NFHS Rules Changes
 

“Hit By Pitch” Procedure Revised in High School Softball

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Theresia Wynns

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (July 24, 2012) — Batters in high school softball no longer will have to make an attempt to avoid being hit by a pitch in order to be awarded first base.

This revision to Rule 8-1-2 was one of four rules changes approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Softball Rules Committee at its June 11-13 meeting in Indianapolis. All rules changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

A batter will be awarded first base if “a pitched ball is entirely within the batter’s box and it strikes the batter or her clothing. No attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch is required; however, the batter may not obviously try to get hit by the pitch.”

Theresia Wynns, NFHS director of sports and officials education and staff liaison for softball, said this rules change clears up the gray area of whether the batter made an attempt to get out of the way of the pitch.

“Since a batter is penalized for prohibiting a pitch from entering the strike zone, the committee thought there should be a penalty when the pitcher hits a batter when the pitch is completely inside the batter’s box,” Wynns said.

In Rule 6-1, the committee approved the following exceptions to the penalty for an illegal pitch:

1) If the batter reaches first base safely and each other runner advances at least one base, the illegal pitch is nullified. All action stands and the illegal pitch is canceled.

2) If the batter does not reach first base safely or if any base runner fails to advance at least one base, the coach of the team at bat shall have the option of the result of the play or the penalty of the illegal pitch.

3) If the batter is hit by an illegal pitch out of the strike zone, the batter is awarded first base and each base runner is awarded one base.

4) If ball four is an illegal pitch, the batter is awarded first base and each base runner is awarded one base.

A change was approved by the Softball Rules Committee regarding the color of gloves/mitts. As a follow-up to the change last year that required the color of all softballs to be optic yellow, the committee revised language in Rule 1-4-1 to state that gloves/mitts must not be entirely optic yellow or have that color of marking on the inside or outside of gloves/mitts that would give the appearance of the ball.

The final rules change was Rule 3-6-10, which will allow stopwatches to be used in the coach’s box.

A complete listing of all rules changes approved by the committee is available on the NFHS Web site at NFHS | National Federation of State High School Associations. Click on “Athletics & Fine Arts Activities” on the home page, and select “Softball.”
Fast-pitch softball is the fourth-most popular sport for girls at the high school level, according to the 2011-12 NFHS Athletics Participation Survey, with 373,535 participants nationwide. The sport ranks fourth in school sponsorship with 15,338 schools sponsoring the sport.

Where did you get this?
 

I don't see it posted on the web site. We have already had our rules clinic and this was not mentioned.

Never Mind
 

I found it

But aren't these changes for the 2013 book?

And which set of Rules (2012 or 2013) do states that play their high school softball in the fall use?

No problem with the change, just think the reasoning is off.

Wouldn't 4 be covered by 2? Or should I say, logically covered by 2? :D

I have always thought this rule ridiculous for any org., but wonder if the interpretation will be a tight as ASA's

Good, they can time the one minute between innings and now understand why their pitcher who insists on being the last out of the dugout doesn't get all five pitches ;)

Well, since the NFHS has no authority whatsoever, I would assume that would be up to the local HS athletic organization.

Here in Nebraska, which plays SB in the fall, we are using 2012 rules.
Dave

GA getting ready for HS and will play 2012 rules.

The rules that match the current calendar year.

Not necessarily. There may be some convoluted reason why the coach would want to take the option of the play on Ball Four.

Let's say R1 on third represents the game-winning run, but the coach wants the batter on deck to hit one more time before the game ends. So on a 3-1 count, the pitcher delivers an illegal pitch. The coach wants to take the option of the play--R1 stays at third and the batter goes to first--to give that on-deck batter her plate appearance. Exception #4 takes that option away from him.

I know, I know...it's early, and I'm only on my first cup of coffee...:p

Then that batter better be swinging if the coach is going to unnecessarily delay the game for batting practice.

This is the stupidist logic I have ever read.

MTD, Sr.

What did expect the press release to say? That the NCAA does it that way (mostly because the NCAA coaches are systematically attempting to remove umpire judgment from any rule, because they can't argue about judgment), so we are just following like the lemmings you all know us to be?

Makes sense to me. I don't see the issue.

Old way - we have to determine whether the player could have gotten out of the way.
New way - we only have to determine whether the player moved INTO the ball.

Lots easier.

Apparently not after watching the NCAAs.

However, it really wasn't that much of an issue to begin. Many umpires, and it is taught, to give the batter the benefit of any doubt.

The only reason it became an issue is because some coach got a burr up his/her *** when his/her player did not benefit from trying to get a free ride.

So if the pitcher throws a slow changeup that the batter has plenty of time to avoid, they can opt to stand there and let it hit them for a free base? I don't like this change at all. :mad:

So, will this make umpires more inclined or even less inclined to call the IP now? :rolleyes:

Aside from games with time limits, I don't see the need, but whatever works best, I suppose.

I once had a coach who I believe was trying to get it into my head how fast his player was. He timed her running to first base on her first hit and announced to me her time. I think he said something to the effect they that aren't going to throw her out.

I've heard of coaches who want to time:
- How long it takes for the pitcher to release the ball once she starts her delivery
- How long it takes for the ball to get to second base on the catcher's throw after the pitcher releases the pitch
- How long the pitcher has the ball (looking for 20-sec violations)
- How long it takes their runners to reach first base
- Etc. etc.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time (no pun intended) for a coach to have a stopwatch, but they must think it's important enough to push for the rule change.

Think about it this way.....the pitch shouldn't be in the batter's box at all. Up until now we have made the offense "do something" in order to get to first base. The batter had to try to avoid a pitch that was where it shouldn't have been in the first place. Why should the offensive player have to try to avoid the defensive players mistake?

I'm kinda ambivalent about this rule change. It's just another example of how rule changes are predicated by the opinions of the powers-that-be who feel umpires can't be relied upon when it comes to their judgment.

But I must admit, I have seen situations where a batter freezes up when a fastball comes right at her, and the umpire doesn't let her go to first base because she made no obvious attempt to avoid getting hit. This rule change would remedy that problem.

What happens if the whole ball is not in the batters box, the ball is to far inside to be called a strike, the batter gets hit and makes no attempt to move?

Does the batter still need to attempt to avoid being hit?

If you make that distinction, you better have on helluva accurate strike zone. ;)

The rule says the batter no longer has to attempt to avoid being hit. Pretty clear.

The verbiage quoted earlier in the thread for what purports to be the actual rule wording does not reference the batter's box, but rather says "out of the strike zone." The batter's box was mentioned in the commentary of the person being quoted. So, I assume if the batter is hit by a pitch, the only two possible calls are dead ball strike, and dead ball base award.

Or dead ball, ball, if the batter intentionally tried to get hit, no?

The part to which he was replying was:

Aaahhhhhh.....wait a minute.

So, if a batter is leaning over the plate and get smacked alongside the head with the pitch, the batter is awarded 1B because the ball was out of the strike zone?

Haven't seen the official rule book, or any interpretations, but it would seem so.

Wonderful, huh?

Yeah, for now, until this actually happens and someone goes berserk, and they reissue a clarification.