Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Mills
The batter's team was in the third-base dugout. The batter belongs in the third-base on-deck circle. He was on the first-base side of the plate between the catcher's box and the dugout. It is the umpire's job to chase him back where he belongs when he sees this.
Are you diligent about that? I know that absent any noticeable friction between the teams, I am not. Might be a good addition to the plate meeting: "Coaches, keep your guys in your own circle and not wandering about."
|
This is just a brief note offering an outsider's view of these issues and on differences between baseball in the USA, especially FED and NCAA baseball, and baseball Down Under.
I think I understand WHY the NCAA has decreed that the on deck batter must use the on deck circle closest to his own dugout. I understand that as an attempt to avoid taunting, among other things, and so to lower the potential level of "heat" in a game by this measure. In this case, however, a rule designed to prevent an offense has actually produced a WORSE offense! Would this incident have even occurred if there had been
no special lines drawn around who can occupy which on deck circle?
Once upon a time the batter went to the on deck circle closest to the batter's box he would be occupying. That still happens in most non-NCAA adult amateur baseball, doesn't it? It certainly still happens in ALL baseball Down Under, at any level.
This batter was
left-handed, and so he naturally went to the 1st base side on deck circle, which is nearest the left-handed batter's box. Did he know better? Maybe. Then again maybe he was still mentally operating under MSBL rules or similar. Maybe it just didn't occur to him at the time, and he simply did what he had been used to doing in other branches of the sport, or what came naturally. Or maybe the rule just wasn't enforced regularly, and so he was doing what he had always done.
Should the umpire have enforced the special NCAA rule? Yes. Even if the kid was 24 feet from home plate, he was still on the "wrong" side of the plate, and about 50 feet away from where he
should have been! If the umpire hasn't been added to the action, he should be. It was his responsibility to see that the rule was enforced. It's not like he didn't have time. There were at least 2 warm up pitches thrown, with the batter on the "wrong" side, BEFORE the one that did the damage was thrown at him.
This example speaks to both of the sub-threads that have been running here, IMHO. What we have is a case where a special provision WAS made by the NCAA in order to prevent trouble, and instead it ended up being the very source of more serious trouble. Sometimes making legislation that makes one group or another especially protected only increases the hatred of that group instead of abating it. And sometimes making "special" legislation doesn't deter or prevent specific crimes, it only draws sharper distinctions and creates "special" crimes. It would be far better IMO to blur the distinctions based on race, colour, creed, etc by punishing ALL breaches alike but more severely and regularly, than to draw the divisions into sharper focus - based on race, colour, creed, etc - by enacting special anti-hate legislation. It would also be far better IMO to punish the real crime instead of creating an artificial barrier, ostensibly to prevent an offense, and in so doing only end up creating a potentially more serious offense. That's what happened at Wichita State, IMHO.
Just my $AUD0.05c worth.
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 1st, 2001 at 05:26 PM]