Look back rule violation?

[charliej47]

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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by charliej47

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.

Charlie, I'm going to have to look that one up in the book. What page should I be looking?

Thanx.

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by charliej47

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.

The NFHS DVD on rules tht the interpreters have highlighted it. I don't have my current case book with me, but her in Ohio, this was discussed and we were told to watch for it as the coaches are aware of the change.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by charliej47

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.

There has been no change in the wording of the NFHS rule, and case play 8-7-1 Sit B would support only posession is needed.

Following ball four to B1, F2 returns the ball to F1 in the 16 foot circle. F1 places the ball under her chin as she adjusts her hair. Is R1 governed by the 16 foot circle rule? Ruling: Yes, because F1 is considered to have posession of the ball.

[Tex]

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]

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by charliej47

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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]

Originally Posted by Manny A

...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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I doubt you even read them.

He probably does not have time to waste.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

He probably does not have time to waste.

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).