|
Wed Dec 06, 2000, 12:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The book is FED.
The answer is (a). That is one of the most significant playing differences between FED on the one hand and NCAA/OBR on the other. There is one automatic double play in FED. It occurs when the lead runner in a force play violates the slide rule: He does not slide legally or run away from the fielder. In every other instance the umpire must be certain the defense could have made a double play without the interference. In my play B1 strikes out, but R1 was stealing. The only FED possibilities are: 1. R1 had the base stolen, so the penalty is: He returns. The interference did not prevent an out. That's what given in our quiz situation. 2. R1 would have been out without the interference, so the penalty is: He is out. In OBR and NCAA, the correct answer is (b). Those upper-level books do not care whether the defense could have made an out. The offense interfered and will be penalized. One other point: The quiz situation specifically indicates the batter interfered; that's a given. But.... Gentlemen, please read the interference statute carefully as it applies to the batter. (And not just in FED!) Deliberate interference is required for an out only for hindrance of the catcher trying to field a dropped third strike. Here's the general statement that covers: The batter may not interfere with the catcher's attempt to play on a runner, whether he is in the box or out of the box, whether it is accidental or deliberate. I have argued for 40 years that the most common mistake made by amateur umpires is failure to penalize properly interference by the batter with the catcher's attempt to throw. It's not my point here to cover batter interference. We'll do that over in the eUmpire.com Netazine in the coming month. I'm going to ask Jim Porter to step aside from his Little League duties to explain to all the esubscribers what the current official and authoritative interpretations are. The main idea with this little exercise was simply explication of this significant rules difference: Using FED rules, interference by a retired batter is NOT an automatic double play. Such interference must, in the umpire's mind, have prevented an out on the other offensive player. 
|
|
Wed Dec 06, 2000, 08:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think (w/o looking it up) that the books use words like "likely" or "could have made a double play".
|
|
Wed Dec 06, 2000, 10:58am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl, I agree strongly with Bob's statement here.
You and I have had discussions regarding who gets the benefit of doubt. I stand strong that I will not provide the offending team the benefit of any doubt. The batter hindering the catcher in your situation IS a violation which can possibly cause advantage to be gained. Any doubt in my mind as to whether the defense could have got the runner out at 2nd will go to the defense. After all, the defense has done absolutely nothing wrong to end up on the short end of this call.
|
|
Wed Dec 06, 2000, 12:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You're laying your opinions onto the FED rule, probably because you don't it. I've heard that song before: "Hell, he strikes out and interferes, I don't care. I'm banging out the runner." That's just wrong, Bubba. The FED philsophy, while you may not like it, is a modern approach to interference. The OBR believes that when the offense interferes, somebody should pay. That's an eye for an eye, the OLD TESTAMENT approach to sin. FED is NEW TESTAMENT. If the interference didn't prevent an out, why call one? Simply, send the runner back. You may not like it, as your language makes clear, but to ignore the significant philosophic and practical difference is -- to put it mildly -- unethical. Bob says "may" or "might" is sufficient. That's not the history of the rule. I said "certain," and that's what the FED said when the change was made. If the umpire is certain the interference prevented an out, then he will grant the out. Any benefit of the doubt goes to the offense.
|
|
Wed Dec 06, 2000, 01:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim
I have no idea of any "inertia" that would lead to a change. But keeping this discussion on the philosphoical level... I don't think there can be too great of debate over whether baseball favors the offense. It does. I refer to it as a slant. Papa C has called it a steep slope. What's the reason for the balk rule? Originally to prevent the defense of from gaining an unfair advantage and avoid stifling the offense but wouldn't that more or less just cover the deceptive balks? Why all the mechanical and punitive balks? Where's the defensive equivalent of leading off and stealing? I'm not commenting on the execution of such moves, just the opportunity they provide to advance without the offense hitting the ball or the defense committing an error. Even in OBR, interference in some cases must be intentional to be called. Obstruction does not get that consideration in any case. What did lowering the pitching mound have to do with defense? Even the unlikely scenarios seem to favor the offense. My 17 year old son had one last year that to my amazement and the defensive coach's consternation, he called right: 2 outs, score tied bottom of the last, R3. Batter bunts and beats throw to first. F3 sees R3 heading for home and fires the ball to the catcher. Just as he releases a dog wanders in front of the plate. Ball hits dog, dog goes down R3 scores. Defensive coach screams for interference. My son rules run scores, game over, beats feet for car. (NAPBL 4.19) There are numerous other examples in the rule book and in the managament and logisitics of the game. (Why are all the parks bringing in the outfield fences? To help the defense?) Why the slant? Hits, baserunning, base stealing, scoring are exciting and entertaining. The powers that be knew this well before television and oft cited those as reasons for rule changes as far back as the 1880's. I doubt if there will be much change in that philosophy, even though there is talk of raising the mound again. GarthB
__________________
GB
|
|
Thu Dec 07, 2000, 05:27am
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Carl, I didn't say I wouldn't apply the rule as Fed states it. For you to imply that I would circumvent it is highly improper. For you to question my ethics I feel is one step beyond that. Your response makes me quote wording from Fed 8.4.2g : "... If a retired runner interferes, and in the JUDGMENT of the umpire, another runner could have been put out, the umpire shall declare that runner out." "in the judgment of the umpire" is what I am commenting on Carl. If the runner clearly had the base obtained, he is returned to first due to the interference. I don't circumvent the rule as you seemed to indicate I would. However, if there is ANY DOUBT in my mind that the defense may have been able to retire runner a 2nd, I call runner out due to result of interference by retired runner (BR). Somewhere in reading the rule here I missed wording that official had to be "certain" runner would have been retired. Please advise where your statement "If the umpire is certain the interference prevented an out" is obtained from so I may review it. I would further add that the wording "COULD have been put out" rather than "would have been put out" somewhat substantiates my position. Philosophy of 'Never giving the offending team the benefit of doubt' is used in determining JUDGMENT portion of call and then applying that judgment according to the rules. It IS my opinion. I do not wish to impose it upon anyone, however, I do wish to promote it. It is what was provided to me (in writing) by those training Fed rules at the state level. I don't mean to kick a dead horse here, Carl. I do feel I have the right to defend my position and ethics when I feel they are improperly questioned. Again, I have tried to do so not only by opinion, but by documentation.
|
|
Thu Dec 07, 2000, 12:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As I pointed out last time, that's your opinion, and it not borne out by the history of the FED statute. 1. From the beginning of the FED book until 1990 (!), the runner was always returned. (7-3 Penalty) Always: He was NEVER to be out. Of course, during the entire history of the OBR, if a retired batter interfered, the runner if not thrown out was automatically out. Big, BIG difference! 2. In 1990, partly because of continued agitation by rules authorities, historians, and harmonizers (of which I was one), the FED "permitted" the umpire to call the runner out. Note that the FED still leaves the out up to the umpire (judgment rather than automatic), and they even "weasel" on the language: "two may [my emphasis] be ruled out" rather than "two shall be out." (FED 7-3 Pen, 1990 ed.) 3. Here's the comment on the rule change from the 1990 case book. Note carefully the wishy-washy language used to give an umpire FINALLY the right to call out a runner because of the actions of a retired batter. [My comments are inside the brackets.] "According to the previous rule, on a third strike if a batter interfered with the catcher's attempt to put out a runner, the runner was returned to the base occupied at the time of the pitch. The penalty was determined by the committe to be inadequate. The new rule now permits [not requires] the umpire to call a second out (the runner the catcher attempted to play on) if, in the umpire's judgment, the catcher could have put out the runner had he batter not interfered. [automatic out in OBR/NCAA] This rule is applied if the pitch is a third strike and the batter interferes. ...Play: With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3 [sic -- grin], R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1. RULING: If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could hae put out R1, the umpire can [not "shall"] call him out." 4. We dutifully listened to the FED spokesperson explain the new rule at the Texas State Umpires Meeting on January 28, 1990. He made it very clear that the FED was sticking to its guns concerning any double out called for interference: The umpire must be "sure" ["certain" was my word] a double play was prevented, or only one would be out. 5. OBR: The runner must be called out. FED: The runner may be called out. The umpire can call him out. That's a significant difference in the rule that disappears if the umpire does not acknowledge the disparity. That is, those umpires who determine that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defense simply allow their dedication to the OBR principle to obtain. I've heard many umpires say, in effect: "Well, if it happens to me, that runner is out unless he's halfway to third when the ball gets to second." "May" and "can" continue to indicate the umpire must be sure the interference prevented the double play. The FED ump now has the power to call the additional out, but the evolution of the rule obviously pressures him to rule in favor of the offense when he is in doubt.
|
|
Thu Dec 07, 2000, 03:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
Thu Dec 07, 2000, 04:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
Thu Dec 07, 2000, 05:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
I don't feel I have indicated I don't call in accordance with the rules. The reason I visit forums is to exchange knowledge, ideas, and to enlighten myself. I don't readily accept everything that is said just because it comes from a respected authoritative figure. Certainly, your opinions weigh heavily in my learning process. However, when I feel I have documentation which can substantiate a different position I may seek more detailed information.
FYI, I've called Fed since 1980, I like the Fed rules, and I wish ALL amateur would go that route. It's not going to happen. Your issue of "certainty" is not one I have seen in print or training and IS new to me. I am still learning. I have provided info on benefit of doubt taught to me by Kyle McNeely at state Fed meeting. Now, which do I go with. Both have substantial roots and reasons. I think I agree to disagree. IN DETERMINING MY JUDGMENT, if I err, it will be against the potential offending team and not the team at risk of being at a disadvantage. I feel that is fairest way to ATTEMPT to maintain balance. Please keep in mind, this only applies to those plays involving "doubt factor" where possibility of error is certainly higher. I agree with you on pushing the limits. Show me a cornerback who has never had pass interference on him, and I will show you a cornerback who is not covering close enough. Unfortunately, I have seen too many "tests" go unanswered particularly at the Fed level. I would hope you would agree that the better you know the game, the more you call, the less doubt factors you will have. I don't feel I penalize good play. Thank you for your input.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
