2005 National Federation Baseball Rule Changes

[Carl Childress]

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 Referee 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.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
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 Referee 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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

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]

[LDUB]

FROM THE ARTICLE
Also, Rule 3-1-1 was clarified so that if an illegal player on either offense or defense is discovered by an umpire, that player shall be restricted to the bench or dugout for the rest of the game. If an illegal offensive player re-enters the game, he will be called out immediately and ejected; an illegal defensive player will simply be ejected.

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LDUB

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 again enters the game: on offense, he's out and ejected; on defense, simply ejected.

[WindyCityBlue]

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.

[DG]

"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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DG
"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:

1988: Rumble to Referee: 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.

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. Any 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 after he's come to the pause in the set position. He ruled it was a balk anytime.

Just so we're clear: Now before 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 illegal for a FED pitcher to attempt a pick-off from the wind-up.

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

[Carl Childress]

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!

[Carl Childress]

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 released 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]

[GarthB]

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

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 Dewey Wins 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:

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 released until today. [/B][/QUOTE]

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

[DG]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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:

1988: Rumble to Referee: 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.

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. Any 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 after he's come to the pause in the set position. He ruled it was a balk anytime.

Just so we're clear: Now before 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 illegal for a FED pitcher to attempt a pick-off from the wind-up.

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

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.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB



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

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 Dewey Wins 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.

Mr. Benham:

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 released 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.)

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DG
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.

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 can 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 Referee 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.

[DG]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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 can 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 Referee 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....