Hands part of the bat. Cubs vs Astros

[akalsey]

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

[GarthB]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Garth;

This is mean spirited on your part. Wobster is, by his own admission, a kiddie ball umpire. He is not holding himself up as an expert, unlike some here who have thousands of posts to their credit, claim to be experts, but say very little.

Consider this for a minute:

As a 2nd year umpire, you attend a NCAA D1 game as a fan only to discover that one of the umpires has not shown up. The other umpire asks you to fill in. You are totally unqualified but you do it because it will be great experience. Even though you get eaten alive, you survive the game, have fun, and got some great experience that few others of your skill would get a shot at.

Likewise, Wobster has been asked by Carl to write some articles because Carl is short of material. Wobster is the big winner here. He is forced to carefully think about his avocation if he is going to put it in print for the big boys. The big boys are eating his lunch but he is learning a ton about umpiring. Like the second year umpire suiting up for a D1 game, why shouldn't Wobster take the opportunity if someone is willing to hire him? We are not talking about brain surgery here since any mistakes that he makes will have no lasting significance in the big scheme of things.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Aug 30th, 2004 at 01:57 PM]

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.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by wobster
Yes, I was commenting on the first base award. I obviously know that the hands are not part of the bat.

And Garth, you can call me coach all you want, as it is one of my titles, but I am an umpire first. I have been umpiring 8 years, and coaching for 1. You figure it out.

Flame on....

[Edited by wobster on Aug 30th, 2004 at 02:30 PM]

Sorry Chad, if I have your hats backwards. From your description of yourself, your articles and the editor's note about you: "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 had the impression you were a coach umpiring. If that's not the case, a thousand apologies. No flame intended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by LDUB

I bet Chad was responding to if the batter gets first base or not. He is not as stupid as some of you are making him sound.

FWIW, I first read the thread as Garth did.

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

[David Emerling]

This thread began with collinb saying:
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 and the hitter should not get first base when hit in the hands?

Chad responded with nothing more than: well, that depends on whether the pitch was struck at or not.

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 are part of the bat if 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 that 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]

[MrUmpire]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, I first read the thread as Garth did.

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

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

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by collinb
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 and the hitter should not get first base when hit in the hands?

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

[Tim C]

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

[wobster]

Originally posted by Tim C
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

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

[Been Dare]

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.....

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Tim C
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

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 may 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 necessarily, 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 may 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

[wobster]

Originally posted by Been Dare

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.....

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]

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by wobster

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.

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

[ren0901]

...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...

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David Emerling
This thread began with collinb saying:
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 and the hitter should not get first base when hit in the hands?

Chad responded with nothing more than: well, that depends on whether the pitch was struck at or not.

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

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.

To interpret Chad's response as meaning, "The hands are part of the bat if 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.

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.