|
I got a first hand dose of the "what ifs" last weekend at our local ASA umpire meeting.
Our group's UIC was giving a presentation on the 2013 rule changes. There aren't that many and it was pretty routine stuff- until we got to the BOO change.
Thus began a five minute session of "what if", with people talking about everything you could possibly think of on the BOO rules. Everything, that is, except the fact that if the improper batter makes an out, and it's properly appealed, the out is cancelled.
The UIC didn't really mention that point and none of the "what if" discussion was mentioning it either. At first, I bit my tongue. Somehow I've developed a reputation as a "troublemaker" because on several occasions I've corrected erroneous information being presented to our group. But, if that is being a troublemaker, then I'll continue to be one. I can't stand it when bad info is passed along to our members.
Now, the room is abuzz as everybody is discussing BOO with the guy sitting next to him, and the UIC is taking questions and trying to talk above the din of the room. The questions were along the lines of, "Which batter gets called out on this infraction", or, "When must the appeal be made", or, "What if runners advanced during the at-bat". Finally, I couldn't take it anymore. I raised my hand and waited my turn.
I get called on and said this: "With respect to the new rule changes, none of what's being discussed has anything to do with the new rule. As far as the new rule, the only difference from the old one is that if the improper batter makes an out, and it's appealed, then the out is negated. Under the old rule the out would still stand."
All I get is a few seconds of silence from the room and a blank stare from the UIC. Then, everyone went right back to talking about whatever they were talking about. We finally moved on, without the UIC ever mentioning anything about the out being negated and no one offering any questions that involved that simple point.
Well, I tried...
|