Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
I thank you for your explanation. I don't have my books from 1990 but certainly will accept your knowledge and history.
Now I will ask questions.
(1) Wouldn't all rules for this situation be more consistent if games played under Fed gave benefit of doubt to defense as discussed?? (and that is within the limits of the rules.) I would like to think that the consistency would take priority over "history" of the interpretation, and
(2) aren't you providing offense with little penalty for the infraction of interference by retired BR by putting them in position of having little to lose. I've seen that happen and they will continually "test" ump to see if he is gutsy enough to make call. (and I have seen many who are not gutsy enough to make the call. If it can be seen from Cleveland it must have happened, but if those in Chicago saw it, it wasn't obvious enough).
That is why I do not like to see offending team gain benefit of doubt. They will keep testing in attempts to gain an advantage. Non-offending has done nothing wrong to be at disadvantage. If I err in my JUDGMENT, I don't want the error to go against potentially disadvantaged team.
|
Dear Anon: (Well, I don't have a name to attach to you, do I?)
I'm sorry you don't have the materials necessary to understand the history of the statute you are arguing.
1. I know I can't answer a question with a question, but.... Wouldn't all games played under FED auspices be more consistently officiated if all the umpires followed the history and practice of the FED and gave the benefit of the doubt to the offense?
You and I know that prolific (if not respected) posters to the Internet argue that FED rules are foolish and unnecessary, and "dumb" down the officials; some even argue that enforcing them should be left up to a pregame conference with the coaches; an even larger group of umpires argues ignoring certain FED rules completely: "That's not baseball." I have said repeatedly: "If you take their money, you owe them a game called fairly
under their rules." You ask for consistency in the name of a principle
barely acknowledged in FED custom. I ask for umpires to call it as FED prefers.
2. You write: "I've seen that happen and they will continually 'test' ump to see if he is gutsy enough to make call. (and I have seen many who are not gutsy enough to make the call." Are you saying you have seen many instances of
this specific play? Interference by a retired batter with a catcher playing on a runner stealing and fewer than two out?
Assuming you are writing about
any call where one team tests the guts of the umpires, I would agree such occurs. That should have no effect on our administration of the rules. The fact that a team wants to discover its limits is not surprising. I'm arguing they should discover those limits at once, which include calling the game by the established rules and custom.
Finally, you say: "[A]ren't you providing offense with little penalty for the infraction of interference by retired BR by putting them in position of having little to lose. [sic]"
That is the most amazing comment of all. Carl Childress is not "providing [the] offense with little penalty." He is simply following the penalty established by the FED rules committee. Remember, for over a quarter of a century, the penalty was simply always to return runners to TOP bases.
I have waxed long and semi-hot over this issue because it is symptomatic of the attitude of many umpires whose first love is OBR and who officiate high school only because it's expected of them. Says the mom at the LL park: "My, my, you're so good. Why don't we see you calling the kids in high school?"
There are several FED rules that umpires on the Internet rail against again and again, going so far as to say: "Not on my field, by Golly":
1. pitcher moves shoulders to check runner
2. pitcher doesn't stop at or below the chin
3. runner misses a base or leaves too soon
4. force play slide rule
5. batter in the box accidentally interferes with a catcher
6. verbal obstruction
7. restriction of coach to the dugout
Now, add:
8. no automatic double play when a retired batter interferes.
Where does it stop?
Remember, I am not attacking you. But I am vigorously attacking the position you espouse because it is part and parcel of the general attempt to disparage FEDlandia, as someone used to call it.