Answer to second one-question test

[Bfair]

Carl, your last post was excellent and very persuasive in explaining your point of view. You might even be winning me over. To your last post I would ask the following:

1) Does not Fed Casebook 6.2.4d "acknowledge" fact that a feint may be accomplished with ONLY the movement of the shoulder? Please let's not read into it what other body parts you feel must move as result of shoulder. This is legit question.

2) If, indeed, a "faked throw" is required, are we now to balk F1 when he goes to 2nd and does not "fake a throw". Note that does not include arm motion associated with his turn to the base. And I HAVE seen F1's turn to 2nd legally without any obvious arm motion and without faking a throw. I am certain I am not alone in this category.

3) Does not the legal "step" to 3rd constitute part of the throwing motion? After all, F1 in taking such a step, COMMITS himself to the obligations imposed upon him at that base which is either to throw, or not to throw. This is no different than his COMMITMENT he has imposed upon himself when he steps to home with his pitch. I argue, is not his step part of his pitch? It certainly is defined as such from the windup although not necessarily from the stretch. Bottom line, the step, wherever it legally goes, CAN be the START of either the pitch or the throw, cannot it not? Certainly a step is not physically needed to make arm motion and throw (a ball can be thrown without stepping), but when the legal step occurs, is it not the start of action.

I think what we have here is perhaps trying to read deeper into the intent of Fed rule 6.2.4b which I see as being to require F1 to step where he intends to throw or feint (be it a pickoff or a pitch). This let's the offense know the intent of F1 and, by rule, commits him to where he stepped.

Points to consider: Other rule publications do not require a fake throw. A fake throw is not required (or at least enforced) under any set of rules when going to 2nd base. The fed acknowledges a feint can be made only with a shoulder (therefore a feint can be short of arm movement, merely a bluff, such as legally stepping to the base with the step being the start of his normal throwing motion).
These all support my belief, right or wrong, that arm movement (a fake throw or start of a fake throw) would not be required.

I think you are addressing an issue NOT SPECIFICALLY addressed in detail by the Fed and trying to sell your OPINION as fact. You are entitled to your opinion, as are others to theirs. But until the Fed specifically addresses it themselves or until you can provide a more persuasive reason, I choose to use my opinion as I feel it to be more consistent with other rules and more consistent to application of Fed rules at other bases. That seems far more LOGICAL to me. Do you see ANY MERIT in the arguments against your viewpoint? Better yet, do you perceive your viewpoint as opinion or fact? If fact, have you any further evidence beyond that already stated: have you contacted Fed interpreters? I know your connections and WILL accept your word on such issues. That's good enough for me. Carl, I may question your interpretations, but I won't question your word.

WHY do you feel the Fed would want the interpretation different from the other published rules? Certainly not safety. Perhaps fairness, but if that were case, if that was INTENDED, would they not address it specifically?

Please notice I have not stooped to degratory inuendos as IT WAS NOTICED that YOU DID NOT in your last post. All us hold much more respect FOR YOU and your obvious knowledge when you don't lower yourself to that level. Please take that as a compliment. It IS good to have legitimate discussions where each others thoughts on how the rules and interpreting the rules and publications can be considered. Despite the fact that you referred to me and specifically titled me a "rat" on a different board (for which, by the way, I failed to see an apology) I still hold you in high respect and hope to prove to you that I am here to talk baseball and related concerns, whether you agree or not.

[Edited by Bfair on Dec 28th, 2000 at 09:58 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Hayes Davis
You found a small "loophole" which really wasn't a problem. PBUC will correct this problem in their book and the whole umpiring world will be righted again thanks to you setting them straight. Thank you, thank you, thank you! One more piece of "loophole light" has forever been dimmed. However, umpires will NOT need retraining (at least in OUR area) as they've been doing it right all along.

Whatever position you played, it certainly wasn't catcher or pitcher. The issue of whether a pitcher must step when he feints is all important when you consider the timing of pickoff-attempt vis á vis pitch. You refer to it as a "loophole." If so, there is at least a loaded rifle sticking out to trick the wary runner.

IF the pitcher can feint a throw without a step, he can bluff the runner back to a base without disengaging his pitching stance. Then, while the runner falls back toward the base, the pitcher can deliver; and he has thus gained an advantage not intended by the rules.

Since the OBR "text" is very clear (step required for a throw, but not required for a feint: 8.05d), you and the umpires in your area have just been kicking that call all along. Now, you and your colleagues are no longer in that camp of umpires who simply make up the rules as they go along.

It's also apparent that until this thread arose, you had never heard of this oft-discussed controversy. BTW: In case you're interested as to what the purpose of the question was, re-read the final four paragraphs of my second post. It, too, will show that I have had a consistent goal and message from the beginning.

BTW2: I accept your three-fold thanks for getting this area of the book cleared up. You're quite welcome, I'm sure.

[rex]

Is the 2000 and/or the 2001 OBR different than the 1999?

My 1999 OBR doesn't say the following qoute

Asper C.C.
"Since the OBR "text" is very clear (step required for a throw, but not required for a feint: 8.05d),"

8.05(d) pertains to throwing to an unoccupied base. My book says notta about a step not being required for a fient.

You two are really playing with my mind. If your gonna site rules please make em the right number.

rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
Is the 2000 and/or the 2001 OBR different than the 1999?

My 1999 OBR doesn't say the following qoute

Asper C.C.
"Since the OBR "text" is very clear (step required for a throw, but not required for a feint: 8.05d),"

8.05(d) pertains to throwing to an unoccupied base. My book says notta about a step not being required for a fient.

You two are really playing with my mind. If your gonna site rules please make em the right number.

rex

It's a typo. Raise your eyes one letter.

If you're keeping up with the thread, then....

[rex]

C.C. wrote

"Raise your eyes one letter."

I can buy a typo but that’s quite cryptic. Well It ain’t E cause that’s an illegal pitch so I would guess you would mean C.

Sorry I don't get it. C says a pitcher doesn't have to make the throw after taking the step. I just don't see anything about not moving the hands/arms/shoulders.

I guess what I'm asking is. Are you saying it's not a balk if while in contact with the rubber a pitcher, in the set, can simply waive his throwing arm (with the ball in his hand) at a runner on third (or second) without taking the step and it's not a balk? Kinda like shoe-fly get back to base. Or that someone with an authoritative opinion is saying this?

If this is what you are saying please tell me again what is the rule number?

rex

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
Sorry I don't get it. C says a pitcher doesn't have to make the throw after taking the step. I just don't see anything about not moving the hands/arms/shoulders.

Steve,

I think you're getting yourself confused here. I'm not Carl, but please allow me to try to step through it for you (no pun intended - grin):

1. OBR 8.05(c) says a step toward the base is required ahead of a throw. It does NOT say such a step is required ahead of a feint.

2. Some umpires have used point 1 above to suggest that the pitcher may therefore legally feint a throw to a base other than 1st without stepping to the base first. This is despite the wording of OBR 8.01 that requires one of a pitch, a step (and throw), or a legal disengagement of the rubber after assuming either of the two legal pitching positions. Anything else is a balk with runners on base.

3. FED cured this misconception by writing in a specific provision that required a step ahead of a feint.

4. OBR recently cured this misconception by an NAPBL/PBUC interpretation that said a step WAS required to precede a feint as well as a throw.

Carl was simply pointing out that FED and OBR now agree in their application on this principle; a feint to throw must be preceded by a legal step to the base.

This was part of the earlier argument that if a feint to throw also requires both a step to the base AND a positive separation of the hands, that it is clearly impossible to achieve all three (step, hand separation, and feint) without SOME arm movement also occurring.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 29th, 2000 at 12:26 AM]

[rex]

Thanx Mate,

You know if people would just speak plain old engish without showing how witty they are, us dumbies would pick it up alot faster.

again Thanx Mate

rex

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by rex
Thanx Mate,

You know if people would just speak plain old engish without showing how witty they are, us dumbies would pick it up alot faster.

again Thanx Mate

rex

You're welcome, and my apologies for addressing you as "Steve". For some reason I had in my mind that the question had come from Bfair.

Cheers

Warren

[duckump]

I sure am glad the new year is coming as this thread has lasted 40 days and nights. Seeing all the positives and negatives has been great and in reading them I know now I'm ready for the season to start as soon as posible. I do beleive that we can all just get along. Happy New Year y'all.

[oregonblue]

I have learned a lot about baseball matters in perusing this thread. That is good. Not so good is what I percieve to be unnecessary and untoward taking of offense by a few posters.

So all of you learned umpires, for those of us who want to learn more, don't be so rabbit eared. Ignore the implications of commentary by other posters. Don't default to inferring insults.

No intent to impugn your experience or integrity as an umpire and rules guru, Carl, but shouldn't you, as an Editor of this Board, accept that some of us may disagree with you. Avoid seeing opposing opinions as personal attacks and do not engage in public displays of animosity. Just my 2 cents.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by oregonblue

No intent to impugn your experience or integrity as an umpire and rules guru, Carl, but shouldn't you, as an Editor of this Board, accept that some of us may disagree with you. Avoid seeing opposing opinions as personal attacks and do not engage in public displays of animosity. Just my 2 cents.

Gosh, Bubba, you're just another of those impotent and senile guys who....

You don't like being called that? Neither did I.

I have not yet called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest.

That is an urban legend on this Board fostered by two long-time enemies, both of whom have been reprimanded publicly here, and one of whom who has been reprimanded publicly on another Board as well.

As for disagreeing, try it and see what happens. As I have posted many times, I welcome disagreement. There's a thread on McGriff's about runner interference with a batted ball that's 31 posts long with only two stupid comments by an anonymous troll who styles himself "Fearless Leader." (Fearless? If so, why is he anonymous?)

Sharp disagreement; no consensus; no name calling except for the troll.

What I don't like are people who ask my opinion and then want to argue about it.

Bubba: "Carl, I didn't eject the batter because.... What do you think?"

Papa C: "Well, I think he should have been ejected because...."

Bubba: "Oh, yeah? Well, you're wrong. Yadda yadda, yah, etc."

Go back and reread the thread. Then come back and tell me who fired the first shots. Don't accept the unsupported assertions of those who would cause trouble.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I have not yet called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest............

What I don't like are people who ask my opinion and then want to argue about it.........

Go back and reread the thread. Then come back and tell me who fired the first shots. Don't accept the unsupported assertions of those who would cause trouble. [/B]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Carl, I took your advice as I frequently do, and reread the entire thread. What I have noticed is that it seemed to me things initiated with condescending inuendos and progressed from that point. Others may or may not agree with that if they re-read. Certainly, Hayes went far beyond what he should have. Little doubt he is aware of that and hopefully will improve for the future.

No, you haven't called anyone names on this board, but managed a pretty good job of it elsewhere. Certainly that was not in jest, was it??? A reputation can carry from field to field with an umpire, and........
I don't mind saying I felt it was uncalled for and I have yet to see an apology or even have one implied. I don't think I have ever been disrespectful toward you or shown that I am here to cause trouble vs. appropriately addressing issues of baseball. I don't know if you consider me one of adversaries mentioned. You've made me feel that way, despite fact that I agree with on most other issues. You've even indicated you won't respond to my posts. That's your choice.

I can understand when someone asks your opinion and continues to argue that it could upset you. However, they may be seeking further insight, trying to look at other factors (and bringing those forward for you to address). YOU SHOULD TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT, that a person(s) hold you in high enough esteem to care and ask for your opinion.
I would if anyone ever asked for mine (no one ever has all my life, don't know why). (grin) Don't expect others to be at your level. You know the work and efforts you've put in to achieve what you have. Some of the negatives accompany the notoriety.

Now to this thread, you started out implying that this interpretation is FACT. Perhaps I misunderstood that point. I think it is more your OPINION as I haven't necessarily seen it enforced as you profess or specifically addressed as a NEED for arm motion in order to be legal. In fact the other sets of rules specifically state arm motion is NOT required. That doesn't mean you are wrong. We could have been missing all these years, although you did not address that question when asked. Warren, a typical supporter of yours (great minds think alike) in his post of 12/28 pointed out how Fed appeared to have worded their rules to REQUIRE STEP to base thereby correcting shortfall of OBR writings. Is that not the purpose of and intent of Fed Rule 6.2.4b? You cared not to address that either when questioned. The movement of the step can START the commitment to pitch, why cannot it not START the commitment to throw or feint? You failed to address that issue when questioned.

In trying to prove your point, you fail to acknowledge ANY legitimacy in the points that are keeping those in doubt from accepting your interpretation. That does not help to prove your point. These questions are asked of you not to argue, but because you (at least in my eyes) are the respected, knowledgeable source. I don't know of opportunities I have to ASK J/R, JEA, Brinkman, or NAPBL about items I have questions about. I do have the opportunity to ask you to try to further my knowledge.

I like studying and trying to know the rules the best I can. Maybe I could be considered a younger Carl Childress? That may be a cut! Problem is, I don't know if it's a cut to me or to you! (grin) We have to walk before we run. Most here are beyond walking, at least jogging, and some may be running. We know Carl sprints when it comes to rules and we are trying to get there. Sometimes we want to know the why's and what for's. Don't take that as negative, and please don't be condescending because we don't know what you may. Most of all, be respectful to those who are respectful to you.

[rex]

I have not yet called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest


WRONG
What you think, as being cute is a pure inslute to some and I Sir am a some. I have let it go up until you have the nerve to make that comment. It’s like saying look everybody I’m so innocent. Only those that have been belittled will remember their turn in the Carl Childress barrel. You count on the fact that those reading don’t recall each and every situation.

Being gentlemen I’ve always let it pass, as I would rather not lower myself to your level. BUT Sir and I use that term with all due respect in my opinion you should retract that statement.

Rexie baby (AKA Rex the wonder dog) (AKA the person calling himself Rex {if that’s his real name})

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
I have not yet called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest

WRONG
What you think, as being cute is a pure inslute to some and I Sir am a some. I have let it go up until you have the nerve to make that comment. It’s like saying look everybody I’m so innocent. Only those that have been belittled will remember their turn in the Carl Childress barrel. You count on the fact that those reading don’t recall each and every situation.

Being gentlemen I’ve always let it pass, as I would rather not lower myself to your level. BUT Sir and I use that term with all due respect in my opinion you should retract that statement.

I'm sorry, but I cannot apolgize for my statement because it is true. I have NEVER called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest.

However, it seems that my modifier was misplaced. I should have said: "in what I thought was obviously in jest."

I can and do apolgize if you misunderstood my sense of humor. I did not then, nor do I now consider that there is a problem between us, and I will try to remember your sensitivity to my jesting in the future.

[rex]

Carl wrote

I will try to remember your sensitivity to my jesting in the future.

Not to worry about any sensitivity on my part. I’m about as sensitive as an anvil.

When it comes to something funny I’ll be the first one to start laughing. But first it would have to contain at least a little humor.

The purpose of my last post was not to solicit any type of apology or to infer the WE had a problem. I only wished to draw to your attention the fact that you claim not to have called anyone a name. As you can see you have. I’ve watched as you have racked over, badgered, and intimidated posters to the point many, MANY no longer show their faces.

You now claim a simple misunderstanding. Well I don’t buy it, BUT I’ll except it. I was raised to believe a mans word was his bond. I don’t intend to be the humor sheriff but with any contract there is always someone that will insure an agreement is fulfilled.

rex