| 3/10/03 |
|
| Question |
"The catchers helmet is a one piece device. It has a silver label that stated; "This baseball / softball catchers helmet is in compliance with the NOCSAE Standards". There was no graphic of a catchers helmet on it. The label appeared to be permanent. It did not appear to be a home made type label.
Is the catchers helmet graphic a requirement as a part of the embossed seal / permanent label?
NCAA rule 3-5 page 41 and NFHS rule 1-1-7 on page 10-11 does not indicate that a graphic must be displayed. But I am not sure what the NOCSAE regulation actually states. Is this legal? "
|
| Answer |
The helmet in question was determined to be a Spaulding TF Pro so the following answer addresses it in particular but the information about NOCSAE documents should apply to any helmet in question
Answer from NCAA Secretary Rules Editor:
"I talked to Chris Babcock at Spaulding today. Spaulding stopped making catcher's helmets in 1995 so this model (TF Pro) predates that. The NOCSAE documents that refer to catcher's helmets are 001-00 (Jan 2002), 024-98 (last modified Jan 2002),021-98 (last modified Jan 2002) and 001-98 (May 1998) so you can see the rules in effect at the time of the helmet's production are no longer the standards we follow."
|
| 2/26/03 |
|
| Question |
The pitcher puts her front foot on the rubber and looks in to the catcher who by her hand/arm movements gives the pitcher the signal. The pitcher then steps on the rubber with her other foot and begins her windup. Is this a legal pitch or an illegal pitch? 10-2.b says she must have both feet on the rubber to take a signal or simulate taking the signal from the catcher. The other side of the coin says that she is still simulating taking the signal before her hands come together since she is looking toward the plate (although the catcher is not making any hand/arm movements indicating she is now giving a signal) after both feet are on the rubber. |
| Answer |
The pitcher is not restricted to taking only 1 signal. She can stand as you describe and receive a signal from the catcher or the coach in the dugout or her dad in the stands. But she must then take another signal or simulate taking a signal in the position described in 2a...both feet on the pitcher's plate, shoulders in lone with first and third bases, hands separated, the ball in either (but not both hands). This second position alerts the batter and umpire that she is about to bring her hands together, separate them and deliver the pitch. |
| 2/26/03 |
|
| Question |
Runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter hits a dribbler up the middle (so both the shortstop and 2nd baseman break toward 2nd base to make a play) that the pitcher just happens to snare. The pitcher then throws to 3rd for an apparent force out. However, either the 1st or 3rd base umpire has signaled obstruction on the shortstop who bumped the runner from 2nd as she was heading to the middle to make a play on the ball (which of course was caught by the pitcher). What do you have? The book says that a runner is protected between the bases she is obstructed and cannot be called out, but the shortstop was also carrying out her duty to go toward the direction of the batted ball. There is no way the runner from 2nd would have made it to 3rd if the ‘obstruction’ had not happened… |
| Answer |
Under interference in rule 9, section 13a4d, "If two fielders try to field a batted ball and the runner contacts one or both, the umpire shall decide which one is entitled to field the ball, ant that fielder only is entitled to protection." Since the pitcher fielded the ball, only she is entitled to protection so there is no interference by the runner on the play. However it should be noted that had the pitcher missed the ball, it would be umpire's judgement as to if she had a reasonable chance to field the ball (and missed it) or if the first fielder with a chance to field it would be shortstop or second baseman. If in the umpire's judgement it was the shortstop who was the first fielder to have a chance to make the play and the pitcher made a miraculous catch, then the contact would not be obstruction.
Per rule 9, section 18c1, "A fielder who is not in possession of the ball, not in the act of fielding a batted ball, or not about to receive a thrown ball, shall not impede the batter, batter-runner or runner." This too, relates to judgement. If the pitcher was the protected player, the shortstop is guilty of obstruction and the runner should be awarded the base(s) she would have earned had obstruction not occurred.
There is also the possibility of a no call for inadvertent contact. If the ball was clearly the pitcher's to field, the shortstop obstructed the runner. However if the ball was clearly the shortstop's to field (but the pitcher miraculously snagged it), do not penalize the runner by invoking interference on a player who never had a chance to make the play.
The rule book does cite the obstructed runner cannot be put out between bases (9-17c and 12-5d note 2) and this appears to be problematic for your situation where I think you are inferring that the runner really had no chance of being safe at third. The overriding principle for placing obstructed runners has always been the base they would have reached had there not been obstruction...hence the apparent contradiction.
Application of the rules requires me to say, award the runner third on the obstruction. |
| 2/24/03 |
|
| Question |
Can you use balls with different CORs in the same game. (i.e. 3 with a COR of 50 and two with a COR of 47)? |
| Answer |
The rules have never addressed whether the balls must be from the same manufacturer, the same compression or COR or, more significantly, even the same core…as in polycore and wound yarn. Compression and CORs are maximums…with no minimum listed so a coach has always been able to soften the game to what he/she think is an appropriate level by merely providing balls with lower standards. It is also possible that a ball could test out at .47 and another could test at .49 and both look identical and meet the stamped spec of maximum .50.
Your specific question has come up several times already this year so I have put it on the committee’s agenda to ask them to address it in next year’s book…either balls should be or need not be labeled identically from the same manufacturer. In the meantime, there is no requirement that they have the same maximum COR but keep in mind, a player can ask for a different ball anytime so if one ball is perceived to be higher performing than another, both teams can avoid it.
Umpires can assist in fair play by pointing out discrepancies in ball specs at the pregame meeting. For example, if a team provided the visiting team with a .50 low seam ball but provided their own pitcher with a .47 high seam ball, the opposing pitcher might assume the ball she was given was the same as the home team and might always ask for the ball she became familiar with in her warmup. At the pregame meeting, if the umpire pointed out there were different balls in the game, each team would have an opportunity to ask for the one that advantaged them the most.
|
| 2/24/03 |
|
| Question |
Ref pp, Rule 3-2, o. “Bats shall bear the permanent ASA 2000 certification seal or be listed on the approved bat list of the ASA Web site…..indicating compliance with the bat performance standard per the appropriate ASTM testing protocol.” Ref John Bennett’s Rule Differences, page 8, Standards – must meet ASA certification……. OR if the umpire thinks it was manufactured before 2000 and if tested it would comply, then it is OK |
| Answer |
The NCAA rules are to have the seal OR be listed on the approved list. Unlike the ASA, we do not allow for umpire’s guess as to the manufacturing date. |
| 2/24/03 |
continued from above |
| Question |
So the question is, if a bat doesn’t have a certification seal, but it’s on the approved list, can it be used? |
| Answer |
Yes, per rule 3, section 2o. |
| 2/24/03 |
continued from above |
| Question |
Having a stamp that says “official softball” and passing through the bat ring. |
| Answer |
Yes it must meet these as well per rule 3, section 2 m and f respectively. |
| 2/24/03 |
continued from above |
| Question |
Or is this a misprint from earlier times that should have been deleted but wasn’t and all bats have to have the ASA Certification mark? |
| Answer |
No, it is not a misprint. |
| 2/24/03 |
|
| Question |
2. Ref pp 155, Sec 8 – e. If the offended team fails to properly appeal after one pitch and appeals after the 2nd pitch, do you flip flop the runners and put them back on the proper bases or do you leave them where they are? |
| Answer |
No. On page 155 we were not very clear regarding the effect on other runners nor the timing of the appeal.
We are using unreported substitutes and illegal players as precedence and are tiering the effect:
a) If the players switch bases, a pitch has not yet been thrown, when the opposing coach brings it to the attention of the umpire, there is no penalty but the runners are directed to their proper bases.
b) If the players switch bases, but have not advanced additional bases, when the opposing coach brings it to the attention of the umpire, the runners are declared out and ejected. If additional runners advanced as a result of the action on the pitch, the advance shall be nullified. The head coach is ejected for unsporting behavior.
c) If the players switch bases, but have advanced at least one base and before a pitch (legal or illegal) is thrown following the advance when the violation is reported, the runners are declared out and ejected. If additional runners advanced as a result of the action on the pitch, the advance shall be nullified. The head coach is ejected for unsporting behavior.
d) If the players switch bases, but have advanced at least one base and after a pitch (legal or illegal) is thrown following the advance when the violation is reported, the runners are declared out (if on base) and ejected. If additional runners advanced as a result of the action on the pitch, any advance by other runners shall stand. The head coach is ejected for unsporting behavior.
|
| 2/24/03 |
continued from above |
| Question |
And how does a scorekeeper score this if the lead runner scores and the trail runner doesn’t, when the lead runner is behind the trail runner in the lineup? |
| Answer |
b ,c & d) would be scored by crediting the fielder closest to the base with the unassisted putout (as per rule 14, section 12c, page 188).
If the lead runner scores and a pitch has been thrown to the next batter, the run stands but the trailing runner would be declared out with the putout again going to the fielder closest to the base. I think this should not be an electronic scorebook issue because it has always allowed for a runner to score on a play where another has been put out but I am not sure if that will hold true or the program will not accept it. Essentially it works like batting out of order and I think most programs accept that even though some have fail safe programs that don’t allow the scorer to make what it thinks is a mistake.
|
| 2/24/03 |
|
| Question |
Just for clarity, a ball that is fouled and goes no higher than the batters head, and goes off to the side and the catcher has to stretch to catch it, but catches it over by the outside line of the batters box, is considered a FOUL BALL, and when caught, the batter is declared OUT. Pp 18, SECTON 52. |
| Answer |
You will notice the committee deleted the traditional standard of “below the batter’s head” in defining foul tip in this year’s book so that really has no bearing on the call. In distinguishing between foul tip and foul ball on a batted ball that goes directly from the bat to the catcher, there is some judgement involved. The standard is if the catcher moves to the ball (foul ball) or is able to catch it without moving (foul tip). In your example, I envision this to be a foul ball since she stretches to catch it. If it had been fouled back at the catcher and she caught it, it would likely be a foul tip. |
| 1/30/03 |
|
|
|
#1: Top of the 1st inning, after one out, the defensive coach requests for "time" to speak with his pitcher. He crosses the foul line, has his conference, then returns to his dugout. Is this a conference?
Yes. Refer to rule 6, section 11a1 page 57.
#2: Same scenario as #1, and after TWO OUTS are recorded in the top of the 1st inning, the defensive coach requests for "time," and before crossing the foul line on his way to the pitcher's mound, advises the plate umpire he is making a pitching change. The coach stays out on the field in the vicinity of the pitching circle and speaks to Pitcher #2. Is this allowed?
Yes, the coach used 1 conference after the first out but is now making a lineup change. Refer to rule 6, section 11 exception 2a page 58 which exempts a pitching change (as you describe) from being a conference.
#3: Same scenario as #2, and before the third out is recorded in the top of the 1st inning, the defensive coach requests for "time" to have a conference with pitcher #2. Is this allowed?
Yes, the coach has not used the additional conference allowed after making a pitching change. Refer to rule 6, section 11a1 exception.
|
| 1/30/03 |
|
| Question |
One of my DII school has had sod laid in the backstop and foul ball areas. They did not skin the areas up both foul lines the full 3 feet. The running lane has two feet of skinned surface and one foot of grass. In other words, there is a change of surface running down the middle of the 3 foot lane. On page 32 of the rule book it states that the running lane SHOULD be skinned, but not that it MUST be skinned. The change of surface is what bothers me. The sod is planted two feet away form each foul line. I need to know what to tell the coach.
|
| Answer |
It sounds like it is legal but impractical. If i were an athletic trainer, i'd see that as an ankle sprain waiting to happen and suggest they cut back the sod so the lane is all one level surface. It is also impractical in considering a foul bunted or batted ball that as it travels down the baseline, rebounds off the sodline and into fair territory. Hence, most folks who sod foul territory, give it more than 2 feet.
But as the rules editor, all i can offer is that it is legal. As you wrote, the book indicates the lane should be skinned...Not must be skinned.
|
| 1/30/03 |
|
|
|
From the Banned Bat Procedures: During the game a coach protests a bat and the umpire deems the bat legal, marks it, and play continues. Can the player use this bat throughout the rest of a two or three game series, or throughout the rest of a tournament.
If the umpire deems it legal, it can be used in the game. At the start of the next game, the new umpire crew will check bats and the process begins again.
If so does the umpire have to keep the bat is his possession between games.
No, the bat remains in the team's possession. No, the bat remains in the team's possession.
And does the umpire have to mail it to you after the series or tournament is over even if he has deemed the bat legal.
No...Just let me know via an incident report. I will then follow up with the team to help clarify the situation and hopefully not make it a 56 game problem with questions by every crew.
|
| 1/29/03 |
|
| Question |
If a player falls on the tarp and catches the ball while both feet are off the ground and she is on the tarp is she not in dead ball territory therefore making this a no-catch? We understand that she cannot put a foot up on the tarp to catch before during or after the catch for safety reasons, but can she use the tarp as an advantage by leaving the ground with both feet and with a knee, knees, or lean up or on the tarp and use it to catch the ball? It seems we interpreted before that if she caught the ball and then went up on the tarp leaving the ground it was a catch and carry and if she at least kept one foot on the ground and did not put the a foot or feet up on the tarp (for safety and/or to use the tarp to their advantage) that they could catch the ball and the ball would remain live. |
| Answer |
As to the tarp... unless a team locates it in dead ball territory (ie outside the fence or within a fenced area) essentially a player can do anything EXCEPT put a foot on it.
..she can use it to her advantage to make a catch by bracing or leaning...just can't put a foot on it. It is not dead ball territory so she can sprawl on the tarp, make a catch and then get up and throw the ball. If the ball becomes lodged in the tarp, then you do have a dead ball (blocked ball). If you have a catch and then the player puts a foot on the tarp, you have a dead ball (catch and carry). |
| 1/28/03 |
|
| Question |
Is the infield fly rule in effect even if no umpire calls it?
|
| Answer |
On page 19, under the definition of infield fly which is section 66, the definition starts off "when declared by the umpire..." and on page 131, section 18 it says the rule is in effect when "declared by the umpire..." If a ball is hit that would otherwise meet the definition but is NOT declared, it is NOT an infield fly. |
| 1/28/03 |
|
| Question |
1. Banned bat procedure-the umpiring association does not feel that they have the facility nor the finances to "ship" the bats in question to your office, etc. I would like to offer a suggestion. Perhaps when the situation rears its ugly head, and the bat must be "shipped", it should be done with the finances and avenues of the protesting institution. Of course, accompanied with the details and all fine tuning done by the umpiring crew that officiated the game in question. Unless something like that is instituted, I am afraid the bats will not arrive as directed by your procedure. This association services 12 colleges.
2. Page 151, 12/7/b/e-exception-when a runner reaches a base safely and the defensive player applies the tag with "excessive force", sure the runner is not out, but I believe it should now be a dead ball. If we are to keep it live, there must be some loud verbal call made or other similar mechanic to erase all doubt. Just giving the safe signal may lead to greater confusion during the same live ball. As you have directed the umpires to say "no tag" when the runner missed the plate and the catcher missed the tag, another similar "saying" may be in order here.
|
| Answer |
1)The rules committee did discuss having the protesting team take care of the shipping as you suggest however in order to preserve the integrity of the protest, that is not an acceptable standard. Theoretically, the protesting coach could switch the bat being sent in to "set up" an opposing coach for a violation so giving them custody was rejected.
In protest situations, a chain of custody must be maintained by persons with no vested interest in the outcome and the only one in our situation, is the umpire. Even the host team's on-site administrator has a vested interest in the outcome so that option was also rejected.
We also discussed having an account to charge but the reality of putting out a credit number to thousands of umpires and expecting it not to fall in the wrong hands and have unknown items shipped worldwide on the account was also unrealistic.
We do realize the umpire will be "fronting" the money for approximately 4 days but most of the coordinators we bounced the ideas off of felt their umpires could manage their finances around it. A tube and shipping is less than $10 from anywhere in the country except Hawaii, which is a few dollars more.
One conference has mandated that the host schools have the shipping tubes available in the press box so the umpire would only need to pay the shipping charge. This decision was made because most of the umpires fly to their conference assignments and they will need the tube to be able to check them as baggage at the airport in order to get them home to ship but I suppose you could ask your institutions to do the same as a matter of convenience to your association's umpires.
2) The ball is live in all the cases because additional runners may advance even though the base runner is declared out. In the Exceptions to b on page 151, the base runner is not out and she is also able to advance, though in jeopardy of being put out. To change the live ball to dead would eliminate those opportunities for the offense.
|
| 1/24/03 |
|
| Question |
Tarp interpretations:
1) Player catches a ball up against a tarp with one foot on the ground and one knee on the tarp- legal or illegal catch?
2) Player catches a ball up against a tarp with no foot on the ground and one knee on the tarp- legal or illegal catch?
3) Player catches the ball legally and then runs into the tarp leaving the ground- is it a catch and carry? |
| Answer |
1) Legal catch
2) Legal catch
3) Legal catch and as she sprawls out on the tarp, she is still in play and can get up and throw the ball unless she places her foot on the tarp. In the later case, it is catch and carry.
I hope this makes it easier than all the local ground rules that bring these questions up. Essentially a fielder can sit on, lay on, hurdle, lean up against, fall onto the tarp and still make a legal catch. The only thing she cannot do is have either foot on it. If she puts her foot on it, she may no longer legally contact the ball. |
| 1/24/03 |
|
| Question |
I am wondering if there is any rule in regards to where you tape from? I
would like to tape from the outfield, so I can see the strike zone, and what
my hitters are swinging at, as well as where my pitchers pitches end up. |
| Answer |
There are no changes this year so it is legal to videotape from any location. The parameters (as listed on pages 41 and 177) are:
1)the person recording the information must not be in uniform (this prevents a player from going out to watch a pitcher and then gaining an advantage and entering the batter's box);
2)that information gained outside the dugout (from the outfield in her case)may not be used during the game (this allows the coach to record information to be accessed after the game to use for statistical or teaching purposes but not accessed during the game);
3)that it must be a game which involves her team or a game that is or will be a tv broadcast (this is standard for all NCAA sports);
4)that the information may be recorded from within the dugout but may not be replayed in the dugout (so rewinding and watching a replay of a pitch or a play that can then be used to argue a call or videotaping a coaches signal pattern and replaying it to steal the signals are prohibited).
|
| 1/24/03 |
|
| Question |
I do have a question about a rule. Rule 5 Section 5 Lineup Exchange defines a correct line up card. Appendix A # 7 Improper Player Chart provides the ruling when the offensive team gives notice of an improper line up card. Here is the question: Because the position is part of the correct line up card, when the defensive team flip-flops the number 7 and 9 positions defensively during an inning, does not report swap of positions to the plate umpire, does this constitute an incorrect line up? If so, can the offensive coach protest and get the penalty award at any time or does the player have to have made a play?
We were discussing this on the way home from the clinic and I thought I just might bring to you attention and get your ruling. Although it is pretty clear what it is by book it doesn't seem like a very good "in the spirit of the game" ruling to me. |
| Answer |
You have hit upon one of the quirks of the game...one of those things that the remedy is more complicated than the policy/rule. This is going to be a longer explanation than you want but here goes...
First of all, the rule book says coaches may position their players anywhere on the field in fair territory (except, of course, the catcher). Then there are references to the pitcher as the person who starts with the ball and who is limited to the pitching plate in the circle but that's it...those are the only 2 specifically defined player positions with locations. Anyone else, theoretically, can be positioned anywhere in fair territory. Even in the definition of infielder and outfielders we have had to use the word "typically" to allow for the flexibility of some of those creative-minded coaches.
It makes sense that a coach could bring an outfielder into the infield in a bunt or slap situation but they are still the left, right or centerfielder. It also makes sense that a coach can put three infielders on one side of the infield (especially for a dead pull hitter) but they still retain their position designation from the traditional positioning.
But where we are challenged is when a coach designates a player as the left fielder and then places them next to the right field line and designates another player as the right fielder and positions them next to the left field line. Is it legal??? Absolutely. Is it totally confusing to the score keeper???Absolutely. And what about the fans? Imagine reading a sport reporter's account of a key play in the game...a fly ball is hit to deep right field where the left fielder makes a diving catch...did you envision the same play the writer actually was writing about?
So to get back to your exact question, switching location of the left and right fielders does not render the lineup card inaccurate because they can still be the fielders they were listed as, just positioned in nontraditional locations.
Read on if you have time...
When we wrote the first two rule books, we had two interesting challenges regarding positioning:
First was a question on a situation where a coach had a player pitch one pitch to start a game, play near first base for the rest of the game, except she caught the seventh inning. Each inning, the coach reported to the umpire a defensive change for the player however she continued to be positioned near first base for all but the last inning. Now you have a player getting credit as the starting pitcher and playing every defensive position in the game. I don't know if this was a marketing gimmick or to set a school record or just to prove the absurdity of the rule but by the book, it was legal. Technically, she played every position during the game but actually, she pitched, caught and played first base. While believing this was an injustice to players who actually do play more than one position, the rules committee did not do anything to prevent this. The loophole remains for any coach who might want to have a player receive all conference or all american status as a utility player to simply list her in multiple positions yet play in a single location.
Second, and this one did result in a rule addition in the 1998 rule book, we had a few variations on the use of the first baseman's mitt. A coach began the game with a first baseman (equipped with a first baseman's mitt) in her traditional position but whenever a lefty slapper came to the plate, the coach repositioned her first baseman to near third base and her third baseman near first base. By rule, perfectly legal but the reality was now you have that mitt where it was never intended. Similarly, another coach had a first baseman who used a traditional outfielder's glove but the shortstop wanted to use the larger first baseman's mitt. So the coach listed the first baseman as the shortstop and the shortstop as the first baseman. Again, by rule, the first baseman is entitled to use the larger mitt even though she is the player now playing between second and third base.
The rules committee decided to address the second by adding a note to rule 3, section 7 that requires a player to be positioned on the right side of the infield at the time of pitch release to be entitled to use the mitt. We think that provided a solution of getting the mitt to where it was intended without being too complicated.
What I have learned is never underestimate the creativity of a coach...to even conceive of these nontraditional situations...and my favorite two are still the coach who wanted to list two of her player's number as pi and infinity (using the symbols) because they are numbers and another who wanted to list a player as 11, another as 1 and a third as .1 (because they all liked the number 1) and in the first rule book, since we did not specify whole numbers, they were legal. We quickly closed that loophole too but that's how the book has gotten so large so fast. I guess we will need to talk this summer to see if the committee wants to attempt to close the loophole on positioning or continue to rely on a common sense approach.
|
| 1/23/03 |
|
| Question |
Under Jeff Hansen's portion, Tough Calls, an example is given of a batter-runner moving backward toward home plate. Jeff states, "...not only is the batter-runner out but also the ball is dead and all runners return to the last base touched at the time of the infraction." This is not entirely correct. Rule 12-3-k, p. 146 2003 NCAA Rules of Softball: Penalty: The ball is dead. Each runner must return to the base legally touched at the time of the pitch.
Ironically, I had contacted you in the past on this very penalty. It is unique to NCAA, as far as I can tell, plus it is severe, which Jeff did mention. While hard to picture as a problem, I offer the scenario of a squeeze play in which the runner from third has clearly crossed the plate before the batter-runner steps backward. In NCAA, we put that runner back on third and negate the score. If a coach knows this, I will be surprised, and if you want to change it, that's okay with me. |
| Answer |
Actually the 1997 through 1999 books had the effect the same as the ASA and High School Federation...that is "Each runner must return to the base legally occupied at the time of the infraction." It was changed to "time of the pitch" in the 2000 book and has been that way ever since. My memory on why the change was made is not nearly as good as it should be...too many conference calls and meetings to keep straight.
But I do know we spoke about it and made sure the change was highlighted in Janis Matson's and John Bennett's lists of differences between rule books. It certainly is easier to implement "time of the pitch" and in the vast majority of cases the net result of "time of the pitch" and "time of the infraction" would be the same. The only times "time of the pitch" is more severe is if the runner is extremely quick and left on release of the pitch and/or the batter-runner does not make that step backward until she is very close to first base. And in those cases, you are right, "time of the pitch" is severe enough that it is worth the coaches' time to teach their runners not to step backward.
That's the history behind the difference...hope that helps.
|
| 1/24/03 |
|
| Information |
The effect which follows rule 3, section 2, letter o is incorrect...it should simply reference the appendix and not have the wording since the effect is somewhat complicated and dependant on the time of the violation. Initially we were going to put the whole effect here but then decided to put it in the appendix instead. We never proofed that first paragraph out so even though the note is what really belongs there, there is some misleading information under effect on page 40. |
| 1/24/03 |
|
| Information |
Anyone who purchased the umpire manual, will notice the navy blue shirt is not mentioned under "approved attire". Since the manual is a guide and not rule, we are not too worried about the omission here but we are trying to be sure umpires know that they are free to wear the navy blue shirt if the entire crew concurs. |
| 1/23/03 |
|
| Information |
ASA still does not have a time stamp on the pdf file that shows the banned bats (although we do have a January 24th date at the top). Their tech person is working on it so I hope to hear some good news but for now, you cannot tell when that page was printed and therefore if it is the most recent. Fortunately, we do not have additional bats "on death row" so adding to the banned list in the immediate future is unlikely but we do need to have the ASA provide the date stamp or else we will need to devise a plan B.
|
| 1/22/03 |
|
| Question |
After watching the new 2003 Softball Officiating Clinic, I was discussing with another umpire the comments about the elimination of the navy blue shirt and the return to the powder blue shirt. However, when I reviewed the rule book, I do not find any reference to the elimination of the navy blue shirt; in fact, the rule remains unchanged that the umpires by agreement can substitute the navy blue shirt. Is the shirt change not as specific as indicated on the cd or is the change simply not reflected in the new rule book? I not that the comments relating to the silver belt buckle, the requirement that a uniform shirt must be worn under a sweater, the navy blue turtleneck under the jacket, and the placement of the American flag are all contained in the current rules. |
| Answer |
Thanks for writing in...this has been the source of a lot of confusion and many phone calls in the last few days. Bottom line is the rule remains unchanged but here's how this happened:
At the summer rules meeting, the national staff forward suggested rule changes including the deletion of the navy blue shirt. The rules committee actually deliberated a fair amount because one reaction was "give them what they want, they are the experts" and the other was "since it is permissive or an optional change, leave it in to accommodate those who recently purchased the navy shirt". The committee finally came to conclusion to meet the staff's request and delete navy blue shirts. We included the change in the front of the rule book and in the rules video.
However at the National Fastpitch Coaches Association convention in December, it was brought to the rules committee's attention that this was no longer what the national staff wanted. Soooo since the book was still in blue line and not printed, we were able to reinstate the deletion. Hence in the rule book, it now appears exactly as it has previously appeared.
If you purchased the umpire manual, you will notice the navy blue shirt is not mentioned. I am copying this to Jeff Hansen for his consideration in the next edition of the manual but since the manual is a guide and not rule, you are free to wear the navy blue shirt if you entire crew concurs.
|
| 1/21/03 |
|
| Question |
Rule 2-25 Added playing rule regarding tarp stored in the field of play
If a player does put her foot on a tarp, what is the penalty? No catch? Is the ball dead? What if she puts her foot on the tarp, then steps off to make the catch?
Dee, this has come up again and again and this is just my opinion but it goes like this: This is not an umpire matter. This is an institution matter in that they are concerned about damage to their tarp. It is arguably a ground rule that until now, has been in conflict with a book rule. The ball is either blocked by the tarp and the rule applied or it is a live ball. Once again at the risk of expressing my opinion, it is not an umpire matter if a tarp is damaged. Get it off the field of play if it is a concern. |
| Answer |
Ideally the tarp could be stored off the field but realistically, most of them are going to be in foul territory, preferably along the third base side where overthrows are less of a problem.
The real reason for not allowing a player to step on the tarp is safety...not so much damage to the tarp. Most of us who have tarps have a rip or two which are now easily sealed with the products on the market. What is not so easily repaired are the ankles and knees of the players when they contact the tarp and it rolls, shifts or unfolds. I have seen some nasty evidence from my former stint as an athletic trainer as to what tangling up spiked feet in a tarp can do.
So to prevent these injuries, there are 2 reasonable options...1)declare the area dead ball territory and kill anything that comes within it or 2) allow for catches over the tarp but not stepping on the roller. We opted for the later in the book however I am sure you will see places (such as Don E Porter Stadium) where they fence off the tarp making it dead ball territory.
Anyway, for now, if a player has either foot on the tarp and attempts a catch, the catch will not be allowed, foul ball is declared and the runners returned to their respective bases. If the fielder goes to the tarp and leans over it, or braces an arm against it to make a catch, you have a catch. Maybe one of us can make our fortune designing a storage unit that rolls for ease in putting out the tarp but does not roll or shift when stored...
|
| 1/21/03 |
|
| Question |
Because the COR 47 is a legal ball (Rule says no more than COR 50), can both a COR 47 and a COR 50 be used in a game? It would occur to me as a coach to pitch a 47 and hit a 50. If the pitcher is allowed to change balls at anytime, can she determine the COR?
The rule states that the home team shall be responsible for providing..game balls. Is that who determines the ball to be used; the home team?
What does the umpire do if two different COR balls show up in a game? |
| Answer |
I think you have stumbled on one of the things we assumed (but do not have written) happen in games. When we wrote the first rule book, we tried to brainstorm all the unwritten policies and customs to be sure we included them. Missed this one.
We have assumed the game balls for any one game are the same manufacturer and model. It would not be appropriate to have balls of .40, .44, .47 and .50 and mix in compression standards. Nor would it be appropriate to have a polycore and a yarn ball or a high and low seam ball in the same game. If this happens in a game, my suggestion is to ask the team to provide 5 balls of the same model.
The home team does decide the ball, unless there is a conference or tournament agreement.
We will definitely need to look at adding the verbiage next year. Thanks for pointing it out. |
|
|