http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5448
New rules for 2012 include umpires being no longer responsible for pre-game bat and helmet checks.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Taking the onus off of the umpires, and back onto the coaches were it belongs, is the right move....
This was a liability burden that was unfairly placed onto umpires....
If it is to be believed and as posted here on the HSBBW, that the amount of illegal and tampered bats is as prolific as reported, then the liability for injuries and lawsuits are now properly resting on the coaches/teams/schools and players that tamper with and use such bats....
When a coach now states to the umpire at the plate meeting that his team is "properly and legally equipped".....then its on him/his team/his players/his school......
This was a liability burden that was unfairly placed onto umpires....
If it is to be believed and as posted here on the HSBBW, that the amount of illegal and tampered bats is as prolific as reported, then the liability for injuries and lawsuits are now properly resting on the coaches/teams/schools and players that tamper with and use such bats....
When a coach now states to the umpire at the plate meeting that his team is "properly and legally equipped".....then its on him/his team/his players/his school......
This probably sounds crazy but....
Wait until some kid smacks one off a pitcher with an illegal bat his dad bought him.
The injured kid sues who?
Coach points at the school because he is a contractor to the school district so he isn't liable for school activities at their facility, school points at parents because it can't control the actions of people outside of its employ and the parents point at the coach because he is the expert that didn't tell them the bat wasn't legit.
Of course the school district is usually the deepest pocket so someone will make the point that the school district provides the gear for football and in the interests of safety should do so for baseball as well. Therefor the school should be liable for not doing so and creating the opportunity for the illegal bat to enter the playing area. After all who supplies the helmets? The cost of outfitting a baseball team in bats, gloves and a five or six sets of catching gear (JV and Varsity) is probably well over $10,000 and probably closer to $15,000. Add another $5,000 - $7,500 if you have a Freshman Program.
So the obvious answer to this problem is to cancel the baseball program!
Wait until some kid smacks one off a pitcher with an illegal bat his dad bought him.
The injured kid sues who?
Coach points at the school because he is a contractor to the school district so he isn't liable for school activities at their facility, school points at parents because it can't control the actions of people outside of its employ and the parents point at the coach because he is the expert that didn't tell them the bat wasn't legit.
Of course the school district is usually the deepest pocket so someone will make the point that the school district provides the gear for football and in the interests of safety should do so for baseball as well. Therefor the school should be liable for not doing so and creating the opportunity for the illegal bat to enter the playing area. After all who supplies the helmets? The cost of outfitting a baseball team in bats, gloves and a five or six sets of catching gear (JV and Varsity) is probably well over $10,000 and probably closer to $15,000. Add another $5,000 - $7,500 if you have a Freshman Program.
So the obvious answer to this problem is to cancel the baseball program!
quote:New rules for 2012 include umpires being no longer responsible for pre-game bat and helmet checks.
Doesn't this rule have the potential to backfire and lead to more games stoppage as opposing coaches want time to get assessment of bats based on a perception the bat used may be illegal?
With umpires checking the bats and helmets they are a nuetral party and strive to eliminate illegal bats, and potentially unsafe helmets. Not sure all coaches will do the required dilligence.
quote:Originally posted by otownmike:quote:New rules for 2012 include umpires being no longer responsible for pre-game bat and helmet checks.
Doesn't this rule have the potential to backfire and lead to more games stoppage as opposing coaches want time to get assessment of bats based on a perception the bat used may be illegal?
With umpires checking the bats and helmets they are a nuetral party and strive to eliminate illegal bats, and potentially unsafe helmets. Not sure all coaches will do the required dilligence.
This won't backfire, bats still need to be BBCOR and if there is a question, stop take a look at the bat make a ruling. I don't see it being a issue. As far as helmets (batter/runner/catcher) as an umpire if I see a cracked helmet while a player is at bat or on the bases I will make him change it... pretty simple.
It is about time they put this on the coaches and took it off of the umpires, it's to bad they did it for next year and not last year with the BESR/BBCOR/Composite fiasco.
Among the other rules changes in the article was this one:
Suggested Double First Base Rules: Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
I can't say that I've ever seen a double base in baseball. Softball yes, but not baseball. Is this used in other areas of the country?
Suggested Double First Base Rules: Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
I can't say that I've ever seen a double base in baseball. Softball yes, but not baseball. Is this used in other areas of the country?
quote:Originally posted by otownmike:
Doesn't this rule have the potential to backfire and lead to more games stoppage as opposing coaches want time to get assessment of bats based on a perception the bat used may be illegal?
Just the opposite. The games will start on time. An individual bat check (if requested) will take ten seconds.
quote:With umpires checking the bats and helmets they are a nuetral party and strive to eliminate illegal bats, and potentially unsafe helmets. Not sure all coaches will do the required dilligence.
Not my problem. That's why the game will start on time.
quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
Among the other rules changes in the article was this one:
Suggested Double First Base Rules: Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
I can't say that I've ever seen a double base in baseball. Softball yes, but not baseball. Is this used in other areas of the country?
I have at younger ages but not at HS.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by JMoff:
Among the other rules changes in the article was this one:
Suggested Double First Base Rules: Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
I have at younger ages but not at HS.
It almost seems like a typo that was meant for softball and not baseball. I read it three times, but it says this is a 2012 NFHS baseball rule...
Oh well, I guess if colored bases show up next spring, somebody will comment about them.
quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
Among the other rules changes in the article was this one:
Suggested Double First Base Rules: Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
I can't say that I've ever seen a double base in baseball. Softball yes, but not baseball. Is this used in other areas of the country?
Oh for the love that's good and holy I really hope this one doesn't pass. Or the facemasks on the helmets being mandatory. I mean I'm ok with a player wearing one if they want to but don't make it mandatory.
quote:Originally posted by coach2709:
Oh for the love that's good and holy I really hope this one doesn't pass. Or the facemasks on the helmets being mandatory. I mean I'm ok with a player wearing one if they want to but don't make it mandatory.
I don't think it's making it mandatory. The rule book has always had it as an option for the state to mandate double first bases, along with suggested rules for such. I think this simply adds verbiage to that "rule."
Here'a the suggested double base rules for 2008:
1. Runner should use colored base on initial play at first base, unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored.
2. On a dropped third strike, fielder and runner may touch white or colored base.
3. A runner is never out for touching the white base rather than the colored base.
4. Once the runner reaches first base, the runner shall then use the white base.
Here's the revised suggested rule:
Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
The NFHS rules also include suggested speed up rules, including the use of courtesy runners and a protocol for handling the baseball after putouts.
I think you'll find that most states use the suggested rules for courtesy runners. I'm not aware of any state adopting the suggested double first base rule, and the revised language will make it even less likely that a state would adopt the rules, IMO.
1. Runner should use colored base on initial play at first base, unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored.
2. On a dropped third strike, fielder and runner may touch white or colored base.
3. A runner is never out for touching the white base rather than the colored base.
4. Once the runner reaches first base, the runner shall then use the white base.
Here's the revised suggested rule:
Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
The NFHS rules also include suggested speed up rules, including the use of courtesy runners and a protocol for handling the baseball after putouts.
I think you'll find that most states use the suggested rules for courtesy runners. I'm not aware of any state adopting the suggested double first base rule, and the revised language will make it even less likely that a state would adopt the rules, IMO.
quote:Originally posted by coach2709:quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
Among the other rules changes in the article was this one:
Suggested Double First Base Rules: Runner should use the colored base on initial play at first base (dropped third strike only), unless the fielder is drawn to the side of the colored base, in which case the runner would go to the white base and the fielder to the colored base.
I can't say that I've ever seen a double base in baseball. Softball yes, but not baseball. Is this used in other areas of the country?
Oh for the love that's good and holy I really hope this one doesn't pass. Or the facemasks on the helmets being mandatory. I mean I'm ok with a player wearing one if they want to but don't make it mandatory.
No need to get excited. Double firstbase has been an option in FED baseball for a few years now. If your state hasn't been using them, they probably won't change.
While reading the 2012 H.S.Rules Changes I noticed the paragraph "In addition, umpires no longer will be required to perform equipment checks, as that responsibility will fall to coaches next year. Coaches can still ask umpires at the pregame conference to confirm that the equipment is compliant." Does that put the BURDEN back on us?????
quote:Originally posted by POLOGREEN:
While reading the 2012 H.S.Rules Changes I noticed the paragraph "In addition, umpires no longer will be required to perform equipment checks, as that responsibility will fall to coaches next year. Coaches can still ask umpires at the pregame conference to confirm that the equipment is compliant." Does that put the BURDEN back on us?????
I haven't yet seen a situation/interpretation of the change, but my guess is that means a coach can question the legality of a specific piece of equipment, not all equipment in general.
"Ump, can you verify that that blue DeMarini in their dugout is legal?"
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by POLOGREEN:
While reading the 2012 H.S.Rules Changes I noticed the paragraph "In addition, umpires no longer will be required to perform equipment checks, as that responsibility will fall to coaches next year. Coaches can still ask umpires at the pregame conference to confirm that the equipment is compliant." Does that put the BURDEN back on us?????
I haven't yet seen a situation/interpretation of the change, but my guess is that means a coach can question the legality of a specific piece of equipment, not all equipment in general.
"Ump, can you verify that that blue DeMarini in their dugout is legal?"
That is how I read it and how I will act.
If asked to check all, I will decline and explain that it is "the coaches responsibility" to ensure his team is properly equipped and that if he has a specific question about a specific piece of equipment I will look at it...
quote:Originally posted by TX-Ump74:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by POLOGREEN:
While reading the 2012 H.S.Rules Changes I noticed the paragraph "In addition, umpires no longer will be required to perform equipment checks, as that responsibility will fall to coaches next year. Coaches can still ask umpires at the pregame conference to confirm that the equipment is compliant." Does that put the BURDEN back on us?????
I haven't yet seen a situation/interpretation of the change, but my guess is that means a coach can question the legality of a specific piece of equipment, not all equipment in general.
"Ump, can you verify that that blue DeMarini in their dugout is legal?"
That is how I read it and how I will act.
If asked to check all, I will decline and explain that it is "the coaches responsibility" to ensure his team is properly equipped and that if he has a specific question about a specific piece of equipment I will look at it...
I agree 100% with this approach.....yet until they come up with a technique, method or training for me to identify a tampered bat (rolled /shaved)....and unless I see some illegality such as a BESR mark, the only answer I will give is "this bat appears to be legal"
At our Interpretations meeting we were told ; If a coach asks to have another teams equipment checked we must do so BUT say to the coach I will inspect the equipment bring yours out first and then I'll inspect his. We were also advised NOT to enter the dugout area as we could be held lible for missing property. So they have to bring out the bats and helmets. Don't forget not only does the decal have to say BBCOR but BBCOR .50 and it can have both BESR and BBCOR .50 on the bat. They were supposed to all *BBCOR .50* be on the barrel but Easton is on the handle soooo if you have to check look for the screened markings.
quote:Originally posted by POLOGREEN:
Don't forget not only does the decal have to say BBCOR but BBCOR .50 and it can have both BESR and BBCOR .50 on the bat.
In NY, BBCOR is good enough.
I thought I posted that NCAA and NFHS have banned one bat. It is marked BBCOR but it is illegal.
Here is the relevant part of the doc I received from our district Interpreter;
"On February 17, 2012, the NCAA informed us that they decertified the 33-inch Marucci CAT52 BBCOR bat. The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) has adopted the NCAA’s ruling at the high school level. Effective immediately, the 33” Marucci CAT52 BBCOR bat will not be allowed for use in NCAA or NFHS baseball competition."
Also take note of this;
"Last week it was brought to my attention that some umpires have identified the Rip-It bat as being non-compliant due to the positioning of the BBCOR .50 certification mark on the taper instead of on the barrel. This was very observant of them and a correct interpretation. However, the NFHS has had discussions with the Rip-It management group about this issue and an agreement was worked out to extend to them an administrative remedy to permit their bats to be allowed in high school competition. Please share this information with your officials that the Rip-It product with the BBCOR .50 certification mark on the taper of the bat instead of the barrel is compliant with the NFHS baseball rules due to an administrative remedy.
Another point regarding Rip-It products, at some point last year, the NCAA de-certified the Rip-IT bat due to performance issues. The company recalled all the bats, repaired them and had them re-certified. The bats that were repaired have a "re-certified" sticker on the barrel. I want to advise you that they are compliant because they now meet the BBCOR standard. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you again and have a great baseball season.
B. Elliot Hopkins, MLD, CAA
NFHS Baseball Rules Editor"
"On February 17, 2012, the NCAA informed us that they decertified the 33-inch Marucci CAT52 BBCOR bat. The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) has adopted the NCAA’s ruling at the high school level. Effective immediately, the 33” Marucci CAT52 BBCOR bat will not be allowed for use in NCAA or NFHS baseball competition."
Also take note of this;
"Last week it was brought to my attention that some umpires have identified the Rip-It bat as being non-compliant due to the positioning of the BBCOR .50 certification mark on the taper instead of on the barrel. This was very observant of them and a correct interpretation. However, the NFHS has had discussions with the Rip-It management group about this issue and an agreement was worked out to extend to them an administrative remedy to permit their bats to be allowed in high school competition. Please share this information with your officials that the Rip-It product with the BBCOR .50 certification mark on the taper of the bat instead of the barrel is compliant with the NFHS baseball rules due to an administrative remedy.
Another point regarding Rip-It products, at some point last year, the NCAA de-certified the Rip-IT bat due to performance issues. The company recalled all the bats, repaired them and had them re-certified. The bats that were repaired have a "re-certified" sticker on the barrel. I want to advise you that they are compliant because they now meet the BBCOR standard. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Thank you again and have a great baseball season.
B. Elliot Hopkins, MLD, CAA
NFHS Baseball Rules Editor"
We were told by our state governing body that if one coach asks to check either his or the other team's equipment, we need to check both team's equipment.
I can't imagine any coaches in this area asking for anything to be checked before a game.
I can't imagine any coaches in this area asking for anything to be checked before a game.
The rule doesn't say if a coach asks, we check both. It says if a coach asks you go check the opposing team's equipment. Now I assure you that requset is going to come back to him. While you are checking the other manager is going to ask you to check the first team's gear.
quote:"On February 17, 2012, the NCAA informed us that they decertified the 33-inch Marucci CAT52 BBCOR bat.
Actually, it's not the Marucci CAT 52 (fifty two) that has been de-certified; rather, it's the Marucci CAT 5 (five).
quote:Originally posted by pilsner:quote:"On February 17, 2012, the NCAA informed us that they decertified the 33-inch Marucci CAT52 BBCOR bat.
Actually, it's not the Marucci CAT 52 (fifty two) that has been de-certified; rather, it's the Marucci CAT 5 (five).
You're talking about the same bat. The CAT 5 has a "2" next to it as in "5 squared" if that makes sense. It just looks like "52" on here.
quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
The rule doesn't say if a coach asks, we check both. It says if a coach asks you go check the opposing team's equipment. Now I assure you that requset is going to come back to him. While you are checking the other manager is going to ask you to check the first team's gear.
Our state specifically told us in our preseason rules meeting that if Coach A asks to check Team B's equipment, we are to check the equipment of Team A as well without being asked by B's coach.
quote:You're talking about the same bat. The CAT 5 has a "2" next to it as in "5 squared" if that makes sense. It just looks like "52" on here.
I see. A little education goes a long way. Thanks for the info.