|
|||
2007 NCAA rule interpretations from:
|
|||
| 9-18-07 | |||
| Question | A couple of years back the NCAA said all equipment had to be worn properly. Batting gloves had to be worn and could not be hanging out of the back pockets. No problem. What about players who carry them in their hands as they run the bases? Is this permissible or not? Some believe that is not to be allowed and others including some coaches, believe that is helps the players keep their fists clenched when running or stealing, helping to prevent a possible injury to the fingers. | ||
| Answer | Yes, carrying batting gloves is okay and if you really want to use elastic logic that umpires love so much, you can use gloves are made for the hands so naturally holding them in the hands is okay! Lots of coaches, even in major league baseball, teach carrying them for injury prevention so you will see it quite a bit more I think. | ||
| 4-14-07 | |||
| Question | What is the official ruling of eligible substitute players in the dugout filming during a game? Are they excluded from anything except re-viewing the recorded information? I thought the only issue was re-viewing information that had been taped during the contest. I always thought anyone in the dugout could hold and record any part of the game. |
||
| Answer | You are right. A player in the dugout may video tape during the game but she is prohibited from reviewing the tape until the game is over. Tough to police, I know but sometimes you just have to hope people can be honest. Or if the opposing coach is worried about it, he/she can have someone watch the filmer all game and bring violations to the umpire's attention... The filmer can participate in the game; the only thing that excludes folks is getting info from outside the team area and bringing it in so since she is there already, she is eligible to play. |
||
| 3-15-07 | |||
| Question | Quick question concerning Mighty Grip and Gorilla Grip. I assume either of these grip enhancers requires a wipe-off prior to contact with the ball. However, I also can see that if these gripping agents are not considered a foreign substance, they would not require that wipe-off, as that only pertains to a foreign substance. A friend forwarded me Dee's comments: Actually Mighty Grip is one of the products that is often used but it isn't possible for us to go to print with the book in July and know all the products that will be used on the field the next spring so we do not include any brand names. So if there's a product you are not familiar with, ask the pitcher to apply it as she wants to use it in a game, then have her grip the ball and hand it to you. If there is transfer of product onto the ball, then you have a foreign substance that is not appropriate. If not, then the product would be okay. So, is a wipe required, or not? I am leaning toward NOT requiring to be wiped, as its not a substance. If the pitcher is using "Mighty Grip" and nothing is sticking to the ball, do we require them to wipe their hand? |
||
| Answer | Mighty grip can be used to dry the pitcher's hand and because nothing transfers to the ball, she does not have to wipe it off. However it can not be applied directly to the ball and if it is, it will be an illegal pitch. If a similar substance is used and residue does transfer tot he ball, that too would have to be wiped off or result in an illegal pitch. | ||
| 3-13-07 | |||
| Question | At every tournament so far this year, I've told coaches to blacken or at least change the optic yellow color on their pitcher's gloves. No one has complained and they quickly marked out the optic yellow. I've based that ruling on 3.7.a which says: Gloves/mitts worn by players may not be the color of the ball but may be any combination of other colors. I have no issue with if it is your ruling to allow all logos different jurisdiction than the glove rule. I have spoken to several umpires who all said they would have ruled the same as I had. I just want to get everyone on the same page. Last night as I was going over my notes it occurred to me that technically XXX State's pitcher's glove is illegal. Mizuno is making their glove orange and black to match their team colors. The book says the pitcher's glove may be tan, brown, grey or black, or any combination of those colors. Is orange close enough to tan? Furthermore, the rule states no gloves may be the color of the ball, so I was technically wrong in only requiring the pitcher's to be marked out had that been true. I thought we had been told that the optic yellow on the pitcher's glove needed to be removed. I also noticed at another game that the team had a Wilson gloves with four optic yellow logos on their gloves. One of the logos is round, although it is only approximately 1.5 inches across on the outside of the webbing of the glove. I just wanted to drop you all a note about this because in the vendor's haste to make products for the players to match team colors are we going to run into further issues with this coloring issue. |
||
| Answer | First, as to the pitcher's glove. That player has stricter regulations as to color so when Worth came out with the white glove last year, it was okay for everyone except the pitcher who is restricted to any combination of the four colors listed. Likewise the patriotic red, white and blue glove we saw in 2003 is okay for field players but not the pitcher. I have not seen XXX State's gloves and there are no pictures on their website so I don't know if a reasonable person would say the glove is tan or orange but if the answer is the latter, then the pitcher cannot use that model. As to the logo color, all the rule book restricts is the glove color not the manufacturer's logo. Wilson, like several other companies, has made use of optic yellow stitching as much as they can as a marketing thing because it catches your eye. Several models have 4 or more logos so no matter what the position of the fielder or play, at least one logo is visible and legible in a photo. I went to Wilson's website to try to find a picture of the ZZZ glove you mention and couldn't find one so maybe it is a new model. But the NCAA does restrict logo size and number of logos on apparel but not on equipment so they are taking full advantage of the advertising space. That said though, you do have rule 10, section 13c which gives the umpire authority to have the yellow stitching colored in or taped over on the pitcher's glove IF you consider it distracting. I am sure that if you explain to the defensive coach that the logo is making it difficult for not only the batter but also you to see a strike, that they will gladly color it in. It is certainly not in their best interest to have the plate umpire distracted and watching the logo instead of the ball! |
||
| 2-22-07 | |||
| Question | We had both pitchers from XXX and ZZZ use black markers to cover up the lettering on the outside of the mitt that is optic green/yellow and the color of the ball. We know that this lettering is small but you get flashes of what can be perceived to be the ball, without blacking out the lettering.What did we decide was ok with a yellow optic ball on the glove of the pitcher? |
||
| Answer | The glove cannot be the color of the ball so a yellow optic ball on the glove would not be legal. The book does not address yellow stitching on the manufacturer's label though and we have done exactly what Ron suggests and had the player use a marker to darken the stitches or cover them with tape so as not to be distracting. | ||
| 2-13-07 | |||
| Question | Home team has a ‘Juggs’ gun in the stands behind home plate and an injured player sitting in the stands monitoring it. During the game a fan noticed that the ‘Juggs’ gun had a cable attached to it that trailed into the home team dugout. Later it was discovered that at the end of the cord in the dugout was an LED digital readout of pitch speed. Granted, the injured player was not transmitting information to the dugout, but having the read out from the speed gun viewable in the dugout could be considered obtaining information from the stands…. | ||
| Answer | I think Rule 3, section 6b applies. It reads "Scouting information obtained from outside the dugout involving current opponents shall not be relayed or given to the playing field or to team personnel during the contest." Sounds like information was being relayed into the dugout via the LED readout and provided to team personnel. Do you want to tell me which team this applies to and I will call and talk to the coach or do you want to handle it? |
||
| 1-17-07 | |||
| Question | Play: a pitcher is removed from the game or pitching position due to injury. Her replacement takes more than 5 warm-up pitches to get ready. Can the original pitcher come back to pitch in this game? The ASA and NCAA rulebooks do not prohibit it specifically, but there is discussion and confusion among umpires. Some say she cannot reenter since a coach could use this to his/her advantage by claiming injury if the relief pitcher has not finished her warm-ups. The NFHS has a casebook play 6.2.5B which clearly states that she can return to pitch even if her replacement took extra warm-up pitches. |
||
| Answer | NCAA rules do not prevent the pitcher from returning to pitch...they only prevent a pitcher who returns in the same inning from having any warmup pitches. So if a pitcher is removed due to injury, the substitute enters and is allowed adequate warmup time. Then the original pitcher is ready to return, she can do so...even in the same inning... with no limitations other than not receiving warmup pitches in the same inning. You are absolutely correct that this could be used inappropriately however in all cases, we error on the side of student-athlete welfare and safety. We hope it is never abused BUT if it is, we also hope that word will get around about a particular coach using this and then it can be addressed through their administration. Could someone get away with it once, absolutely; but if they use it several times, the coaching community will be buzzing about it and we think asking a student-athlete to fake an injury to get that extra warmup time will be a tough secret to keep. |
||
| 12-26-06 | |||
| Question | Here is a rule change not listed in our NCAA Changes. Take a look and see if you agree. Reference Rule 12-2-d-1 Award of Home Plate....."leaves the playing field in fair territory without touching the ground or going through the fence." (2006 Rule Book..P.147) Reference Rule 12-3-c-5 Award Second Base......"When a fair batted ball deflects off a fence and then off a fielder before going over the home-run fence" EFFECT....The ball is dead. The batter is awarded second base and credited with a two base hit (Double). (158) The ball has never touched the ground when deflecting off the fence, then off fielder, then over HR fence. This is a rule change which was not mentioned in our 2007 Rule Changes. |
||
| Answer | Using the 2007 book... 12-3-e on page 159...award home plate...when a fair batted fly ball ....leaves the playing field in fair territory without touching the ground or going through the fence. 12-3-c5...on page 158...award second base...when a fair batted ball deflects off the fence and then off a fielder before going over the home run fence. The first has been in the book for some time (as you noted from the 2006 book )and the second was an interpretation posted on the website last year that has now been put in the text. It's not a rule change from one to the other but two different situations...the first is a ball whose impetus from the bat sends it over the homerun fence so the batter "deserves" a homerun; the second is a ball that deflects off the homerun fence, back into the field of play where it deflects off a fielder and that impetus sends it over the homerun fence. In this case the batter "deserves" whatever bases she can reach (not a homerun) however with the ball out of play, she is not free to advance. She is awarded second just as if the ball had bounded over or through the fence. So they are different situations not a rule change from the first to the second. |
||
| 12-14-06 | |||
| Question |
There seems to be a conflict in the new 2007 rule book as follows. I have not seen nor been made aware of any corrections to the new book yet |
||
| Answer | I am still organizing the corrections that we have found to date but I have commented in blue so that while the more complete document is in progress, you'll at least have comments on the one you've brought up. The correct text is on page 40 and the changes just did not transfer to the dimension table on page 44 (note 2) nor to page 234. | ||
| 11-30-06 | |||
| Question | I cannot find any mention of a captain in NCAA. Are captains allowed in NCAA? | ||
| Answer | Captains are allowed on NCAA teams although they have no special function (long time ago they often attended the pregame meeting but now the coach has to attend it). There is no NCAA rule that only the head coach can communicate with an umpire. In fact, many catchers ask where a pitch was... or batters ask if that was a strike called on location or a swing... or an assistant coach goes to the umpire to make a substitution. NCAA rules do specify the head coach is responsible for any communication with the umpire so if someone from the dugout says something disparaging, the umpire should address the head coach about the inappropriateness of the comment....or if a player says something inappropriate to an umpire, it's the head coach's responsibility to see that it does not happen again. Also a substitution made by an assistant cannot be disregarded if the head coach goes to the umpire and says there was a mistake and the substitution was not wanted. The substitution is assumed to have come from the head coach. |
||
| 11-10-06 | |||
| Question | The Thrown Bat Rule (11-8e) change for 2007 concerning a thrown bat going into foul territory, endangering a participant, states a warning shall be issued after the first incident. Is this warning given to both teams or just the offending team? |
||
| Answer | When the rules committee discussed this, we never discussed warning the opposing team and my sense is that they never intended to include the opponent. Usually it's a particular player who has a lazy habit or odd grip that results in a dangerous situation and so a warning just brings their attention to the situation in hopes that it will not reoccur. | ||
| 10-10-06 | |||
| Question | The question came up about wood bats and whether or not they will need the ASA 2004 certification stamp in 2009. How would you respond to that question? | ||
| Answer | All bats in NCAA play must have the 2000 or 2004 seal so I suspect you will not see any wood bats in the game. They probably do meet the performance standard but my guess is most manufacturers did not pay for the right to use the seal because it is cost prohibitive. BUT if a wood bat has either seal and is not on the nonapproved bat list, it is legal. (Rule 3-2a1 and 15) | ||
| 10-06-06 | |||
| Question | Can you give me some additional information on this rules change. Live Ball Base Award. (Rule 6-1b, page 60)-An exception and an approved ruling will be added to allow for a run to score on a live ball base award after the third out of an inning. |
||
| Answer | Here's the existing rule 6.1b: b. One run shall be scored each time a runner legally touches first, second and third bases and home plate before the third out of an inning. Here are the new exceptions: 1) The runner placed on second base to begin the tie breaker is exempt from touching first base; 2) With two outs, score any run in which the runner is awarded home during a live ball but a trailing runner is tagged out prior to touching home plate. AR 6-1b Bases loaded, two outs, batter earns a base on balls. Runner from third dawdles on her way home while the runner from second aggressively advances to third, rounds the base and is tagged out. The out at third happens before the runner from third touches home. EFFECT- Score the run on the live ball award. Here's the rationale for #2 and the AR: The runner from third was awarded home because of the base on balls and the fact that she was forced to advance. Our thinking is the offense earned the run and it was an injustice to negate it because of the tag out. In addition, we thought that the offense was sufficiently penalized (for stupidity) by having the inning end rather than have the bases loaded. |
||
|
|||