Sat Mar 26, 2005, 01:23pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion
Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
I agree - the FED method is not altogether illogical. And - true - if you were inventing a NEW game ... this might be the way to go.
But, nonetheless, it's different! It's different from what most people have grown up watching on TV. At high school games people are often surprised to discover that a runner is out, for missing a base, without an actual PHYSICAL appeal. And, as I said before, at least 50% of the time (or more) the team executes an OBR-style appeal anyway.
The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
David: We usually agree, but this time you're dead wrong. (1) In high school games in my area, I have never seen a team try to execute an OBR appeal. We've done a good job of educating our coaches.
(2) I'm not sure I care whether "people" are surprised to discover that a runner is called out without a visible appeal. The teams know; that's enough.
(3) You say the FED rule is "needlessly different." Perhaps. But air conditioning cools more than a ceiling fan. Air conditioning, then, is necessarily better.
Just like the NFHS appeal rule.
One request: Explain one benefit of having the pitcher get onto the rubber, step off with a live ball, etc. Why, half the pitchers step on with the ball when it's already alive. One half of the remainder don't know what to do when they do step off.
And, to tell the truth, I had two appeals in NFHS in the past two and a half seasons, both by the same coach, both upheld. In the last two and a half seasons of OBR, I have had no appeals.
BTW: You owe me an article!
|
Well, I guess the teams in our area are nearly as well educated than yours. Around here, you're just as likely to get an OBR-style appeal than a FED-style.
The advantage of doing in OBR style? It forces the players (not the coach) to cause a runner to be out. And, it forces the one team to put the other team during LIVE action - which, I think, is the way the game is philosophically intended to be played.
Sure, under OBR, it's possible for a runner to be "out" during dead ball action, but such an out would always be self-inflicted, like one runner passing another runner during an out-of-the-park homerun.
The ball should be LIVE for one team to get outs on the other. It's philosophically the way the game is supposed to be played.
I don't have a problem with it, however. I like reading the BRD!
Regarding that other article ... NAG!
Besides, how dare you start a series using the word "INTENT". You're stealing my subject matter, man!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
David: It ain't philosophy. It's just the way the OBR grew up doing it.
Who cares how the runner makes an out? For example, the pitcher has a live ball and throws it to third, saying: "We're appealing that R2 missed that base." Would you deny that appeal because the third baseman is going to take the base? After all, he's the one who should make the appeal. Right?
C'mon. The DH produces more exciting baseball than a pitcher's three whiffs and a trot to the bench. The game changes, my friend.
|