The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Look back rule violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/97631-look-back-rule-violation.html)

Manny A Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by charliej47 (Post 929467)
:D This year, NFHS clarified control by stating that it had to be in the hand or glove and that being held between the legs or with the arm is not control.:p

I find it hard to believe that this new defintion of control is not in the 2014 Preseason Guide for NFHS Softball that Referee magazine puts out.

Also, the Softball site on the NFHS Central Hub in Arbitersports makes absolutely no mention of this change.

Maybe it's something that Ohio is doing. Here in Virginia, there has been nothing put out in any of our state clinics or other media that says this is the case.

Tru_in_Blu Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 929504)
Here in Virginia, there has been nothing put out in any of our state clinics or other media that says this is the case.

Seconded for New Hampshire.

Also, didn't know NFHS had a DVD.

Dakota Fri Mar 28, 2014 01:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 929504)
I find it hard to believe that this new defintion of control is not in the 2014 Preseason Guide for NFHS Softball that Referee magazine puts out.....

Whether anything is either in or out of Referee magazine means nothing whatsoever with respect to authoritative softball rulings. Putting it another way, they have no credibility (at least with me) regarding softball.

MD Longhorn Fri Mar 28, 2014 02:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 929504)
that Referee magazine puts out.

Ugh. This hurts.

Referee Magazine is probably the most effective spreader of misinformation regarding sports officiating that there is. Worse than announcers on tv, because they do it under the guise of some apparent authority. They generally get about a 60% on their OWN quizzes.

Manny A Fri Mar 28, 2014 02:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 929517)
Whether anything is either in or out of Referee magazine means nothing whatsoever with respect to authoritative softball rulings. Putting it another way, they have no credibility (at least with me) regarding softball.

Oh, I agree they're not authoritative. And I'm usually one of the first to criticize things they put out for any sport.

But they are pretty good about announcing rule changes. They get into trouble when they try to elaborate the change with their example plays and their PlayPics (I still can't understand where they got the idea that an obstruction call in softball requires both the delayed dead ball signal with the left arm/hand and a point with the right hand...)

If there was a change in NFHS of what entails possession of the ball in the circle, they would have been all over it, but then screw it up with some flaky case play.

Dakota Fri Mar 28, 2014 02:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 929526)
...If there was a change in NFHS of what entails possession of the ball in the circle, they would have been all over it, but then screw it up with some flaky case play.

Good point.

BretMan Fri Mar 28, 2014 06:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 929504)
I find it hard to believe that this new defintion of control is not in the 2014 Preseason Guide for NFHS Softball that Referee magazine puts out...

Maybe it's something that Ohio is doing.

I get the preseason guide, I've checked the NFHS website, I attended the Ohio state rule interpretation meeting and the usual local meetings covering rule changes.

No mention of this "new rule".

And...the same old case book play is still there (8.7.1E) where the pitcher puts the ball in her glove, then puts the glove between her knees and it says this satisfies "possession" with respect to the look back rule.

Tex Fri Mar 28, 2014 08:52pm

My 2014 NFHS rule book has not changed either.
8-7-1 . . . The look-back rule will be in effect when the ball is live, the batter-runner has touched first base or has been declared out, and the pitcher has possession of the ball within the pitcher's circle.

Check where your DVD is from. If from Referee Magazine, then that explains the problem. Referee Magazine is noted for putting out inaccurate information.

charliej47 Fri Mar 28, 2014 09:52pm

I got hold of Jerry Fick, the State Softball Rules interpreter and he told me that I got the ASA and the HS clinics confused again. So I must apologize for making incorrect statements.:mad:

EsqUmp Sat Mar 29, 2014 08:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 929521)
Ugh. This hurts.

Referee Magazine is probably the most effective spreader of misinformation regarding sports officiating that there is. Worse than announcers on tv, because they do it under the guise of some apparent authority. They generally get about a 60% on their OWN quizzes.

Though I have found errors in the quizzes, your "60%" is a pathetic exaggeration. I doubt you even read them.

CecilOne Sat Mar 29, 2014 09:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 929681)
I doubt you even read them.

He probably does not have time to waste. :rolleyes:

SethPDX Sat Mar 29, 2014 02:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 929685)
He probably does not have time to waste. :rolleyes:

I know I don't read them because the money I would blow on a subscription could be better spent elsewhere (and yes I did read them for a while).

AtlUmpSteve Sat Mar 29, 2014 02:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 929719)
I know I don't read them because the money I would blow on a subscription could be better spent elsewhere (and yes I did read them for a while).

As a stand-alone, I wouldn't buy the subscription, either. But as a part of NASO registration, it is worth it to me.

KJUmp Sat Mar 29, 2014 05:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 929721)
As a stand-alone, I wouldn't buy the subscription, either. But as a part of NASO registration, it is worth it to me.

Agree

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 929681)
Though I have found errors in the quizzes, your "60%" is a pathetic exaggeration. I doubt you even read them.

I absolutely do not anymore. You are correct. I had a subscription for 5 years. We used to grade them. 60 was common. Perhaps a slight exaggeration. But slight.

Perhaps they are better now, but they burned my trust a long time ago.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1