[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Just so I have the record correct, an Illinois state interpreter (not Holman BTW, thanks for reading) tells us to not call this play as verbal obstruction and you say he can't do it - Illinois is wrong.

Yes, that is what I say.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Yet, a few days ago, you cried that umpires need to make the expected call (even though the rule book says differently) because the interpreter/assignor/coach demands it.

Okay...which side are you on here?

I take it my counterpunches have made you a little groggy. Down here in Texas we understand the difference between calling out a runner on the first half of a double play and ignoring verbal obstruction. A realist calls the out and penalizes the obstruction.

From my book On the Bases, Referee Enterprises, 1987, which was quoting my "Doing It" column of May 1984:

When I was growing up many years ago, I remember listening to Gordon MCLendon, the "Old Scotsman." He was sitting in a Dallas studio [KLIF] doing the play-by-play of major league baseball: "On the Liberty Broadcasting System, direct from Yankee Stadium by wire report...."

What we unsophisticated country boys didn't realize is that "wire report" meant Gordon was recreating the game from telegrams. I remember his discussing back then that major league umpires always called a "phantom" out at second. Most still do. [Most now - 2005 - don't, because of the relentless eye of the camera.]

Since both sides accept the "out" as the legitimate result of the play, what do I gain by insisting on a literal interpretation of the rule? Rather, baseball tradition makes that play one of the easier ones I have to call in any game.

My advice: When the throw beats the runner a long way, don't worry about whether the fielder kicked the base after he released the ball or before he got it; don't even worry if he skipped kicking it altogether. Just hunker down and get ready for the play at first, where you're going to earn your money. In other words, the key consideration is: Could the fielder have made the play? If your answer is "Yes," you've got an out.

Naturally, if the throw is wild and it pulls the pivot man away, you'll call, "Safe." And naturally, if that force play at second is not a part of a double play but the only chance the defense has for an out [That was the play Joe West called correctly in this year's ALDS. In an earlier thread, you incorrectly wrote that I disputed his call.], or if it's the third out to end a half-inning, then once again, what I see is what they get: If the fielder doesn't have the ball when he tags the bag, he doesn't get an out.

That's the kind of accepted call I'm talking about. And I'll bet a dollar to a penny most amateur umpires in Illinois would make the same call.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
The rule book does not specifically mention this play. It was highlighted in a ten year old newsletter and that is your justification.

The penalty for verbal obstruction is older than that. It's been a part of the FED philosophy since March 1988:

SITUATION #18: If a fielder yells "go," ... is this obstruction? RULING: Obstruction has occurred ... and the appropriate award is made. The player committing the act is warned. If he does it again, he is ejected. If another player on the team does the same thing, the umpire can issue a team warning.

That's seventeen unbroken years that the FED has penalized verbal obstruction. Now, as you did with the lodged ball ruling last year, you're telling me Illinois and right-thinking umpires everywhere should ignore completely verbal obstruction. Who is the conservative in this discussion?

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
We have very similar plays that permit this type of behavior. You choose to ignore the correlation.

(1) Explain who "we" are and list the "very similar plays that permit this type [which type?] of behavior."

(2) I fail to see the correlation. Explain it again, please.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:23 PM]