Answer to second one-question test

[cmcallm]

Wow. I thought this was a forum for baseball. It reads like a personal attack/response forum. I'll stop back after the holidays when everyone is in a better mood. And that's just MY opinion. Merry Christmas, everyone!

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by cmcallm
Wow. I thought this was a forum for baseball. It reads like a personal attack/response forum. I'll stop back after the holidays when everyone is in a better mood. And that's just MY opinion. Merry Christmas, everyone!

Happy Hanukah to you, too.

Gosh, John: Can't a girl have a little fun? (Oh, this post will still be here after the holidays.)

You want to read attacks, go back to McGriff's. Those are attacks.

[oregonblue]

FYI, McGriff's gas been quieter than this board lately. Oh, and Carl, did you get my e-mail?

[Bfair]

In checking something else I came across the following in NAPBL 6.4n and thought it would be of interest in this not so old thread:
"with runners on first and third, if a pitcher fakes a throw to third base and then throws the ball to first base, arm motion is not required by the pitcher in his fake to third"

I guess that, too, pretty well identifies that you can fake a throw (feint) without arm motion. I have still yet to see anything identified (other than opinion) that requires arm motion under ANY set of rules.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
In checking something else I came across the following in NAPBL 6.4n and thought it would be of interest in this not so old thread:
"with runners on first and third, if a pitcher fakes a throw to third base and then throws the ball to first base, arm motion is not required by the pitcher in his fake to third"
I guess that, too, pretty well identifies that you can fake a throw (feint) without arm motion. I have still yet to see anything identified (other than opinion) that requires arm motion under ANY set of rules.

One last time and never again: Read FED 2-28-5 and then tell me (hell, tell everyone) how anyone can "simulate the start of a pitch or a throw" without moving his arm.

Oh, I get it: He's going to throw with his foot as he steps toward third. Aw, well, pardon me; gosh, I just hadn't seen that move yet in South Texas. I guess it's all the rage in Tarrent County.

BTW: Just so you don't continue to think I'm as dumb as you insinuate that I am: Read carefully 8.05c CMT 2. Note that nowhere in that passage does it speak of a "fake throw" or a "feint to throw." The book specifically mentions "step." And that, dear reader, is why the NAPBL carefully points out that during that LEGAL step toward third, arm motion (a feint throw) is not required.

Get it -- finally?

Note there are two points:

FED requires arm motion. Read 6.2.4c.
OBR doesn't. Read 8.05c CMT 2.

No opinion there, Bubba.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis

HUH??? "6.2.4c Play: With Rl on first, F1 attempts a pickoff while stepping at an angle but to the home plate side. Ruling: Balk. To comply with the requirement to "step directly toward," F1 must step to the first-base side of a 45-degree angle between center of pitcher's plate and between home and first base. (6-2-4b)"
"6.2.4d Play: With Rl on third and R2 on first, F1 comes set. He then feints toward third with a movement of the shoulder,"...
How is one to reconcile the fact that even the FED in the above-noted case play recognizes the fact that shoulder movement [NO arm movement] alone is described as a "feint"?

Poor Hayes:

You're at it again. Gosh, let's see:

1. The first play you cite has nothing to do with the issue. It defines what a "step toward" is and has nothing to do with feinting. But it looks good on your resumé.

2. Now I want to you stand as if on the rubber in the set position. Step toward third and at the same time fake with your shoulder. If your arm doesn't move, well, then, I agree you're right. (And if you don't separate your hands during that fake, it's a balk anyway. Right?)

Golly, gee: You just can't stay away when you think you have something to argue with me about. It's really amusing. But I'm not the only one who appreciates the humor of it.

BTW: You didn't start back to smoking, did you? Those things will kill you.

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

1. The first play you cite has nothing to do with the issue. It defines what a "step toward" is and has nothing to do with feinting. But it looks good on your resumé.

2. Now I want to you stand as if on the rubber in the set position. Step toward third and at the same time fake with your shoulder. If your arm doesn't move, well, then, I agree you're right. (And if you don't separate your hands during that fake, it's a balk anyway. Right?)



Your point #2 is excellent and you have won me to your side as I cannot imagine a pitcher legally stepping to a base without his arm moving toward that base in the process (arm movement). It is obvious his arm has to make distance and direction to where he is legally stepping.

Furthermore, I suspect that interpretation will also suffice in answering my previous question regarding F1 stepping legally toward 2nd to drive back R2 yet making no OBVIOUS arm movement to throw. I bring this up because without this interpretation, it would mean your requirement of "arm movement" would also mean that act would be a balk. I would find it difficult to believe that you have never seen that move occur in your years of calling. I would also think you never balked it only because if you did, you would then be in class of your own. Therefore, since the arm MUST move in legally stepping toward a base, both moves must legal.

Of course it also means that the situation originally posed to start this thread would be impossible to happen.

Carl, you stated in a previous thread that I insinuated that you were dumb. I don't believe I have said anything that insinuated that nor that any others took comments in that understanding. If I have offended you, I am sorry. Please remember I am a member of those who are aware they may be fallible. I also think sometimes you may be searching for anything that can add another page to the BRD.

That WAS meant as a cut since you, too, like to throw darts WHEN THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. I DO apologize immediately for the cut which is probably the first negative thing I have said regarding you. It was said only to let you know that you, and others, are indeed smart enough to know one from the other. All are also smart enough to know whether such statements earn or lose respect. I am smart enough, from here on out, to keep my negative comments to myself. Please understand that doesn't mean I may have legitimate, opposing thoughts than yours. I AM here, as others, to increase my knowledge of the game I love so much and to be able to share my thoughts without fear of persecution from the scolarly (or is it scholarly?). I would hate to mispell a word or have a typo.

With Continued Respect,

Steve Freix

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis
And since you've decided to get personal again, NO, I haven't started smoking again, thank you. But, hopefully your manhood has been reactivated with your latest prescription of Viagra. Merry Christmas oh great senile one.

Hayes:

I'm shocked you would stoop to name calling ("senile" and "impotent," by association). I made no remarks about you personally. (I did say in a light-hearted vein that you enjoyed disagreeing with me, which to any objective observer is an obvious truth based on your posting history.)

My comments about your smoking were intended as a reminder from a three-time cancer victim (three different brands) that you've already had health problems.

You are out of line, Mr. Davis. Way out of line. I don't pay any attention to a poster after he has viciously attacked me for no reason.

[Bfair]

Being relatively new to the forums I am continuing to learn both about the forums and about baseball.

It seems there is more to talk about regarding forum etiquette than baseball. Perhaps someone should right a book on Forum Rules Differences (we could call it the FRD !!).

I agree with much said by both Carl and Hayes.
Carl certainly knows his rules, but is not infallible (as some very close to him may think). Hayes is certainly correct in that when someione tends to bring out a good argument vs. Carl that Carl can react with his little inuendos that tend more to personally attack his adversary than try to prove a point.

To summarize my feelings of this thread:

I think Carl is trying to sell an issue as a Fed interpretation that is not directly addressed by the Fed (in a word for word manner, thereby making it Carl's OPINION), that his interpretation is in direct contradiction with NCAA and OBR interpretations, and that possibily could provide him something to be added to a book called the BRD. I bring this up ONLY as a POSSIBLE outlying motive in this OPINION of interpretation which is contradictory to the other rules.

Reality being that the purpose of Fed rule 6.2.4b is to require pitcher TO STEP to the base he is throwing or feinting to. To read anything into it beyond that is either witch hunting or looking for a new page for the BRD. That position is supported by Fed casebook 6.2.4d which refers to a feint made with the shoulder (thereby acknowledging a feint in the eyes of the Fed does not have to include arm movement). Now from there, you can read into it whatever you want regarding what else must move because the shoulder did. Furthermore, Carl's Fed interpretation is not applied by umpires under any rules at any level for a pitcher merely stepping to 2nd in attempt to drive back R2. It is difficult to accept Carl's interpretation when, in reality, it is only applied at one base!

Carl, accepting your fine points on fact that an arm MUST move if a pitcher legally steps, then I can agree with you. That point denied, I cannot accept your interpretation. That only means we disagree. That doesn't mean I am not a learned umpire, as you like to imply because I disagree with you. It does not mean I am not a serious umpire, as you stated in a previous thread since I disagreed with you. It just means we disagree. You may be right, or I may be right. However, until such time as the Fed specifically addresses the issue, I prefer to accept my interpretation over yours. Get them to accept yours and I will also do so (reluctantly).

Now that I am bold enough to disagree with you, you may wish to start thinking up new cuts to throw upon me. Please remember, though, the difference between a respected wit which gains respect and obvious arrogance which loses respect can sometimes be a fine line.


BTW, Merry Christmas





[Edited by Bfair on Dec 25th, 2000 at 01:49 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis
I DID get on the rubber and it IS possible to step to third with ONLY a shoulder movement and NOT any arm feinting of a throw. Now you're getting on with semantics. YOU LOSE Carl. You BOLDLY stated that a feint under FED rules MUST be accompanied by arm movement and the FED's shot you down in Play 6.2.4d saying that no arm feint/movement was necessary in that case. Go figure?

In an attempt to restore this discussion to a less personal and more topical level, I would like to try and precis Carl's position as it relates to your paragraph quoted above. This is NOT in any sense a personal defense of Carl, or an attack on you, Hayes. As a 3rd party, and one who does NOT call FED or even possess a current FED rule book or case book, I think I can be considered impartial in this thread. Ok?

The Play you cited, 6.2.4d, certainly DOES say that there can be a shoulder feint with NO accompanying arm movement. The actual circumstances for that play, however, are that there was also NO accompanying step toward the base i.e. the shoulder feint was the ONLY movement toward 3rd base in the cited play. That is certainly possible although illegal, as the play defines.

OTOH, Carl's point was that if the pitcher first STEPS toward the base, as one would apparently be legally required to do under the FED provision, and THEN also attempts to "shoulder feint" toward that base, one of two other things must also happen:

(a) he DOES NOT separate his hands, which I believe Carl's post implies would be a balk anyway under FED rules, OR

(b) he DOES legally separate his hands, which action when accompanied by any shoulder movement CANNOT be physically achieved without also requiring at least minimal arm movement of some description except perhaps under the wierdest of circumstances.

To achieve a shoulder feint which is also accompanied by the required hand separation but with no perceptable arm movement, the hands would need to separate in the vertical plane but the wrists remain fixed together and pivot. To do anything else means that the arms MUST move perceptably.

If I am correct in my assessment, and option (b) is the scenario of which Carl speaks, then I believe Carl HAS made his point that any feint to a base which is preceded by a legal step AND the required separation of the hands MUST also include some arm movement. With that "wierdest of circumstances" mentioned as the only possible exception, I would certainly be inclined to discount any alternative view as wholly unrealistic.

Now please remember, Hayes, that I claim NO specific knowledge of, or general expertise in, the subject rules of the NFHS. All I have done here is to try to impartially follow the various logical arguments of this thread and come to some sort of conclusion based on those arguments. You may well STILL disagree with my conclusion but I trust you will accept that it has at least been arrived at impartially, and in a spirit of reconciliation of the two obviously disparate views.

My best wishes to you and yours for Christmas and the coming New Year.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 25th, 2000 at 04:38 PM]

[David B]

In reading through this thread I think that we need to realize that their IS a difference in the FED and OBR rules regarding the feint to 3B.

I believe someone called it semantics; however, if we are calling FED rules, then we need to make the right call.

If F1 makes a feint to 3B he must move his shoulder/arm and he must separate his hands. If he does not it's a balk.

That's what we have to call. I know that many times I get to reading the thread and I get lost in what is the reason for discussion of the topic.

There are people reading the threads that may be misled by the "bologna" that had been thrown around above.

Now I hope I got it right. If not, I'm sure that I will be corrected.

Thanks
David

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis
Prior to that time he [Childress] has regressed from a staunch "feint means separating hands, drawing arm back in cocking motion, making arm motion in direction of base with ball in hand BUT not releasing the ball" definition of feint. After all, THIS is what anyone with more than a week's worth of baseball skills knows to be a feint and what he was alluding to in a different post. Since those original bold statements that he cannot back up, he has progressively backpedaled.

Davis is not content to bring his name calling to this board. (I challenge him to find any message on this board where I applied a name to him. On the other hand, he's called me senile and impotent.)

That's not enough. Now he stoops to out-and-out falsehood! He quotes me above as saying "feint means separating hands, drawing arm back in cocking motion, making arm motion in direction of base with ball in hand BUT not releasing the ball." He knows that most people will not check back into the thread to see if he is telling the truth.

He is not.

I made three comments about "feint" as it applies to FED rules: (1) "But he [F1] must couple a step to an occupied base with arm motion, whether it's a feint or a throw." (2) "A feint in FED includes an arm motion." (3) How can you 'simulate a pitch or a throw' without arm motion?"

You cannot. Davis claims I'm applying my opinion to one base only, where it should be applicable to all. Well, he clearly didn't mean first: You can't feint (with or without arm motion) to first. That leaves third (where the original question lay) and second.

Someone argued the pitcher steps to second without arm motion. In 50 years of watching baseball, I never saw a pitcher turn toward second without lifting his arms in some semblance of a pick-off move. Otherwise, the turn means nothing to the runner.

Davis argues that I have backtracked from my original statement. Not for an instant! Under FED rules, a feint is "a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base." (2-28-5) I repeat what I have said all along: Can one simulate a throw to a base without arm motion? That's a question Davis has not answered.

Finally, Davis asserted that I've ignored the difference "all these years" in the BRD. Section 332 in the edition he has covered the FED definition. It never became important until the PBUC in December 2000 specifically said that an OBR pitcher must step before a legal feint and that a legal feint TO THIRD does not include arm motion.

I would have allowed the Admin's word to be sufficient, were it not for Davis and his deliberate misquoting of my statements. I will not permit that to go unremarked.

Surely everyone who checks the thread will now know the type of adversary he is and treat him accordingly. I certainly shall.

[rex]

Yet another line in the sand and another call to arms. It’s really a good thing this is the World Wide Web. Else wise some folks would end up looking at all the players on the other side of the line. But alas with WWW there will always be fresh meat.

rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis

Gee Childress....sure seems to me what I posted is EXACTLY what you were postulating at first and then made a hasty retreat from. Couple that with the fact that you NEVER addressed FED Play 6.2.4(d) and it's [sic] relationship to the shoulder feint not including any arm motion, as you DON'T have a recourse.[Edited by Hayes Davis on Dec 28th, 2000 at 02:00 AM]

FED 6.2.4d does not refer to motion by a pitcher but by an infielder (a pitcher who has stepped off the rubber). Did you mean 6.2.4c?

I think it's bad business to quote 6.2.4c because it's the very point I'm making. Listen carefully to the points of the play:

1. Third is occupied.

2. The pitcher "then feints toward third with a movement of the shoulder...."

That language does not say he feints a throw.

He could simply twist (wig-wag) his shoulder, or drop it. That kind of movement has always been a balk at every level: Nothing new there. I'm not talking about shoulder feints but "faked throws."

3. Now comes the faked throw that I'm referring to.

4. "[F1] removes one hand from the ball and makes an arm motion toward third but does not step toward third." That is a balk.

5. Continuing with legal moves: "He might, while on the plate, step toward occupied third and feint a throw [my emphasis] there...."

6. One then wants to know what "feint a throw" means. That's at 2-28-5: "A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base."

What could be any clearer? What could be any easier?

Briefly:

(1) A shoulder or arm feint without a step is a balk. FED 6.2.4c makes that clear.

(2) The case book play speaks of two separate illegal moves. F1: (a) feints with "movement of the shoulder" OR "makes an arm motion" without a step.

(2) For years, umpires argued that an OBR pitcher did not have to step when he feinted a move to a base. The PBUC ruling clarified that: The pitcher must step, whether on a throw or a feint. That means FED and OBR are now the same.

That is the point I have been trying to make.

[David B]

This thread actually has some good info if you can read through the mess.

Hayes you state your playing "devil's advocate" but it's very obvious from your last post that all you are playing is "trying to save face."

There is no pertinent information for the umpires.

The last post by Carl completely covers all of the points discussed.

I know I don't care about your personal mail or your personal support group "Hayes Davis Anon".

I just want the info that makes me a better umpire and a better instructor.

Now give up the personal facade and stick to the facts.

There are new umpires that we send to these boards and they need good and precise information.

The horse is dead!

Thanks
David