Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Tim,
Remedial math may be in order. Several hundred umpires were present when this matter was discussed at the IHSA baseball convention. Anthony Holman is a sitting Rules Committee member who also runs IHSA baseball. Bob Laufenberger made the rulng known when he was asked on another site. If you believe only one umpire is championing this cause, I would hate to see the indicator you use. Does it have numbers on it?
A plate umpire that calls obstruction at second base in a two or three man system...you may want to read 10-2-1 again. Check the last sentence of that rule. Do you really want me to start calling balls and strikes for you from "C"? I can see them just as easy as you can see second base!
Insisting that this action is obstruction is ludicrous. If the rule was meant to be called, they would have put it in the rule or case book, not a ten year old newsletter. Instead, the "expected call" camp has vanished. This is a terrific example of being an OOO. Verbal Obstruction indicates that his actions hinder or change the direction of play. If the runner ignores him, why can't you? OOO...pick me, I think I know.
|
We all remember how accurate people at the IHSA are. Last year, they said ignore the ruling on a ball lodged in the glove. It would be changed in the: (1) interps for 2005; or (2) in the book for 2006.
Oops!
The FED position on verbal obstruction is clear - and has been since the 10-year-old ruling you disparaged. The most recent pronouncement appeared in the 2005 case book. (2.22.1a)
You are symptomatic of much that is bad - and wrong - with NFHS umpires. You ignore a rule, not because the offender failed to gain an advantage, but simply because you don't like the rule.
Shame on you.
Shame on the IHSA. Again!
BTW: You don't have the smarts or the experience to take on Tee Alan.
[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 28th, 2005 at 08:23 PM]