[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Mills

I don't think either is true; at least, not based on the instant question. However, I'm not sure you're clear about that to which I was referring.

I wasn't talking about "don't-do-that" infractions (e.g., F1 taking signs off the rubber, B not having both feet completely in the box.) I thought my quoting your text from an earlier post in the thread made clear that I was talking about a runner missing a base--a clear violation punishable upon proper appeal. You do agree that's not a "don't-do-that", don't you?

When you said...

...I was sure you took exception to the fact that an appeal by the defense is required, and that you preferred that the umpire be allowed the power to rule based on his viewing the infraction--just as officials do on every other infraction, as you noted. Maybe my inference was wrong.

Proceeding based on my inference being correct, and that you don't like the appeal rule, I found it curious based on a position you took in a thread some time ago. Since I don't save others' posts lest I need them to support a position many months or years hence, I can't "quote" you; however, I can describe the language (grin).

Batter hits a walk-off dinger, but misses home plate by an inch. F2 appeals the missed base, which the PU also sees. Now, I remember your recommended handling of the situation was to remind the runner to touch home as he approached, thus avoiding the situation. You said that was fair, since you did it for both teams. Should, however, the runner miss by an inch in games where the PU keeps his mouth shut, was it not your recommendation to deny the appeal? I thought it curious that you should wish the umpire had unilateral power to call the runner out, when even upon a proper appeal (remember, I said you "...recommend instances (emphasis not in original quote) of ignoring the infraction", not that you recommended it be ignored every time, most of the time, or even any other time.) you would not rule him out.

Mr. Freix, I recall, thinks my handling of this appeal (I would uphold it) is one that destines me to a life of calling lower ball. I always thought it was because I balked pitchers for stepping off with the wrong foot. (LOL)

I'm well aware that given the power, you'd unilaterally call the runner out in 99.-something % of the time you saw it, and also of your advantage-disadvantage reasons for denying the appeal in the case I described. It's merely a bias of mine to justly reward guys who use the rules to their own advantage when the opposition does something as dumb as missing a base on a dead-ball advance. Color me as a no-talent, frustrated bench-warmer looking to vicariously get even with my high-school-baseball-betters if you like, but there's something irresistable to me about players who use "that lump three feet above (their) a$$" for something other than a place to hang jewelry.

No, let me set the record straight:

I don't ignore any FED rule BECAUSE it's a FED rule I don't like. To the contrary, the more I dislike it, the stricter I bgecome. I figure if I piss off enough coaches, they'll start screaming to Indianapolis.

If they MISS the base, I call 'em out (unilaterally when it was legal, on appeal now that's it not).

I wouldn't call out a runner who scored on his own home run and who missed the plate during the celebration. But that decision would hold true for every level of play.

What people don't seem to understand is the context of my comments. I've made it clear, since my first speech at the Texas State Umpires Meeting, in 1982 (?) or 1 (I don't remember, and I'm too tired to look it up). Durwood Merrill was in my session, which was titled "How to Call a Perfect Game." Durwood said he wanted to meet the su'm ***** who could do that. But the subtitle was, "Or How I Got Scratched in Brownsville."

My point is: Nothing is gained from being technical. The example was: The #1 FED official interpretation for the spring will be: "If a ball is lodged in a player's equipment or uniform, the ball is dead immediately. There's no allowing an out by throwing around a glove that has a batted ball in it."

One of the self-proclaimed big dogs let it be known he wouldn't call that if (an unlikely occcurence) it happened in his game. That's criminal failure to abide by the rules of his league.

Surely people who READ understand the difference between that rogue and me.