that a bat must pass the ASA 2004 BPF, bear EITHER the 2000 or 2004 stamp and not be on the ASA banned list.

Rules will be changed, added, etc. to clarify ODB interference and the penalty.

This info is not officially from the NFHS, but from the NFCA.

[wadeintothem]

Thats terrible about the metal cleats..

I hate those things.. the destroyer of plate shoes.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

1-5-4 will be changed to state that a bat must pass the ASA 2004 BPF, bear EITHER the 2000 or 2004 stamp and not be on the ASA banned list.

According to that site, NOT CHANGED; clarified. NFHS NEVER intended the rule to be interpreted that the ASA 2000 certification was insufficient, as some states have directed. As discussed in other threads and forums, bats which have the ASA 2000 certification and are not listed on the banned bat list do meet the ASA 2004 requirements.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

According to that site, NOT CHANGED; clarified. NFHS NEVER intended the rule to be interpreted that the ASA 2000 certification was insufficient, as some states have directed. As discussed in other threads and forums, bats which have the ASA 2000 certification and are not listed on the banned bat list do meet the ASA 2004 requirements.

I'll bet you love telling your wife "I told you so"...

Notice, I didn't say the rule's intent will be changed, but it is a fact that the rule's words will be changed (at least according to NFCA). This is not an interpretation, but a change to the written rule. To clarify the intent, I'm sure. Good thing, too, given the variation from state to state in the instructions given to umpires and the somewhat meaningless "approved" list from ASA as it pertains to older bat models.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Remember, as Tom said, this is from NFCA. The lawyers will have a great time with the metal cleats. I'm surprised they are allowed in baseball.

BTW, I believe this change is a xxxx xxxxxx xxx thing and do not believe to be in the best interest of the players or their parent's insurance company. Many of these players do NOT know how to properly slide and a fair amount of coaches do not teach it.

[AtlUmpSteve]

This is all according to NFHS; it is on their website. NFCA simply picked up the press release.

2008 Major Editorial Changes

1-5-4
Clarifies that a legal bat must meet the 2004 ASA Bat Performance Standard, bear either the 2000 or 2004 certification mark and not be on the ASA non-approved list.

Tom, you are free to consider it an "I told you so"; but, I did. An editorial change that clarifies is not a rule that has changed; it is restated because it was being misapplied, and the rules committee wanted it applied correctly.

Regardless, this isn't the NFCA wishlist that they publish after their convention. It is the list of official changes for 2008.

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/08/softball.aspx

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

This is all according to NFHS; it is on their website. NFCA simply picked up the press release.

2008 Major Editorial Changes

1-5-4
Clarifies that a legal bat must meet the 2004 ASA Bat Performance Standard, bear either the 2000 or 2004 certification mark and not be on the ASA non-approved list.

Tom, you are free to consider it an "I told you so"; but, I did. An editorial change that clarifies is not a rule that has changed; it is restated because it was being misapplied, and the rules committee wanted it applied correctly.

Regardless, this isn't the NFCA wishlist that they publish after their convention. It is the list of official changes for 2008.

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/08/softball.aspx

I was just needling you and there you get all defensive!

Besides, the previous "clarification" from the NFHS was 2000 stamp didn't matter. If it did not have the 2004 stamp, it needed to be on the approved list. The controversy was whether there WERE any bats that had the 2000 stamp and were NOT on the approved list. Turns out there weren't - ASA's "approved list" is a glorified "grandfathered" list for all bats that were not specifically banned prior to 2004.

When I posted the NFCA link, I couldn't find the press release posted yet on the NFHS site. Doesn't mean it wasn't there... but that's why I linked to the NFCA. Since you had to point this out is more evidence of your "I told you so..." approach to life...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I was just needling you and there you get all defensive!

Besides, the previous "clarification" from the NFHS was 2000 stamp didn't matter. If it did not have the 2004 stamp, it needed to be on the approved list. The controversy was whether there WERE any bats that had the 2000 stamp and were NOT on the approved list. Turns out there weren't - ASA's "approved list" is a glorified "grandfathered" list for all bats that were not specifically banned prior to 2004.

When I posted the NFCA link, I couldn't find the press release posted yet on the NFHS site. Doesn't mean it wasn't there... but that's why I linked to the NFCA. Since you had to point this out is more evidence of your "I told you so..." approach to life...

Easy there, big boy. If you consider it an "I told you so" point, that would be fine by me. Steve and I tried to explain this issue as it pertained to the ASA standard and the NFHS rule. We ran into some folks that seemed to have no interest in the correct application, but were more in debunking how to apply the ASA standard to the rule book.

Well, . So there!