Look back rule violation?

[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).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

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]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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

Honestly ... the articles weren't always a complete waste. Some were quite good. Then again, some were fraught with misinformation too. Definitely not authoritative in any sense. Sometimes useful. Often not. The quizzes were their low point.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

[BretMan]

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...

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.