Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
Actually, I do get it.
Not all rules are enforced, I know that.
Carl does not enforce a certain balk, because in his area it is commonly overlooked, and it does not decieve anyone. If it were called, it could very well lead to an ejection.
Rich does not enforce making F5 pitch if he throws one warmup pitch. F5 throwing a warmup pitch doesn't hurt anyone. If Rich were to enforce this, it could very well lead to an ejection.
I don't understand how one can enforce one of these but not the other. If an umpire enforces either of these rules, things may go down the drain quickly. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to that?
|
Bravo! That's the best post of yours I've ever read.
We can approach it scientifically: (grin)
1. An umpire can call both rules.
2. An umpire can call the balk but not the substitution.
3. An umpire can call the substitution but not the balk.
4. An umpire can ignore both rules.
Peter suggests that the proper course of action is to be politically correct. Do what the Big Dogs do.
Since I'm a big dog in my state, I help set the agenda for ignoring rules. So I say, Do what I do.
Consider two scenarios:
Scenario one: The pitcher in the windup is told to pitch from the stretch. Slowly, deliberately, without moving his arms, he steps off with the wrong foot. Think "disadvantage/advantage."
If the pitcher doesn't simulate a pitch, then he's gained no advantage. Would you agree?
Scenario two: The pitcher's team just went three and out on five pitches. Now, he has to trudge back to the mound in the Texas heat. So the third baseman goes out, grabs the ball, and throws three or four times to the catcher, whereupon out comes the pitcher of record.
Think "disadvantage/advantrage."
I argue that the potentional for one team gaining an advantage not intended by the rules is far greater in Scenario Two than in One.
How are things in your town?