wiping out b.box lines
 

i try to read alot and view this fourm frequently...nfhs rules, mhsaa web site, referee mag, and some where i have read that if a batter intentionally wipes out the batters box lines and after a warning she can be called out...looked through rules and case book cannot find anything...am i nuts? even did a search on this forum...thanks:confused:

keep looking... its in there. :D

NFHS:

Strike and warning when it happens
Strike, Restriction for both offender and coach after warning (That means double EJ here in FL!!)


NFHS 3-6-17

ART. 17 . . . Team personnel shall not intentionally remove any lines of the batter’s box or on the field of play.
PENALTY: (Art. 17) A strike shall be called on the batter if a member of the
offense intentionally removes the line and a ball awarded to the batter if a
member of the defense intentionally erases a line. A team warning shall be
issued, with the next offense resulting in a strike/ball, the offender and the
head coach being restricted to the dugout.

No out....the first offense is a strike on the batter and a warning. Next offense, strike on the batter and the player and coach are restricted to the bench.

Unless strike three, how can the player be restricted to the bench and continue to bat at the same time? :rolleyes:

Do I really need to answer this one, Mike? ;)

long bat?

My wife been telling stories about me again?

I would surmise you would call the strike, ask the coach which substitute s/he's putting in for the current batter, then inform the coach that both s/he and the offending batter are restricted to the dugout.

Without any official interpretation, that's how I would read it.

Uh substitution?

Or did this one go over my head?.....:confused:

One of the lamer rules in NFHS...

And if there is no sub available?

I've got an out. This is basically the same as an ejection, but NFHS likes to restrict to the dugout rather than remove them from the park.

Reminder: I do ASA, not NFHS.

This is not correct, exactly.

NFHS has a 3 tier sanction system for players/coaches/teams infractions.

1) Warning. a) This is given for the first offense of a minor or less serious infraction, such as carelessly throwing a bat, illegal equipment, intentionally removing the lines, etc. b) A warning can also be given for an unsporting act judged to be minor.

2) Restriction to the dugout/bench. This is given for the second offense of the minor or less serious infraction of the kind in 1) a).

3) Ejection. This is given without warning for a serious unsporting act, such as malicious contact and fighting. It will also be given after a warning for a minor unsporting act that is repeated or if an infraction that resulted in restriction to the bench is repeated.

NFHS does not require minor children who are ejected to be removed from the ball park, but it does require ejected coaches to leave the area.

Also, typically, ejection carries additional penalties imposed by the state association (e.g. multi-game suspensions and the like) whereas restriction typically does not.

I'm not seeing what you and I are saying as being mutually exclusive, nor was I implying that NFHS does not have ejections. I was saying that they prefer restrictions to the dugout rather than an ejection. My statement had more to do with how you handle "what comes next," which is roughly the same as if you had ejected the player.

But again, I reiterate that I'm ASA-only, so take my statements for what you will. This is just how it's been explained to me in the past by guys in our area who call HS softball.

Well, the umpire does not EVER have a choice between restriction or ejection. A restriction is not ever given when an ejection could be an option.

Depending on the infraction, it goes like this:

Infraction type 1: Warn, if repeated, restrict, if repeated again, eject
Infraction type 2: Warn, if repeated, eject
Infraction type 3: Eject immediately

I didn't say the umpire. I said NFHS. :)

FWIW....for HS ball in AZ, coaches can either be restricted to the dugout or ejected. If ejected, they are to leave the premises (sight and sound). We require our umpires to file an ejection report with the state office on an ejection of the coach and there will probably be additional sanctions.

HS players are not to be "ejected", they are to be restricted to the dugout. This is considered equivalent to an ejection for that player. We also ask the umpire to file an ejection report with the state office in this case. My understanding is that we cannot send a HS player out of sight and sound due to the liability issues.

You srue about this one. I thought it was second and all subsequent offenders restricted to the bench.
________
The Legend Condo

I've always wondered the ramifications if you cannot keep a player quite after being restricted to the bench.

Not the umpire's problem. That is an issue for the school employee whether a coach or administrator who, by law, is acting in loco parentis.

You think our belts can't do anything more than hold our pants up? :D

But seriously, at that point, tell the coach that if s/he can't shut up his/her player, the coach will need to find a babysitter.

I would disagree with the wording of that.
Player is ejected and kept in the dugout.
Never filled out a "restriction to dugout" form... not yet. :D

I don't do FED softball, but I do FED football and basketball in Nebraska, and one thing that's hammered into us as officials when ejecting a player is not to let them leave the confines of the field or gym without adult supervision. Someone challenged the state association, saying it's not our responsibility as officials to monitor this. The state association just said to make sure that some adult goes with them, and if we observe the lack thereof, to make a report to the state (or notation in the ejection report) and they would deal with the school for not having adult supervision. Some states do expect officials to observe this and report if necessary, so it could become the umpires' problem if "mandated" by state.

True for all subsequent offenders, but repeated misconduct by the same restricted offender results in an ejection.

At the rate we're going, I foresee this happening in the near future. Along with the "warm fuzzies" background checks, etc.

Who would be enforcing the rules on behalf of the state association who is using NFHS rules... :eek:

Right, but I'm saying that in this case, the umpire is not making the decision between restriction versus ejection. The umpire is simply handling the situation as prescribed by NFHS.

We don't make the rules. We just enforce them. :)

Speaking ONLY NFHS rule, not as modified or adjusted by various states, there is NEVER a choice given in ANY penalty for ANY infraction between restriction to the bench or ejection. If an ejectable offense is judged minor, the penalty is a warning, NOT a restriction to the bench.

If they keep repeating, then we have a(n) __________ ?

... forfeit due to lack of players? ;)

Yep, she started the story with: "I have a fairy tale for all to hear.:):D:D:)

D'oh!

Tom,

Yes that would work. when i wrote the fill in the blank, I did not remember what the thread was about but was thinking along the lines of if the team kept repeating that they might be entering making a travesty of the game. But with some teams if they got to 2 ejections they would be under 8 players.

We have the same rule in NC. Ejections are really confinement to the bench unless the player is accompanied by a coach. Under no circumstances is a player allowed to leave the field by herself after an ejection.

Funny thing is I see them coming and going all the time under normal circumstances. Trips to the bathroom, training room, equipment closet are all par for the course (unescorted of course).

And only the Good Lord knows what really is happening on those "trips" to whereever. :rolleyes: