Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Reed
Quote:
Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
WWTB,
I thought there was something funny about the rule, because the Case Book answer in 3-2-2B seemed to contradict the rule book. It says in the Case Book that the runner is called out immediately for coach's interference, but the book makes no reference to the time the runner is declared out.
So, you say that you and Carl already addressed the issue? Is that what Carl meant when he said that the Fed was going to rework 3-2-2? They need to look at the language in 5-1-2 also while they're at it.
|
How does the Case Book contradict the rulebook, when the rule book make no reference to the timing of the out call?
WWTB did say that Carl had addressed the issue, but actually Carl didn't. Instead he commented on the Case Book ruling for coaches interference when the ball was already dead. It's odd that you don't remember-- he made the comment in a reply to you!
Quoting Carl:
Steve: One minor correction: In FED the ball does not have to be made alive for either the coach or a player to make an appeal.
Second: I have it on good authority that the NFHS is going to release an official interpretation that will support an umpire who calls out the runner for interference during a dead ball if it assists the runner in running the bases.
Everyone I've talked to understands that the rule is, not ambiguous, but wrong. They're going to fix it, so I'm told.
So far as I know Carl hasn't proferred an opinion on the timing of the out for coach's interference during a live ball, or whether the Case Book is right or wrong.
Dave Reed
|
I'm not waiting for Carl to grant us his opinion. The Rule Book states that it is a delayed dead ball in Fed and NCAA. Why do you need Carl to tell you if that is satisfactory?
The Rule Book says that a coach assisting a runner is a delayed dead ball and states the penalty. The Case Book speaks of a dead ball play, while the Rule Book speaks of live ball calls. I've never argued that the rulings shouldn't be made clearer. Putting words in my mouth is never a good idea. I have argued that when it comes to making a ruling - about the play I first offered a week ago - we should rely on the Rule Book since two separate rules guide us clearly. When the Case Book references the exact play - not the case here - you can use that to support your call. The Case Book is not wrong, as you've implied. It is using a play that does not correlate with the Rule Book. There will likely be two separate examples given for future printings. The current one is accepted for dead balls and one that reinforces the delayed dead ball mechanic.
I thought we were supposed to be debating an NCAA ruling. I proffered that the NCAA ruling is not all that different from the Fed counterpart. One individual insists that it is not. More than a few veteran officials have told us how and why they would rule on this. Almost all of us are in agreement on how we would handle both levels of ball.
That good authority you speak of was mentioned two weeks ago..right here. It is not a secret that they will have to issue a clarification. The language will certainly change next year. This is the way that they justify their existence.