2023 NFHS Survey is out

[The Man In Blue]

I guess the rules forum is the best place to post this. It is for coaches and officials, but it always provides insight into what bees are in their bonnets for next year ...

First section asks about satisfaction with the 2022-23 rules changes (I'm going to abbreviate these, Yes/No answers):

1.) Removing the number of color restrictions on a glove
2.) Clarifying the ball's status (fair/foul) is determined at the point of interference
3.) Removing language prohibiting the wearing of jewelry
4.) Allowing all runs to score on a walk-off homerun
5.) Clarifying when a batter-runner is out if there is interference on an initial play

Second section asks "Have you seen any of these things this year?" (Never, Rarely, Frequently, Almost always)
1.) Infielders wearing head/face protection
2.) Questions about drying agents transferring to the ball
3.) Players using smartwatches for communication outside the dugout
4.) Umpires unsure of malicious contact versus interference
5.) Players wearing a wristband with playbook/playcard attached to their belt instead of their arm or wrist

Third section on topics for 2023-24; Would you favor ... (Yes/No answers)
1.) Permitting bat sensors
2.) Permitting leaping
3.) Allowing one way electronic communication from the coach to infielders
4.) Requiring wristbands with playcards to be worn on the wrist (not allowing them on the belt)

 

[Gambler Bob]

First section asks about satisfaction with the 2022-23 rules changes (I'm going to abbreviate these, Yes/No answers):

1.) Removing the number of color restrictions on a glove Yes
2.) Clarifying the ball's status (fair/foul) is determined at the point of interference Yes. I will be honest, I am not sure what this actually means. lol
3.) Removing language prohibiting the wearing of jewelry No
4.) Allowing all runs to score on a walk-off homerun Yes
5.) Clarifying when a batter-runner is out if there is interference on an initial play Yes

Second section asks "Have you seen any of these things this year?" (Never, Rarely, Frequently, Almost always)
1.) Infielders wearing head/face protection Frequently
2.) Questions about drying agents transferring to the ball Never
3.) Players using smartwatches for communication outside the dugout Rarely
4.) Umpires unsure of malicious contact versus interference Rarely
5.) Players wearing a wristband with playbook/playcard attached to their belt instead of their arm or wrist Rarely

Third section on topics for 2023-24; Would you favor ... (Yes/No answers)
1.) Permitting bat sensors No
2.) Permitting leaping NO
3.) Allowing one way electronic communication from the coach to infielders NO
4.) Requiring wristbands with playcards to be worn on the wrist (not allowing them on the belt) Yes

I would prefer to keep electronics out of the game as much as possible in regards to players wearing smart watches for communicating.

I don't like the idea of players wearing playcards on their belt. My reasoning is that if a player gets beaned in the pouch that holds the playcard they should not get to be rewarded first base. Those pouches add to much bulk to the uniform. I am fine with wristband playcards.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Thought this would get more conversation!

I actually had not noticed a player wearing a wristband on their belt until today, when we had a pitcher who did. Personally, I don't care. Baseball is being stupid with making this a hill to die on (so softball is looking into it) considering some of the other things going on.

A batter who has a pitch hit a playcard on their belt (or batting gloves/sliding mitts in their pocket, or jewelry hanging down) should NOT be awarded a hit by pitch. Clothing is a hit by pitch and that is not clothing. (Again, see baseball's antics here.) It's a dead ball and call it.

The fair/foul thing was simply cleaning up language in the rulebook that was apparently goofy. I can't even remember how they explained it in the clinic or literature, since we have always called it the common sense way.

I absolutely agree with you on the electronics issue, keep it all out ... and smart watches need to be addressed as electronic communications, not jewelry.

I'm curious @Gambler Bob why you said "no" to being satisfied with the jewelry rule. I said "no" also but I did so because I don't like the wording that puts it on the umpires to deem things dangerous with no training or guidance (beyond an obscure PlayPic that popped up).

I am wondering why they are asking about infielder's face masks ...

 

[Gambler Bob]

Thought this would get more conversation!

I actually had not noticed a player wearing a wristband on their belt until today, when we had a pitcher who did. Personally, I don't care. Baseball is being stupid with making this a hill to die on (so softball is looking into it) considering some of the other things going on.

A batter who has a pitch hit a playcard on their belt (or batting gloves/sliding mitts in their pocket, or jewelry hanging down) should NOT be awarded a hit by pitch. Clothing is a hit by pitch and that is not clothing. (Again, see baseball's antics here.) It's a dead ball and call it.

The fair/foul thing was simply cleaning up language in the rulebook that was apparently goofy. I can't even remember how they explained it in the clinic or literature, since we have always called it the common sense way.

I absolutely agree with you on the electronics issue, keep it all out ... and smart watches need to be addressed as electronic communications, not jewelry.

I'm curious @Gambler Bob why you said "no" to being satisfied with the jewelry rule. I said "no" also but I did so because I don't like the wording that puts it on the umpires to deem things dangerous with no training or guidance (beyond an obscure PlayPic that popped up).

I am wondering why they are asking about infielder's face masks ...

I would prefer not to see players wearing jewelry during the game. I do believe in some rare instances that it can cause injury. Before you know players will start wearing ridiculous amount of jewelry (long earrings, big chains, etc.) I would be fine with small studded earrings.

I answered no because I do not want them to remove the language that says that jewelry is not allowed.

I also thought this would get more attention. Not the first time I have been wrong. lol

 

[_MIA_]

As long as both teams have to play by the same rules I am good with whatever

 

[YoungBuck]

Let them leap (long overdue).

 

[The Man In Blue]

As long as both teams have to play by the same rules I am good with whatever

They play by the same rules, the coaches and parents just don't want them applied the same way.

 

[gdc03120]

NYSPHSAA (NY State) just FINALLY said, "Screw it" to dealing with jewelry and said to all sports, "Use whatever your sanctioning rule organization uses for their jewelry rule". Since NY is the ONLY state in the country that uses USA Softball for its rule set, we're finally allowed to tell coaches, "We don't care about jewelry anymore unless we see anything serious/dangerous. We'll let you know if/when we do." I think it's been a long time coming.

That being said, they have also required coaches to wear the hard-shell hats in the coach boxes (or full helmets for player-coaches), but will not make a statement about requiring face masks for infielders at any level (which I think is much more important, personally, but that's just me).

 

[Dabears17]

Survey is at: https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/nfhs-sport-questionnaires/

 

[LEsoftballdad]

NYSPHSAA (NY State) just FINALLY said, "Screw it" to dealing with jewelry and said to all sports, "Use whatever your sanctioning rule organization uses for their jewelry rule". Since NY is the ONLY state in the country that uses USA Softball for its rule set, we're finally allowed to tell coaches, "We don't care about jewelry anymore unless we see anything serious/dangerous. We'll let you know if/when we do." I think it's been a long time coming.

That being said, they have also required coaches to wear the hard-shell hats in the coach boxes (or full helmets for player-coaches), but will not make a statement about requiring face masks for infielders at any level (which I think is much more important, personally, but that's just me).

Yup, the fact they made my daughters remove their post earrings before every game was absurd.

Now if they would just change the run ahead rules to actually match USA rather than making us play 5 innings when we're up 20-0 after the 2nd inning.