Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Quote:
Originally posted by hardball3b
Gentlemen - this discussion (and hundreds more like it) have finally broke the straw on this camels back. Is there ANYONE out there that can give a honest example of why there are rules differences (OTHER THAN FOR SAFETY, THE TIME WINDOW, & PARTICIPATION?SUBSTITUTION) between OBR, Fed, or College? I just don't get why in OBR, a balk is not an immediate dead ball, and in Fed it is. The pick being discussed is just another example. Wouldn't life on the diamond be better if the "rules where the rules"? Other than "political ego's", what's is the reasoning behind playing a simply complicated game under different sets of rules? One thing it does do: Increases my resource library!
|
Easy:
Despite the common belief that MLB is adults playing a kids game, it is not. Baseball is an adult game and its rules (OBR) are written for adult players.
When adapting this game to youth and students, leagues and officials have adapted the rules for the level of their players. 60' diamonds, malicious contact, no lead-offs are some of the changes made for kiddie ball.
The honchos in FED make changes to make the game more appropriate for their level based on four considerations:
1. Safety....malicious contact and FPSR are examples.
2. Increased participation. Re-entry is the example here.
3. Speed-up... Courtesy runners
4. Lack of guaranteed and uniform training of umpires. The different balk rulings are the best examples here.
Most organizations have reasons for altering the rules. It doesn't matter if you agree with those reasons or not. If you want to work their games, you call by their rules.
|
Garth, I believe much of what you say above is true. Yet, I can't help getting the sense that the FED rulemakers often create differences just for the
sake of being different. I think most umpires understand the points you mention above. Those
aren't the frustrating rules.
In
this thread we've been talking about a pitcher's ability to execute a pickoff from the windup position
without first disengaging the rubber. OBR allows it, FED does not.
This rule difference (like many similar ones) has no logical basis in any of the points you've mentioned above.
Personally, I think FED would be better off adopting OBR rules with only a list of differences. Those differences should only involve the things you mention.
This is
exactly what USSSA baseball has done. They adopt OBR rules and list the differences ... all of which involve logical things that address
only the issues you mention ... substitution, participation, safety, etc..
Why can't FED's appeal plays be the same as OBR? Safety? Participation? The funny thing is that
most teams attempt to execute an appeal OBR style anyway.
Here's what I just saw last week in a High School Varsity game.
Play: R1. One out. Tied game in late innings. Batter hits double. R1 advances to 3rd. Action stops. There is talk that the BR missed 1st. The ball is returned to the pitcher. He comes set, he steps off, and he tosses the ball to F3 for the appeal - which is denied. The pitcher nearly threw the ball over F3's head when he made the throw. Stupid.
Why did this play out the way it did? Had that runner missed 1st, this would have been a completely valid and acceptable way of appealing the play. But why didn't they just do it
verbally - as allowed by FED? Why make an unnecessary throw? It's because even the
players and
coaches have a difficult time keeping track of all the rule differences from what they see nearly every night on TBS when the Atlanta Braves play the Philadelphia Phillies.
That's the system of rules with which people have grown up with and are familiar with. FED is an acquired and learned aberration.
Most people are
much more familiar with OBR-style of play than with all the quirks in FED. Everybody has an easy time understanding why high-schoolers can't bull over a catcher ala Pete Rose/Ray Fosse. But they have a difficult time digesting (and remembering) seemingly random differences.
A batter who runs into his own fair ball while exiting the batter's box is
not out in FED ball, as long as the umpire considers it unintentional. Why have such a rule? It's different for
what reason? He should be
out just like the big leaguers. And don't tell me this rule makes it
easier on the umpire as is often brought up with many of the rule differences. It would be
much easier to simply call the BR out ... and much less ensuing conflict. My guess is that most high school players, coaches, and fans would
expect the batter to be out in this circumstance and probably wouldn't even make the argument that "it was an accident." Further, there are probably a host of umpires that don't even know that they have the option of
not calling the BR out in this circumstance. Invoke the FED ruling on this play then
duck.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:49 AM]