Over on the paid site is the press release from the National Federation about baseball rule changes for 2005. The release was emailed around the US at 1:48 CDT. It's being posted at 2:15 CDT.

That's a lag time of 27 minutes.

You won't see that in <i>Referee</i> magazine for two months. Bottom line: They simply can't compete with us when it comes to immediacy of news and information.

BTW: Both members and non-members may click on the title to read the free article.

Immediacy?

These changes were available and, indeed, were distributed to many individuals two weeks ago. Granted, that was prior to the issuance of a formal release, but never-the-less, a good journalistic organization would have had that "scoop" then.

Since then, these changes have been discussed and debated on various sites and within certain lists. They are now old news whether printed on pulp or in html.

Mr. Benham: You're the kind of guy whose "good journalism" would have listened to unofficial chatter and announced that "Gephardt is Kerry's Veep."

As for me, I'll wait until I see it writing. That's "better" journalism.

Have a nice day!

BTW: It will still be two months before the "other guys" cover this. And they weren't part of the unofficial chatter either. Yet I'll bet a dollar to a penny you didn't write them a note complaining about their lack of "up and at 'em."

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 6th, 2004 at 04:01 PM]

Dosen't it contradict itself? First it says restrict to dugout, then it says eject. I am reading this wrong?

What it means is that an illegal player is restricted. If that player <i>again</i> enters the game: on offense, he's out and ejected; on defense, simply ejected.

Carl,
I know a thing or two about getting in a pissing contest. I've got to be honest, with high school baseball season over and the changes not monumental, who cares? Congratulations on being the first to publish the news release. But, Garth alluded to discussion here and on Mc**** involving the shoulder turn and face mask decisions a couple of weeks ago. Being first isn't always great...ala the NY Times this morning. Do the other guys have a website to post the release? As a print based, time structured media (no sense printing the 2005 baseball rules in July 2004) do they realize the folly of such action? This site affords you a tremendous luxury. Enjoy...we all do.

Don't forget...several years ago the NFSHS proposed that the defensive was forbidden to throw the ball around after a strike out. A week AFTER the season began, the rule was dropped. I think we've seen these geniuses screw the pooch time and again...even after the rule books were printed!

Anyway...good job getting the facts. Just don't be surprised when the "facts" change.

"It is now legal for a pitcher to turn his shoulders to check a runner if he is in the set position and in contact with the pitcher's plate."

"Turning the shoulders after bringing the hands together during or after the stretch is also a balk."

Please someone explain this to me. Would the pitcher not be in set position when he brings his hands together after the stretch? These two sentences seem to contradict.

DG:

What many people call the stretch position is properly called the set. (Remember, a pitcher doesn't have to stretch. But he must come to a stop.) With that in mind...

You're not a FED umpire, or you'd get this right away. Here, from one of my articles over on the paid side, is information about a pitcher turning his shoulders:

<font color=navy>1988: Rumble to <i>Referee</i>: Moving the shoulders after intentionally contacting the pitcher’s plate is a balk. The BRD carried that as an official interpretation in the 1989 edition, the first published by Referee Enterprises..

1990: The same interpretation appears in the case book (6.1.1g)

1992: The case book ruling is a Point of Emphasis.

1993: For the first time in the rule book FED prohibits turning the shoulders while intentionally in contact with the pitcher's plate.

1997-1998: The infraction is once again a Point of Emphasis.</font>

According to Bob Pariseau from San Francisco, that was part of the "dumbing" down of FED umpires: They can't tell the difference between a feint (quick moving of the shoulders to fool the runner) and a check of the runner (anything slower than a feint). So we'll take it out of their hands. Now they don't have to judge what shoulder movement is a feint. <i>Any</i> shoulder movement is a balk.

The problem was that Brad Rumble didn't realize that NCAA and OBR call it a balk when the pitcher swings his shoulders <i>after</i> he's come to the pause in the set position. He ruled it was a balk anytime.

Just so we're clear: Now <i>before</i> coming to the pause in the set position, the pitcher may turn his shoulders (slowly, grin) to check a runner. If he does it after the stop, it's a balk.

But the FED always does something wrong, it seems. They've decided it's a balk if the pitcher while in the wind-up position, swings his shoulders to check runners.

Why? That can't fool anyone because it's <b>illegal for a FED pitcher to attempt a pick-off from the wind-up.</b>

As I am wont to say, "Lah me!"

By the way:

Someone alluded to a discussion here on the "new" FED balk rule. I've gone back 60 days, and my old eyes couldn't find the thread.

Help!

Garth Benham wrote:

Did you notice the date on the press release of when the action was actually taken? Two weeks ago, Carl. Those of us who were notified and discussed the rule changes were not acting out of rumor or speculation. We had the real information, two weeks before you were notified.

But I'll bet Referee doesn't have to dredge up two year old columns to fill space. [/B][/QUOTE]Mr. Benham:

Carl Childress writes:

We "filled space" with a specific column written to help with summer problems. In the 5 years of Officiating.com, that is the only "Instant Replay" that made it to the front page again.

BTW: When ever the press release was written, it was not <i>released</i> until today. Officiating.com is on the "A" list. If you received an email from Bruce with an earlier date, please post it, and I'll stand corrected. Otherwise....

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 6th, 2004 at 07:55 PM]

My, but you're getting cranky in your old age.

<b>Why would I complain to Referee? I didn't complain to you. There is, as most former educators of English are aware, a difference in taking note and complaining.

I would have to care about the success or Officiating.com or your accuracy to complain. I don't.

As for your lame attempt at a <i>Dewey Wins</i> comparison, did you notice the date on the press release of when the action was actually taken? Two weeks ago, Carl. Those of us who were notified and discussed the rule changes were not acting out of rumor or speculation. We had the real information, two weeks before you were notified.

No need to get you panties in a knot, Carl. If it's important to you to amaze folks with your new found fact that the internet is faster than publishing on paper, feel free to gloat.

But I'll bet Referee doesn't have to dredge up two year old columns to fill space. [/B][/QUOTE]Mr. Benham:

<b>We "filled space" with a specific column written to helpo with summer problems. In the 5 years of Officiating.com, that is the only "Instant Replay" that made it to the front page again.

BTW: When ever the press release was written, it was not <i>released</i> until today. [/B][/QUOTE]

Just frosts you to be wrong, don't it?

I am a FED umpire, among other things, and I have always been amazed that FED wanted balks for something that would not be at any other level. When I think of stretch, I think of those movements prior to coming set. Now FED says you can turn shoulder when set but not after bringing the hands together during or after the stretch. After the stretch is set in my vocabulary. If stretch=set and you can turn when set, but not during or after the stretch, then I remain confused because after strecth=set.

Mr. Benham:

<b>We "filled space" with a specific column written to helpo with summer problems. In the 5 years of Officiating.com, that is the only "Instant Replay" that made it to the front page again.

BTW: When ever the press release was written, it was not <i>released</i> until today. [/B][/QUOTE]

Just frosts you to be wrong, don't it?
[/B][/QUOTE]Benham:

My, my: Selective quoting again.

I've followed your "career" as a pretend calming influence in the windy ways of our Forum.

You're a fake, Garth Benham. There's not ten cents of substantive difference between you and the McGriffers.

You tell me it just "frosts" me to be wrong. Nobody like to be wrong, of course -- as you no doubt know from your own history. But I challenged you to post an email from the FED with an earlier date than ours. You replied to my post, but carefully left that challenge out. So as yet, I don't know where I'm proved wrong.

Lah, me, dearie. (I say that because you seem obsessed with a guy wearing panties. Sorry, not my cup of tea.)

DG:

It's important to use the proper designations, whether they're in your or my vocabulary.

FED (but the definitions are the same everywhere): "The pitcher shall pitch while facing the batter from either a windup position or a set position." (6-1-1)

The set position is defined by the pitcher's feet: "Before starting his delivery, he shall stand with his entire non-pivot foot in front of a line...." (6-1-3)

The pitcher <i>can</i> turn while he's in the set position. That's the change for this year. (He can't do it in the windup.)

Now, in preparation for delivery from the set position, "natural preliminary motions such as only one stretch may be made." (6-1-3) Note: "May" be made: A pitcher need not stretch. He may simply bring his hands together in front of his body and stop. It must be a complete and discernible stop.

ONCE HE STOPS, he may not turn his shoulders else it's a balk. That matches the rule in NCAA and OBR.

I hope this diffuses some of the mud.

BTW: My association has enforced the letter of the law about "shoulder turning" since the very first time it appeared, that being the <i>Referee</i> mention. Oh, sure, there wads an old Smitty or two who refused, but most coaches approved since they hoped to move up the play-off ladder where they knew such infractions would be enforced.

Nobody likes to ignore a rule when evaluators are in the stands.

Sounds like I need to substitute stretch for set (or vice versa) in my vocabulary, and call it like I do an OBR game, except for the throw to first from windup position....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG

Quote:

Sounds like I need to substitute stretch for set (or vice versa) in my vocabulary, and call it like I do an OBR game, except for the throw to first from windup position....

Précisément.

Just frosts you to be wrong, don't it?
[/B][/QUOTE]Benham:

My, my: Selective quoting again.

I've followed your "career" as a pretend calming influence in the windy ways of our Forum.

You're a fake, Garth Benham. There's not ten cents of substantive difference between you and the McGriffers.

You tell me it just "frosts" me to be wrong. Nobody like to be wrong, of course -- as you no doubt know from your own history. But I challenged you to post an email from the FED with an earlier date than ours. You replied to my post, but carefully left that challenge out. So as yet, I don't know where I'm proved wrong.

Lah, me, dearie. (I say that because you seem obsessed with a guy wearing panties. Sorry, not my cup of tea.) [/B][/QUOTE]

Now, now Erick, I mean Carl. Careful about who you call a fake. Besides faking posts how about your "dearie" brother-in-law you invented? Talk about a cup of tea. To go throught the trouble of inventing a gay brother-in-law, you must have had the whole pot.

I really don't give squat about a challenge from you. Why should I? I never said I was given the press release dated June 24 that you receive this morning. I said I was given the information it contained nearly two weeks ago, and by authoritative sources. The kind you quote when you don't have the official source. I said it was discussed and debated on various sites. Maybe they should gloat about scooping Offciating.com

You remind me of a story George Gobel told on the old Johnny Carson Tonight Show. He had was eating lunch somewhere in Hollywood and someone came up to him and asked: "Didn't you used to be somebody?"

Why don't you set a good example for your employers and go edit something.

Benham, you're a piece of work! You implied "those in the know" had inside information; we poor slobs at Officiating.com didn't. Now you say you received it from authoritative sources. You implied the changes were discussed here. They weren't.

As of a matter of fact, I will go edit something, but the author won't be Garth Benham. He only posts on the free site, which is funded by those people who buy subscriptions. They pay so you can insult Officiating.com.

Free speech truly is free speech for some of us, like you.

Summary
 

OK, here's a summary of what I've read so far:

Self-declared rep of this fine corner of the internet posts to brag that yes, indeed, once again an internet based content provider has "scooped" a traditional paper content provider by some 2 months. Left unsaid is the annoying fact that it's likely that the US and Iraq will both have newly elected governments by the time this information is needed...but hey, it's the newz biz baby and WE are first. Then some yutz (not surprisingly from Chicago) decides to chime in to declare he cannot distinguish the NY Times from the NY Post. Finally, original self-declared rep of this fine corner of the internet decides to insult a customer - or maybe he's a mere nonpaying user of this board that is supported by the paying customers? Who knows.

I think there was a baseball question in there somewhere.

Well, as they say, lah me.

Re: Summary
 

I "resemble" that remark.

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif' alt='Too Funny' border=0></a>

Peace

Once again, you twist the truth, Carl. I NEVER said the changes were discussed at THIS site. I agree someone said that, but if you will take the time to read my posts and are willing to admit the truth, you will see that it WAS NOT ME. In other words, Carl you told an untruth.

And I didn't imply those in the know had inside, I said it outright. And we did. Many people did. That was the point. Only you and a few others thought you had a scoop. Many of us knew around the date of the press release, June 24th, about the changes, not when you recieved, July 6.

And what is your problem with authoritative sources, in this case folks who had the release before you? You love quoting authoritative sources. In fact you've claimed to be one.

I'm a piece of work? Hell, I'm a piker compared to the old master. The hardest thing for me to ever admit to was that Mike Branche was right.

Now let's get the facts straignt. I said many of us knew about and discussed these changes nearly two weeks ago. I stand by that.

You said that I said it was discussed at this site. That is untrue, and provably untrue.


You said you were on the "A" list. I think you're just on a list.

Hey, at least after getting fired as a moderator I no longer have to think about whether to delete an entire thread. This one, for example :)

Re: Summary
 

And what are you?

More's to the point, WHO are you? Mr. Benham, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Fronheiser, Mr. Childress, among many others: We use our names and, regardless of whether we fight with or against each other, we put our real selves on the line. That's not the case with Senior Member Dan_The ref. BTW: What are you doing on the baseball board, Mr. Ref?

You know what the funny thing is? Aside from the the two of you (Garth and Carl), does anyone really give a damn who had what first? I mean, am I the only person who sees how totally useless this entire exercise is?

I would hope not.

And who are you, Lilblue? (Hey, it rhymes though it doesn't scan.) Bubba, it's a Message Board. If you're not interested in this "thread," you don't have to read it. Move on to "The Hand is Part of Bat." Much of the fun of a message board is semi-good-natured give and take. (Just ask Rut or HHH.) The posts between Garth and me are nothing compared to what goes on elsewhere, particularly messages posted by the McGrifidiots.

I've got an idea. Why don't you start a thread in which you encourage posters to use their real names?

And you've inspired me. I think I'll ask Garth to write up <i>his</i> side, and I'll write up <i>my</i> side, and we'll publish it on the money side, and both will get paid. Using our real names, of course.

Lilblue:

Hell, even I don't give a damn who had what first. I only returned to the thread when someone decided that they needed to lie about what I had said. I take that personally...always have, always will.

I really don't care how you regard this exchange. If it doesn't concern you, you can simply stay out of it.

Gee Carl, I don't think THAT will happen.

The point that has been made by many is simple. This chatter is plain stupid. As the "Editor in Chief", you certainly are not inspiring me to pay, nor is your bravado a great representation of the "Magazine." How the hell is insulting people going to help grow the paid site?

Blaine

You heard the Big Dog, Dan_ref! Now you get yo a$$ back to the basketball board where you belong. And you better damn well stay there! @#%$#@New York whitetrash troublemakers!

Lah me, some people just don't know their place.

Actually, the thread was not on this web site - it was on e-teamz's web site. here's the link:
http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/board...cfm?id=1038862

Furthermore, I realize that there are some who do not like Carl Childress and I don't care what the problems are. Carl is a source of information for us all. Who cares if he scoops the story or inserts a personal opinion. He's been around a lot longer than many of you out there. A little respect would go a long way, people! If you have a problem with the information, you can always go to the FED website http://www.nfhs.org/rules-baseball.htm and check it out there. Please, people, any information (especially on FED rules) is worth listening to.

Okay, I'm through preaching.

Have to correct the FED web site to http://www.nfhs.org/. Read the text and follow to the baseball rules section. The other link that I provided is inoperable.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Jul 7th, 2004 at 08:55 AM]

And you hit a home run with that statement. The problem is that respect needs to go both ways.

Look, I brought Carl 2500 miles to do a clinic. I wrote many articles for the paid part of the site. Nobody has ever had an issue with Carl's knowledge.

Similarly, as an umpire, my problems almost never are due to calls. Most often, it is due to game management situations where I allow an over-aggresive attitude to undermine my game. So, regardless of how, "good" I may be, I am remembered by many as the umpire with the attitude.

With that in mind, how do you think many percieve Carl?

Blaine

I am sure that Carl is opinionated but then so am I ... so is anyone that has been doing this for 20 plus years! All I am saying is (to everyone in general) let the person provide the information then we can check it out for validity. Don't immediatly shoot the messanger - if the information is not good, we can hang them from the nearest yardarm!

As always - :>)

*settles back in his La-Z-Boy with more popcorn* :)

Re: Re: Summary
 

And what are you?

More's to the point, WHO are you? Mr. Benham, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Fronheiser, Mr. Childress, among many others: We use our names and, regardless of whether we fight with or against each other, we put our real selves on the line. That's not the case with Senior Member Dan_The ref. BTW: What are you doing on the baseball board, Mr. Ref? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry sweetheart, I'm way beyond caring if it bothers you that I don't "put my real self on the line". If you like email me and I'll be happy to click "junk mail" next to your name (your reputation preceeds you).

But since you don't bother to address my points I'll assume you agree with my summary.

And what am I doing on the baseball side? Apparently one of your guards fell asleep, I snuck in to steal some toilet paper.

Since you don't put your real self on the line your opinion is worthless here.

Sorry, just the way it is around here. :shrug:

And what are you?

More's to the point, WHO are you?

BTW: What are you doing on the baseball board, Mr. Ref? [/B][/QUOTE]You heard the Big Dog, Dan_ref! Now you get yo a$$ back to the basketball board where you belong. And you better damn well stay there! @#%$#@New York whitetrash troublemakers!

Lah me, some people just don't know their place. [/B][/QUOTE]

Since you don't put your real self on the line your opinion is worthless here.

Sorry, just the way it is around here. :shrug:

[/B][/QUOTE]Are you trying to tell me that <i>His High Holiness</i> isn't a real, live "self"? The Editor-in-Chief-For-Life thinks that the opinion of his TOP writer is worthless?

Well, Lah me!

You heard the Big Dog, Dan_ref! Now you get yo a$$ back to the basketball board where you belong. And you better damn well stay there! @#%$#@New York whitetrash troublemakers!

Lah me, some people just don't know their place. [/B][/QUOTE]

Since you don't put your real self on the line your opinion is worthless here.

Sorry, just the way it is around here. :shrug:

[/B][/QUOTE]Are you trying to tell me that <i>His High Holiness</i> isn't a real, live "self"? The Editor-in-Chief-For-Life thinks that the opinion of his TOP writer is worthless?

Well, Lah me! [/B][/QUOTE]

I dunno, I'm just passing the message along.

BTW, nice to know that the EICFL has such a high regard for our favorite poster who puts his real self on the line.

Way to go Jeff! I knew if you stuck to your guns he would come around to your way of thinking!