NFHS SB Rules Survey

[Andy]

I received an email from the NFHS earlier this week asking me to participate in a softball rules survey. Eveidently, you can only participate if you are chosen.

At any rate, here are the questions and my answers (in bold). It was just a yes/no option on each question, I would have liked a comments area since some of the questions are more than just yes/no.

Just thought I would throw it out there for discussion.



2008 NFHS Softball Rules Questionnaire



PART I – ARE THESE CHANGES MADE LAST YEAR SATISFACTORY?


1. Permitting players to wear metal cleats and metal toe plates.

Yes
No





2. Restricting the head coach, in addition to the offender, to the dugout when a second unreported substitution occurs.

Yes
No





3. Requiring the batter to take her position in the batter’s box within 10 seconds after the ball is returned to the pitcher.

Yes No








©2008 National Federation of High Schools
Developed by the NFHS





2008 NFHS Softball Rules Questionnaire



PART II – OBSERVATIONS – ARE YOU SEEING IN YOUR AREA?


1. An increase in serious lacerations due to permitting players to wear metal cleats.

Yes
No





2. A decrease in serious knee injuries due to permitting players to wear metal cleats.

Yes
No





3. An increase in sliding injuries from the use of non break-away bases.

Yes
No

(No answer - I have never seen an injury that would have been prevented by a break-away base)



4. An increase in base coaches being struck by batted balls.

Yes
No




5. Teams making their equipment available in a timely fashion prior to the game for inspection by the umpires.

Yes
No





6. Defensive player equipment being discarded during live-ball action.

Yes
No





7. A decrease in the number of unreported substitutions.

Yes
No





8. A decrease in batter delays.

Yes
No





9. The DP/Flex rule generally understood by coaches.

Yes
No




10. The DP/Flex rule generally understood by umpires.

Yes
No





11. An increase in the number of teams using the DP/Flex option.

Yes
No





12. An increase in the pitching rules being properly enforced by umpires.

Yes
No







©2008 National Federation of High Schools
Developed by the NFHS





2008 NFHS Softball Rules Questionnaire



PART III – ABOUT RULES FOR 2009 – WOULD YOU FAVOR?


1. Moving the pitching distance to 43 feet (current distance is 40 feet).

Yes
No





2. Requiring a double first base for all interscholastic contests.

Yes
No





3. Requiring the use of break-away or releasable bases.

Yes
No





4. Reducing the COR (coefficient of restitution) of fast-pitch softballs (current max is .47).

Yes
No




5. Reducing the compression of fast-pitch softballs (current max is 375 pounds).

Yes
No





6. Requiring adult and non-adult base coaches to wear protective head gear (currently, only non-adults are required to wear protective head gear).

Yes
No





7. Prohibiting defensive player equipment (i.e., face/head protection) to be discarded and requiring it to be worn throughout the entire half-inning.

Yes
No




8. The umpire declaring a bunt attempt when a player holds the bat in the strike zone.

Yes
No





9. Requiring the pitcher to start with two feet on the pitcher’s plate (currently, only one is required).

Yes No








©2008 National Federation of High Schools
Developed by the NFHS

[IRISHMAFIA]

Interesting use of adjectives on some questions.

Did they know you are an umpire?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Interesting use of adjectives on some questions.

Did they know you are an umpire?

Mike,
They may have - I got one of those several years ago. They get sent to a small number of officials in each state yearly.

Andy - I agree with your answers, except that I would like to see the pitching rule changed to match ASA's.

[Dakota]

I was also sent the email. Below are my answers (in red where they differed from Andy's):

2008 NFHS Softball Rules Questionnaire

PART I – ARE THESE CHANGES MADE LAST YEAR SATISFACTORY?

1. Permitting players to wear metal cleats and metal toe plates.

Yes
No

2. Restricting the head coach, in addition to the offender, to the dugout when a second unreported substitution occurs.

Yes
No

3. Requiring the batter to take her position in the batter’s box within 10 seconds after the ball is returned to the pitcher.

Yes No
(Comment: I answered "yes" even though I opposed the rule change when it was made. The Q was whether it SATISFACTORY - since I basically ignored the rule unless there was a problem, it was SATISFACTORY! )

PART II – OBSERVATIONS – ARE YOU SEEING IN YOUR AREA?

1. An increase in serious lacerations due to permitting players to wear metal cleats.

Yes
No

2. A decrease in serious knee injuries due to permitting players to wear metal cleats.

Yes
No

3. An increase in sliding injuries from the use of non break-away bases.

Yes
No

(I have never seen an injury that would have been prevented by a break-away base, and I still haven't, hence, no increase!)

4. An increase in base coaches being struck by batted balls.

Yes
No

5. Teams making their equipment available in a timely fashion prior to the game for inspection by the umpires.

Yes
No

6. Defensive player equipment being discarded during live-ball action.

Yes
No

7. A decrease in the number of unreported substitutions.

Yes
No

8. A decrease in batter delays.

Yes
No

9. The DP/Flex rule generally understood by coaches.

Yes
No

10. The DP/Flex rule generally understood by umpires.

Yes
No

11. An increase in the number of teams using the DP/Flex option.

Yes
No

12. An increase in the pitching rules being properly enforced by umpires.

Yes
No


PART III – ABOUT RULES FOR 2009 – WOULD YOU FAVOR?

1. Moving the pitching distance to 43 feet (current distance is 40 feet).

Yes
No

(Comment: If they do this, I would like to see it as not just state optional, but class optional - i.e. allow states to do this for "large" schools but not for "small" schools, if they wish, or not do it at all.)

2. Requiring a double first base for all interscholastic contests.

Yes
No

3. Requiring the use of break-away or releasable bases.

Yes
No

4. Reducing the COR (coefficient of restitution) of fast-pitch softballs (current max is .47).

Yes
No

5. Reducing the compression of fast-pitch softballs (current max is 375 pounds).

Yes
No

6. Requiring adult and non-adult base coaches to wear protective head gear (currently, only non-adults are required to wear protective head gear).

Yes
No

7. Prohibiting defensive player equipment (i.e., face/head protection) to be discarded and requiring it to be worn throughout the entire half-inning.

Yes
No

8. The umpire declaring a bunt attempt when a player holds the bat in the strike zone.

Yes
No

9. Requiring the pitcher to start with two feet on the pitcher’s plate (currently, only one is required).

Yes
No

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Mike,
They may have - I got one of those several years ago. They get sent to a small number of officials in each state yearly.

Andy - I agree with your answers, except that I would like to see the pitching rule changed to match ASA's.

Steve - Me too. I thought that I marked that when I copied the survey, but I guess I didn't. I went back and edited my post.

I think that the fewer differences between ASA and NFHS is a good thing.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Mike,
They may have - I got one of those several years ago. They get sent to a small number of officials in each state yearly.

The reason I ask is that other than a coach, parent and player's doctor, who else would know if an injury was serious? For as much as anyone else would know, a slight turn at 2B could have been a grapefruit-sized knee or ankle the following day.

I am not questioning anyone's response, but it seems the wording could skew the validity of the information being sought. Of course, it could have very well been intended to do that.

Again, this is why I believed that NFHS should have treated the metal like other possible changes. They could have asked a few states to volunteer to allow spikes for the sole purpose of a more condensed and controlled environment which would hopefully produce a more specific view of any possible issues. JMO.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Again, this is why I believed that NFHS should have treated the metal like other possible changes. They could have asked a few states to volunteer to allow spikes for the sole purpose of a more condensed and controlled environment which would hopefully produce a more specific view of any possible issues. JMO.

The NFHS, being (IMO) philosophically (if not legally) a public school organization, is overly concerned with "gender" issues, IMO. The sole reason this change was put in was because the boys play with metal. There is no apparent thought given to it beyond that. No one even (apparently) considered the possibility that the girls rules may just be BETTER in this regard than the boys; they (apparently) only noted they were DIFFERENT from the boys. In this instance, I don't think it will be a big disaster, as I'm sure their scientific survey will confirm.

If you'll bear with me, an example here in MN of the utter foolishness of this kind of girls=boys thinking.

High School Boys Hockey is the MN equivalent of HS boys basketball in IN or HS football in TX. It is THE hard-to-get state tournament ticket. Shortly after the new Xcel Energy Center (the X) was built for the local NHL team, the HS boys state tournament was moved into the X. The X has a sold-out seating of 18,064 for NHL games. For the boys tournament (2 brackets over 4 days) this past year, total attendance was 129,721

4 games were officially sell outs of the X:
Sat. Evening (AA Third Place and Finals): 18,689
Thur. Evening (AA Quarterfinals): 18,428
Fri. Evening (AA Semifinals): 19,559
Thur. Afternoon (AA Quarterfinals): 19,247

Girls HS Hockey is a newer sport without nearly the same following. The University of MN has a purpose-built on-campus hockey arena for their women's hockey team, called Ridder Arena. This arena is specifically for the women's hockey program (the men play in the larger Marichui Arena nearby). The Ridder has a seating capacity of 3,400. The MSHSL placed the girls hockey state tournament in the Ridder (also 2 brackets over 4 days - same number of games as the boys.)

Some fool filed suit because the boys played in the "pro" arena and the girls had to play in the college arena. The MSHSL caved in and moved the tournament to the "X". Here are the 2008 Girls Hockey Tournament results (results harder to dig out of the MSHSL web site - I wonder why?):

Total tournament attendance was 20,003.

None of the games would have been official sell outs AT RIDDER, and were absolutely pathetic empty houses in the X:

Big school final:
Attendance:2307
Highest attendance: 2986

There were a few other games between the two above in attendance.

Now, you tell me: did this decision benefit the female athletes who play ice hockey?

Who cares! It is what the BOYS do!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The NFHS, being (IMO) philosophically (if not legally) a public school organization, is overly concerned with "gender" issues, IMO. The sole reason this change was put in was because the boys play with metal. There is no apparent thought given to it beyond that. No one even (apparently) considered the possibility that the girls rules may just be BETTER in this regard than the boys; they (apparently) only noted they were DIFFERENT from the boys. In this instance, I don't think it will be a big disaster, as I'm sure their scientific survey will confirm.

Sorry, don't buy that for a minute. It may be an excuse, but a poor one that was NEVER raised by MS at ASA's convention when asked.

Title IX would only addresses what is provided for the teams and players. Since the HS do not provide the boys with footwear, they need not provide the girls with footwear, OF ANY TYPE.

This is just more Chicken Little reasoning, but like the schools use to dump men's sports while citing Title IX. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with Title IX, but has a lot to do with the school showing its lack of student-athlete support. Title IX is intentionally misread by those looking for a way to expedite their agendas.

It is a sad statement of the manner in which we face life and problems.

[Dakota]

I didn't say it was due to a Title IX complaint; I said it was due to being overly concerned with gender issues. This is my opinion, and it is based on comments made early on by NFHS representatives (before everything coming out of the NFHS on this was word-smithed to death).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I didn't say it was due to a Title IX complaint;

I didn't say there was a complaint, either. But the argument was made quite similar to you opinion that the cause was to avoid a Title IX issue. Remember, you used the word "gender" and that always results in a Title IX citation when dealing with ANYTHING any more, not just public schools or institutions even though it does not always apply.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I didn't say it was due to a Title IX complaint; I said it was due to being overly concerned with gender issues. This is my opinion, and it is based on comments made early on by NFHS representatives (before everything coming out of the NFHS on this was word-smithed to death).

I was told in a face-to-face with one person that attended the rules meeting last June (without any word-smithing) that NFHS faced a threatened class action lawsuit if they did not "give the girls the same" as the boys.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I was told in a face-to-face with one person that attended the rules meeting last June (without any word-smithing) that NFHS faced a threatened class action lawsuit if they did not "give the girls the same" as the boys.

Yet, MS made no such comment. In an intelligent world, such a lawsuit would never be allowed in a courtroom. Unfortunately, we don't live in an intelligent world. However, this goes back to my comments about the misinterpretation of Title IX and others just buying into such claims without really understanding the law.