But in kiddie ball they sometimes squeeze so tightly that the hands nearly become a physical part of the bat.

Mean spirited? C'mon Peter. When was the last time someone made such a suggestion and wasn't educated about the hands and the bat?

And, if I'm not mistaken, at least four other posters read Chad's post as I did. Why am I being singled out, eh Peter?

And yes, I'm sure that will be his story, at least if your theory regarding the intelligence level of coaches is accurate.

Other than that, I have no problem with your post. You're right that Chad should take full advantage of this opportunity and laugh all the way to the bank.

Sorry Chad, if I have your hats backwards. From your description of yourself, your articles and the editor's note about you: <i>"Chad Hickey is not only an umpire, but he also coaches a youth baseball team and sits on the board of directors for the local youth baseball organization. You can reach Chad at [email protected]"</i> I had the impression you were a coach umpiring. If that's not the case, a thousand apologies. No flame intended.

FWIW, I first read the thread as Garth did.

If wobster would use the "quote" feature, we'd know to what he was responding.

This thread began with collinb saying: <font color=red>
Did anyone see the Cubs vs Astro's game Sunday where Cub announcer Steve Stone was explaining that the hands are part of the bat <b><i>and the hitter should not get first base when hit in the hands</i></b>?</font>

Chad responded with nothing more than: <font color=blue>well, that depends on whether the pitch was struck at or not.</font>

He was clearly referring to the latter portion of Chad's comment ... about the batter being awarded first.

To interpret Chad's response as meaning, "The hands <i><b>are</b></i> part of the bat <i><b>if</b></i> the pitch was struck at" is simply a ludicruous conclusion to reach unless you're predisposed, by bias, to believe that's what he meant.

It never occurred to me <i>that</i> is what he meant. And, deep down, I think others knew it as well.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 30th, 2004 at 04:41 PM]

Same here. Does that we mean catch crap, too?

With no disrespect to the origional poster (collinb), I cannot believe that this post has gone to 2 pages!!!!!!!!1

What the hell is wrong with you people anyway? You have turned into a bunch of nit-picking pains in the a$$'s!

I joked around in the begining - page 569 of all the rule books have all the myths confirmed.

THE HANDS ARE NEVER CONCIDERED PART OF THE BAT

Hehehehe,
 

Chad said:

"I have been umpiring 8 years . . . "

I think we need to be careful when we use resume builders like this statement.

Example:

Umpire "A" has worked two years of t-ball, two years of Coach pitch, two years of LL Minors and two years of LL majors. That is eight years.

Umpire "B" went to professional umpire school and worked two years of minor league baseball, four years of high school varsity baseball and then two years of NCAA D1 baseball. That is also eight years.

Which umpire would mostly likely be the better source of information about umpiring?

Tee

Re: Hehehehe,
 

I was simply stating that I was an umpire first Tee.

Care to elaborate, Chad?
 

You still didn't expound on the level of ball you've called in those 8 years?
Do we need more than one guess? I think not.....

Re: Hehehehe,
 

If the umpire seeking information only works youth ball - I can see where Umpire "A" may have more to offer since he has more experience in that area.

Here's why - Firstly, more concentration has to be placed on unusual things that can happen. Because they are much more likely to happen in a game between 12-yr-olds than 25-yr-olds.

Secondly, certain hard-nosed techniques don't work very well with kids. For instance, when working a game with 12-yr-olds, I <i>may</i> make a quick comment to the pitcher that he needs to come set longer. If he were 25-yrs-old, I would just balk him without warning.

But, in general, you're right. I think Umpire "B" would probably have a lot more to offer about the technical interpretation of rules, but not <i>necessarily</i>, since rule knowledge is the one thing that actually *can* come from books, study, and discussion. Umpire "A" may be a student of the rules for all we know. He <i>may</i> be able to go toe-to-toe with Umpire "B" in the area of rules knowledge.

Umpire "B" will probably have some more advanced game management techniques and has had an opportunity to hone those skills on the larger diamond.

According to your stated progression of these two hypothetical umpires, I'd have to say it's apples and oranges. One is probably better at what *he* does whereas the other is better at what *he* does. And, let's face it, both are in two totally different baseball worlds.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Re: Care to elaborate, Chad?
 

1 year machine pitch
7 years LL majors. the last two I have also been doing traveling league, driving as far as 50 miles to do tournaments, as well a little babe ruth this year.

As far as rules knowledge, I am writing the league a new rule book, with mostly FED rules. You suppose they would let just any schmuck who didn't know the rules do that? I routinely get asked proper rulings that other umpires may have missed. These questions come directly from our best coaches and the other members of the BOD.

I also attended one of Carl's clinics in July.

[Edited by wobster on Aug 31st, 2004 at 11:53 AM]

Re: Re: Care to elaborate, Chad?
 

Be careful what you say. Too many associations will let any schmuck who has the time and is willing, do anything, whether he is qualified or not. We have an association here in the DC area with a second year umpire doing college level baseball.

Look at Rut. If you believe him, and I have no reason to doubt him on this issue, he is a clinician/instructor in three sports in the Chicago area. As even he has admitted in a rare moment of candor, it is because he has the time, not necessarily because he is qualified.

Peter

Getting back on track...
 

...from what I saw (bless HDtv), it looked like the pitch from Remlinger hit Berkman either on the hands or bat. I say either because from there, the ball travelled sharply downward and hit Berkman in the helmet; he went down in a heap. Putting this in context, the bases were loaded at the time and Remlinger had just been brought in to relieve Dempster in the top of the 8th. Baker came out to question whether the ball hit the hands or the bat, again because of the way the ball travelled. The 'Stros went on to score four more runs after this...

...in the bottom of the ninth, Astros' pitcher Wheeler plunked D. Lee in the back and was ejected w/Coach Garner...

Dave --

If you're going to quote the thread, quote the entire thing.

Between the original post and wobster's reply was this, from MArio:

"Refer to page 569 of your rule book and you will see that the statment is correct!"

Wobster's post was made an hour (approx.) after Mario's post. It's not unreasonable to think that wobster's reply was to Mario, and not to the original poster.


Except that many people think that the statement above ("hands are part of the bat...") *is* true. It takes no bias about Wobster to think that he might think the same thing.