2011 NFHS Rule Changes and POE

[SRW]

Rule Changes

Points of Emphasis

[MD Longhorn]

Ugh - not liking 8-16-8. If you take out the word 'intentionally', then a runner 3 steps from 2nd who is retired via force, and subsequently hit by the throw that he couldn't avoid is now guilty of interference. Hoping there's some clarifications there.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Ugh - not liking 8-16-8. If you take out the word 'intentionally', then a runner 3 steps from 2nd who is retired via force, and subsequently hit by the throw that he couldn't avoid is now guilty of interference. Hoping there's some clarifications there.

Or the runner who has scored and is now directing her teammate running behind her as to slide or not at the plate. If the throw hits the scored runner, do we have interference? We better get some clarification on this....

[youngump]

So having a well groomed field is now a point of emphasis... does that mean anything at all to anyone?
________
Bubbler Pipe

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

So having a well groomed field is now a point of emphasis... does that mean anything at all to anyone?

Hopefully, it will mean something to the thousands of coaches and administrators that also get a softball rulebook, and are required to attend rules clinics in their areas.

We have to remember that NFHS administers to the member associations, that administer to their member schools. As umpires/officials, we are not the only intended recipients of their rulebooks (even if we are the only ones that actually read them).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Ugh - not liking 8-16-8. If you take out the word 'intentionally', then a runner 3 steps from 2nd who is retired via force, and subsequently hit by the throw that he couldn't avoid is now guilty of interference. Hoping there's some clarifications there.

Rubbish. Don't see this as any different than ASA's take on the rule

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Rubbish. Don't see this as any different than ASA's take on the rule

I agree that their INTENT is to be the same as ASA.

Problem is, when you change the wording and send this out to coaches, they see only the change (without having any background in ASA's discussions or interpretations of this very same rule). If they don't clarify this in either a POE or case or something, coaches (and many umpires who have no ASA training as well) will read this change to mean just what I said. And barring "official" clarification, they would be right in their assumption and argument that R1 did, in fact, interfere with that throw - and interference "no longer has to be intentional" to call her out.