Are any of you guys aware of any new rule changes for 2009 in Federation?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
There a few but nothing major. I will get a copy of the changes and post it.
Here they are.
Revisions Made to Four Baseball Rules
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Elliot Hopkins
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (June 30, 2008) - The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Baseball Rules Committee adjusted four rules at its annual meeting June 8-10 in Indianapolis. The rules changes subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
A revision was made to Rule 6-2-3 regarding infractions by a pitcher. The rule states it is illegal for a pitcher to intentionally pitch close to a batter, replacing the prior phrasing of to "throw" close to a batter. The change was necessary for clarification and in order to be consistent with other pitching rules.
"This rule is violated while the pitcher is pitching, and not just throwing the ball," said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.
Infractions by a batter were also addressed. The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by "taking one for the team." Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.
In such a situation, the pitched ball is deemed either a strike or a ball and the player who permitted the ball to touch him remains at bat unless the pitch results in a third strike or ball four. The phrase "or ball four" was added to the rule to clarify the pitch needed to be called a strike or ball.
Revisions were also made to Rule 1-2-2 regarding painted field lines. All non-permanent lines on the playing field shall be marked white with a material not injurious to the eyes or skin.
Non-permanent refers to all lines that must be painted on the field. Only permanent lines, such as on artificial turf, may be a color other than white.
Lastly, umpires will be given more flexibility with their uniforms beginning in 2009. An adjustment to Rule 10-1-9 eliminated the need for umpires to specifically wear heather gray pants.
"Equipment dealers are transitioning to charcoal gray slacks," Hopkins said. "This rule change will provide umpires the opportunity to purchase any shade of dark gray and be in compliance."
In addition to the four rules changes, the committee identified four points of emphasis: 1) simplifying illegal pitch penalty administration, 2) re-emphasizing that team personnel remain in dugouts, 3) keeping the pace of play steady and 4) having all coaching staff members display professional behavior.
Revisions Made to Four Baseball Rules
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Elliot Hopkins
INDIANAPOLIS, IN (June 30, 2008) - The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Baseball Rules Committee adjusted four rules at its annual meeting June 8-10 in Indianapolis. The rules changes subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
A revision was made to Rule 6-2-3 regarding infractions by a pitcher. The rule states it is illegal for a pitcher to intentionally pitch close to a batter, replacing the prior phrasing of to "throw" close to a batter. The change was necessary for clarification and in order to be consistent with other pitching rules.
"This rule is violated while the pitcher is pitching, and not just throwing the ball," said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.
Infractions by a batter were also addressed. The committee is concerned that batters are still attempting to be hit by pitches and earn an undeserved awarded base by "taking one for the team." Rule 7-3-4 clearly prohibits a batter allowing himself to be hit by a pitch.
In such a situation, the pitched ball is deemed either a strike or a ball and the player who permitted the ball to touch him remains at bat unless the pitch results in a third strike or ball four. The phrase "or ball four" was added to the rule to clarify the pitch needed to be called a strike or ball.
Revisions were also made to Rule 1-2-2 regarding painted field lines. All non-permanent lines on the playing field shall be marked white with a material not injurious to the eyes or skin.
Non-permanent refers to all lines that must be painted on the field. Only permanent lines, such as on artificial turf, may be a color other than white.
Lastly, umpires will be given more flexibility with their uniforms beginning in 2009. An adjustment to Rule 10-1-9 eliminated the need for umpires to specifically wear heather gray pants.
"Equipment dealers are transitioning to charcoal gray slacks," Hopkins said. "This rule change will provide umpires the opportunity to purchase any shade of dark gray and be in compliance."
In addition to the four rules changes, the committee identified four points of emphasis: 1) simplifying illegal pitch penalty administration, 2) re-emphasizing that team personnel remain in dugouts, 3) keeping the pace of play steady and 4) having all coaching staff members display professional behavior.
quote:A revision was made to Rule 6-2-3 regarding infractions by a pitcher. The rule states it is illegal for a pitcher to intentionally pitch close to a batter, replacing the prior phrasing of to "throw" close to a batter. The change was necessary for clarification and in order to be consistent with other pitching rules.
What is close? Should it not be reworded from close to at? I told my pichers you had to pitch inside. sort of discourages that if in the rules it discourages you to pitch inside because of an interpretation.
Close is going to be subjective to the umpire but if the batter is crowding the plate it is going to be obvious that he is trying to hit him.
quote:A revision was made to Rule 6-2-3 regarding infractions by a pitcher. The rule states it is illegal for a pitcher to intentionally pitch close to a batter, replacing the prior phrasing of to "throw" close to a batter. The change was necessary for clarification and in order to be consistent with other pitching rules.
"This rule is violated while the pitcher is pitching, and not just throwing the ball," said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.
MST in regards to your reply to Will
quote:Close is going to be subjective to the umpire but if the batter is crowding the plate it is going to be obvious that he is trying to hit him
I understand they are trying to be more consistent with the language and I understand this will be up to the umpire but are you saying that if a batter crowds the plate it is obvious the pitcher is trying to hit him or the batter is obviously trying to get hit?
I'm hoping I am just not understanding what you mean because if you are saying it's obvious the pitcher is trying to hit him then it could get ugly.
quote:Revisions were also made to Rule 1-2-2 regarding painted field lines. All non-permanent lines on the playing field shall be marked white with a material not injurious to the eyes or skin.
Non-permanent refers to all lines that must be painted on the field. Only permanent lines, such as on artificial turf, may be a color other than white.
So are they saying that foul lines need to be painted with something that is "not injurious to the eye or skin"? This might be a silly question but what paint isn't injurious to the eye?
Thanks and I'm not trying to start a bashing thread - I just really don't understand these two points.
I'm also a little confused... of course as a pitcher's dad, I may be a little biased. 
The trend here (as being taught by most of the HS coaches) is for the batter to take his stance with his back foot toes as close to home plate as possible. Some umps will enforce the toes being within the box at the time of the pitch - but others are allowing the back foot to actually be behind home plate (e.g. 3 or 4 inches overlapping with the inside corner with the heel on the line or where the line would be).
In either of these situations, the way I read the response above is that the pitcher, in pitching the ball such that it crosses the inside corner, might be guilty of "pitching close"?
Personally, I would have like to see them require the inside line to be marked at the start of the game - and the umpires asked to enforce the batters stance rule - but than again I am a pitchers dad.
08
The trend here (as being taught by most of the HS coaches) is for the batter to take his stance with his back foot toes as close to home plate as possible. Some umps will enforce the toes being within the box at the time of the pitch - but others are allowing the back foot to actually be behind home plate (e.g. 3 or 4 inches overlapping with the inside corner with the heel on the line or where the line would be).
In either of these situations, the way I read the response above is that the pitcher, in pitching the ball such that it crosses the inside corner, might be guilty of "pitching close"?
Personally, I would have like to see them require the inside line to be marked at the start of the game - and the umpires asked to enforce the batters stance rule - but than again I am a pitchers dad.
08
No,I'm saying I will allow the pitcher his area to pitch. When I say it needs to be obvious, pitching at him or behind would be examples.
An experienced umpire can tell when a pitcher is going to be inclined to throw at somebody. Usually game situation or something in a past meeting.
As far as the paint thing, I let the ADs figure all that out.
An experienced umpire can tell when a pitcher is going to be inclined to throw at somebody. Usually game situation or something in a past meeting.
As far as the paint thing, I let the ADs figure all that out.
Thanks MST - I got what you are saying now. The paint thing sounds pretty weird overall though.
I think it's just another example of why FED should just adopt NCAA rules.
How about a batter who takes his place entirely within the box and leans over the plate? Is the pitcher intentionally throwing close to the batter if he tries to put one down Broadway? If the batter crowds the plate, the pitcher SHOULD intentionally pitch close to him.
When you crowd the plate, there is a greater risk of being hit. Knowing when to ignore, when to warn and when to dump on an inside pitch is why they pay us the big bucks.
I also like the NCAA rule on "taking one for the team." Under that code, if the pitch is clearly within the vertical lines of the batter's box, and the batter freezes, he gets the base. FED wants the batter to make "every effort" to avoid being hit. Who knows what that means? I enforce it the NCAA way. In other words, if the pitch is in the batter's box, and the batter so much as flinches, he's getting 1st base, because in my judgment, he made every effort to avoid getting hit. The only way I'm keeping him there is if he tries to get hit.
How about a batter who takes his place entirely within the box and leans over the plate? Is the pitcher intentionally throwing close to the batter if he tries to put one down Broadway? If the batter crowds the plate, the pitcher SHOULD intentionally pitch close to him.
When you crowd the plate, there is a greater risk of being hit. Knowing when to ignore, when to warn and when to dump on an inside pitch is why they pay us the big bucks.
I also like the NCAA rule on "taking one for the team." Under that code, if the pitch is clearly within the vertical lines of the batter's box, and the batter freezes, he gets the base. FED wants the batter to make "every effort" to avoid being hit. Who knows what that means? I enforce it the NCAA way. In other words, if the pitch is in the batter's box, and the batter so much as flinches, he's getting 1st base, because in my judgment, he made every effort to avoid getting hit. The only way I'm keeping him there is if he tries to get hit.
Regarding the lines of fields:
It used to be common to line athletic fields using lime, and it is still done at some fields, because it is white, cheap, and traditional. Lime is not a precise term, and can mean quicklime (calcium oxide), hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide), or powdered limestone. No form of lime is good for a person's eyes, but getting quicklime into the eyes will probably cause blindness, and hydrated lime may produce blindness. I believe that there have been more instances of eye injury to persons who handle the lime than to athletes, but either way it is not safe. In my youth, football players frequently ended up with skin burns from the field lines, especially if quicklime was used.
Paint isn't good for a person's eyes, but it is much less likely to cause injury.
It used to be common to line athletic fields using lime, and it is still done at some fields, because it is white, cheap, and traditional. Lime is not a precise term, and can mean quicklime (calcium oxide), hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide), or powdered limestone. No form of lime is good for a person's eyes, but getting quicklime into the eyes will probably cause blindness, and hydrated lime may produce blindness. I believe that there have been more instances of eye injury to persons who handle the lime than to athletes, but either way it is not safe. In my youth, football players frequently ended up with skin burns from the field lines, especially if quicklime was used.
Paint isn't good for a person's eyes, but it is much less likely to cause injury.
The change has nothing to do with "close" vs "at". That portion is unchanged.
The change if from "throw" to "pitch". This put an end to idiots who tried to argue their pitcher wasn't throwing, he was pitching.
The choice of the word "close" was made to eliminate the need of the umpire to read the pitcher's mind to determine intent. That was done some time ago.
The change if from "throw" to "pitch". This put an end to idiots who tried to argue their pitcher wasn't throwing, he was pitching.
The choice of the word "close" was made to eliminate the need of the umpire to read the pitcher's mind to determine intent. That was done some time ago.
Agreed but he was questioning if there shouldn't be more of a change to the rule than there was.
It seems that sometimes, FED just has to be different, and attempts at clarity result in even more ambiguity. Changing "at" to "close" (whenever the change was made) didn't eliminate the need for the umpire to read the pitcher's mind, it just made it more difficult. We still must determine intent.
If a batter crowds the plate, is the pitcher still allowed to try and hit a spot 2" inside? I think he is (actually, for many zones, that pitch is a strike). How close is close? How did the change clarify anything?
The same applies with the HBP stuff. The rule says the batter does not get the base on a HBP if he "makes no effort" to avoid being hit. Somewhere else (it may have been in last year's POE), FED says the batter must "make every effort" to avoid the pitch. Which is it? They are not the same.
FED often tries to eliminate the element of umpire judgment by changing the wording of a rule - as Jimmy points out - with the result being exactly opposite.
Example: The batter gets plunked in the ribs in the middle of the batter's box. Under NCAA, it's a no-brainer. The pitch was clearly within the vertical lines of the batter's box (very easy for an umpire to judge), so the batter is allowed to freeze and "take one for the team." Why should you penalize the batter for a pitch 2 feet inside? Under FED, the umpire has to determine if the batter made an effort (or every effort) to avoid being hit. Was he frozen by the pitch or did he just stand there and let it hit him? How can you tell, especially when you can't even see the batter's face to judge his reaction?
Sometimes FED should just leave things alone. If the rules read "the pitcher shall not plunk the batter" and "the batter is not awarded 1st base on a HBP if he tries to get hit with the pitch" I think we would have no problem enforcing the rules as they are intended to be enforced. When FED tries to make it simpler, it just gets all mucked up.
If a batter crowds the plate, is the pitcher still allowed to try and hit a spot 2" inside? I think he is (actually, for many zones, that pitch is a strike). How close is close? How did the change clarify anything?
The same applies with the HBP stuff. The rule says the batter does not get the base on a HBP if he "makes no effort" to avoid being hit. Somewhere else (it may have been in last year's POE), FED says the batter must "make every effort" to avoid the pitch. Which is it? They are not the same.
FED often tries to eliminate the element of umpire judgment by changing the wording of a rule - as Jimmy points out - with the result being exactly opposite.
Example: The batter gets plunked in the ribs in the middle of the batter's box. Under NCAA, it's a no-brainer. The pitch was clearly within the vertical lines of the batter's box (very easy for an umpire to judge), so the batter is allowed to freeze and "take one for the team." Why should you penalize the batter for a pitch 2 feet inside? Under FED, the umpire has to determine if the batter made an effort (or every effort) to avoid being hit. Was he frozen by the pitch or did he just stand there and let it hit him? How can you tell, especially when you can't even see the batter's face to judge his reaction?
Sometimes FED should just leave things alone. If the rules read "the pitcher shall not plunk the batter" and "the batter is not awarded 1st base on a HBP if he tries to get hit with the pitch" I think we would have no problem enforcing the rules as they are intended to be enforced. When FED tries to make it simpler, it just gets all mucked up.
There are rules in FED, NCAA and OBR I would have handled differently if they had asked, but I can't get emotional about rules. When I decide to work a rule set, I accept the rules.
Whenever a FED rule seem odd, I remember the original intent of the rule and that the vast majority of changes and strange language comes from coaches.
I have no problem with "pitching close to". It is no more ambiguous than "pitching at", and easier to prove.
Whenever a FED rule seem odd, I remember the original intent of the rule and that the vast majority of changes and strange language comes from coaches.
I have no problem with "pitching close to". It is no more ambiguous than "pitching at", and easier to prove.
If I'm reading this right, I think you're missing the point of the rule change.
With respect to pitching inside, effectively the rule has not changed and thus, you should get the same rulings you've been getting for years.
The change deals with a situation where, e.g., the pitcher steps off the rubber to make a play on a runner stealing home (maybe to thwart a squeeze attempt). The pitcher is taught to throw to the runner side of the plate in that instance. If you have a right-handed batter, this may seem to be thrown at him. But the rule change clarifies that in this situation there is no foul. If anything it clarifies that once the pitcher is off the rubber, it falls to the batter to get the heck out of the way or risk having the runner called out due to the batter's interference. (Or is it that the batter is out and the runner goes back? I always get those confused.)
With respect to pitching inside, effectively the rule has not changed and thus, you should get the same rulings you've been getting for years.
The change deals with a situation where, e.g., the pitcher steps off the rubber to make a play on a runner stealing home (maybe to thwart a squeeze attempt). The pitcher is taught to throw to the runner side of the plate in that instance. If you have a right-handed batter, this may seem to be thrown at him. But the rule change clarifies that in this situation there is no foul. If anything it clarifies that once the pitcher is off the rubber, it falls to the batter to get the heck out of the way or risk having the runner called out due to the batter's interference. (Or is it that the batter is out and the runner goes back? I always get those confused.)
With 2 out, the batter is out. With less than 2 out, the batter stays at bat and the runner trying to score is out (dead ball), unless the runner is tagged out, in which case the out stands and the ball remains live.