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?

And your problem with that is?????

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

well, that depends on whether the pitch was struck at or not.

Coach:

Good Lord. The hands are NEVER part of the bat. It doesn't matter whether the pitch was struck at or not. When the pitch hits any part of the batter's body, no matter what the batter was doing, the ball is dead. Dead is dead.

Hands are not part of the bat. If the pitch is a ball and batter gets hit in the hands ball is dead batter awarded first. Batter hit in the hands pitch is a strike or batter swings at it ball is dead and a strike is called. Batter swings at a pitch ball is "hit in fair territory" ball is dead and a strike is recorded.

Hands part of bat
 

I guess I can't be to hard on Steve Stone if we have senior members that think the same thing.
I always tell coaches that until Sportmart starts selling bats with hands attached to them...hands are not part of the bat.

[Edited by collinb on Aug 31st, 2004 at 06:06 AM]

Hey Chad, looks like another article in the making
 

Hands are not part of the bat.

Quote: "well, that depends on whether the pitch was struck at or not."

Here you go, Chad. This ought to be worth a couple of sheckles from Pop C. If he's interested in how well you spark lively conversation, here's your next big chance.

I think that we can plainly see
My hands are part of my bat, not me.
For if I'd brought some hands out there
I wouldn't have made that fielding error!

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.

I'm sure that's his story now.

Re: Hey Chad, looks like another article in the making
 

Been Dare;

At current exchange rates, Papa C is paying about 155 shekels per article. We need an Israeli umpire to balance out the Canadians, etc.

Peter

He never said the hands are part of the bat.

My reading comprehension indicates that he is making the accurate point that SHOULD a batter be hit by a pitch, that he would NOT be awarded 1st if he offered at the pitch.

C'mon, Garth - certainly you can do better than <i>this</i> in your desperate quest to find missteps by those you don't like.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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]

Real class.
 

:rolleyes:

I can see Peter that you will go to any length to try to trash someone's reputation.

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]

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.

Well, aren't we full ourselves, Chad?
 

So you're writing a "new" rule book, huh? Don't forget to give those that you're plagiarizing from, their proper due in the credits. FED is real picky about that sort of thing.
Any schmuck can give a local league BOD, coach, or whoever, an opinion on a call or play. I guess they're glad to know that you, and only you, have the proper interpretations for their league.
HHH is correct when he states that, just because you have the time and are willing to do so, doesn't mean you are THE EXPERT in anything.

Re: Well, aren't we full ourselves, Chad?
 

Been Dare;

If I may indulge you for a minute and go off on a rabbit trail, here is something that I have noticed about about local leagues. (I believe that this is what you are getting at.)

Often the rules myths of the leadership get incorporated into that league's rules. If the league president says it's one plus one, then by god that is the rule for that league.
Any number of rules myths can be adopted as gospel, and if a new coach to the league protests a game, his protest will be overturned and the rule's myth upheld as the truth. The BOD follows the leader and Carl's BRD is no where to be found.

So your statement that Wobster is the expert on rules for his league, (which you may have stated in jest) has more basis in real life than one might imagine.

Peter

Was that "Treat everyone the opposite of my actions?"
 

PS2Man - Really Classy (That would be the proper use of an adverb)

I believe that this was your post a week ago on the Football site. Don't ask others to adhere to the Golden Rule, if you won't. I think that is called hypocrisy.


[Huh? What?
WCB,

I am completely lost by your post.

Can you please learn how to keep a post in quotes? It is not that damn difficult. It would be easier to follow and understand what you are commenting on. I only commented on mirroring an official. My comments were shorter than this current post.

It seems like you are just trying to create a situation to act like a 5 year old once again.
__________________
Treat everyone as you would like to be treated.]

Bob:

Add to that the title of the thread: Hands part of the bat.

It was quite natural to read Wobster's post as addressing that portion of the first post.

It seems to me that no one has acted out of a bias or any preconceived notion here.

Re: Re: Care to elaborate, Chad?
 

Okay, so you're a beginner. Nothing wrong with that.

A couple of questions:

Why on earth would a machine pitch game need an umpire?

Doesn't "travel league" usually refer to the teams traveling, not the umpire?

Do you mean that you are writing a complete rule book for an independent league? What are they using now?

What's a Carl's Clinic? Anything like Evans's Florida Classic or Gerry Davis's camps or Little League's WR Umpire School? Who are the instructors?

I believe I read an earlier post by you that said you hadn't done high school baseball. Ddon't you think it may be a bit soon to write a new rule book using FED rules before you've called a high school game?

Hopefully you don't see this as being too critical. I just think it is apparent you have a lot to experience yet before you boast of your resume.

What if the batter has the bat between his legs and gets hit? Could the coach claim his penis was part of the bat?

Re: Re: Re: Care to elaborate, Chad?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrUmpire
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by wobster
[B]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 03:58 PM]

Re: Well, aren't we full ourselves, Chad?
 

The first line in my rules sheet is "This league uses NFHS rules."

I did not profess to be an expert. I was countering your claim that I should not be posting here because I am not as experienced as you and others.

Though I have not called high school yet, I regularly study my rule books, the BRD, and my clinic manuals.

Re: Re: Care to elaborate, Chad?
 

Only a couple of months ago you posted here in a thread about ejecting a batter:

"myself, I would have dumped her, but I haven't had to eject a single person in 4 years of plate and 2 years of pitching machine."

Are you using dog years in your calculations?

I don't remember that one. I have been umpiring since I was 14, I am 22. the 2+4 doesn't work. Not sure what I was thinking, if in fact I posted that. I still work some machine, since I am on the board, if I can't find umpires. Not sure what the hell I was thinking. I have been doing plate since I was 15, I even did a few scrimmage games when I was 14.

WHAT?
 

"Not sure what the hell I was thinking. I have been doing plate since I was 15, I even did a few scrimmage games when I was 14."

Finally the truth has been set FREE!

You are actually counting those years in your resume.

Now that is FUNNY?

I am now re-writing my resume to include the games I worked when I was 9. But that will destroy my statement that I have never worked a Little League GAME!

Drats!

Chad, you have been exposed.

Lah Me!

Tee

Re: WHAT?
 

Interesting.
I managed my first game at 13.
I managed my last game at 45.
That's 32 years.
But I only did that for 3 years and about 16 games.
mick

No offense Wobster,
But, this is begining to read like a Presidential Campaign I have seen somewhere else.

To Wobster
 

Wobster;

You may not understand why you have become the lightning rod for so much negativity recently. I will attempt to shed some light on it.

For five years or so, Carl has been in a major flame war with literally dozens of posters. Most of it has to do with his abrasive personality but some are envious of his exalted position as an insider in the arcane world of rules interpretation.

True big dogs recognize that rules interpretations are not where top umpires make their living. Rules minutia is the activity of nerds, little dogs, and wannabe big dogs. Carl is the supreme recognized nerd of rules. All others are usurpers. With is 20 years or so of recognized supremacy, no one is likely to topple Carl until he decides to retire, gets hit by a truck, or Alzheimers sets in. A few posters have implied that Alzheimers may have crept into his brain, but I see little evidence of that.

For a couple of years, I was the chief antagonist of Carl, although unlike most of his detractors, I never engaged in a rules discussion with him. I went after his personality and his out of date ideas with regards to game control, while at the same time giving him credit for being the supreme authority on rules issues.

For the most part, Carl and I leave each other alone now. However, there are many of of his enemies that cannot drop their weapons and make peace. (For the record, I like the current state of affairs. It provides great entertainment.) Anyway, you Wobster, have become the proxy for their war with Carl. By attacking you, they can get to Carl. Carl is the one that you work for and he is the target of their attacks. You are just the one in the crossfire.

Bottom line, the attacks against you are not personal and are not really directed at you. They are directed at Carl. Take my initial advice of a week or so ago. Keep writing and laugh all the way to the bank.

Peter

<sniff>

What's that smell?

Peter is stirring the s*** again.

It's not even Friday -- you must be taking a long weekend, Peter.

Re: To Wobster
 

Great job Peter. You are a "pro".

Now, let's see if I can post without falling into the crapper.

1. Most people I know who post here are not afraid to address Carl, if their issue is with Carl.

2. The use of terms like "enemies", "war" and "attacks" seem either sophomoric or paranoid. We all know some people we don't necessarily care for, but to the point we need to bring in the military mindset?

3. Most of the discussion regrading Chad was brought about by his articles, his posts, his listing of his resume, and the inconsistencies therein. This all was amplified by the baptism he took for being the new guy. Like it or not, nothing unusual here. It was made worse today when he "kinda" denied posting something that he actually did post.

To accuse anyone who posts critically of Chad's work, posts or claims as trying to get to Carl is ridiculous. What then would be the root of the criticism of Rutledge? Who are posters REALLY trying to get to there?

4. Nearly everything in Peter's post, as well as most posts made on this board, including this one, is opinion. It would be silly to accept it as anytning else.

5. Chad is probably a good guy who has gotten a little ahead of himself. He's not the first one Hensley has caught being inconsistent at times. Dave is brutally adept at finding those inconistencies, and he is extremely accurate at reporting them. (I should know)

6. Chad's problems with some posters here are not his youth or experience. It's his presentation. He'll learn. Without knowing, he basically walked into a room full of 20-30 year veterans, many with proschool experience and began telling them how to do things. Even Carl had a problem when he first went to RSO and began setting folks straight. And he was an old experienced fart.

7. Despite how it may sound, and how some may want to represent it, I don't believe any of this is malicious. I can think of others who got an even more raucus welcome to the boards. Think of it more as an initiation. Chad will make his mark more by how he handles this than by throwing his resume on the table. In the meantime, enjoy the entertainment.



[Edited by GarthB on Sep 1st, 2004 at 12:05 PM]

Re: Re: To Wobster
 

Garth;

I will agree that you are correct with regards to some of the criticism directed at Wobster. However, I believe that I am right for the majority of the criticism. Consider this:

I am one of the "roomful of veterans" that you speak of. I am also one of the most disagreeable posters on the forum who delights in stirring up trouble and poking fun at other's foibles. Yet, despite these tendancies, I have felt no urge to go after Wobster. Three years ago, at the height of the buttsnuffler wars, I probably would have taken a few shots at Wobster just to get Carl's goat. Your argument that

"Most people I know who post here are not afraid to address Carl, if their issue is with Carl."

is simply not relevant. No one was more willing to go after Carl than me. I stirred up more s$$$houses with Carl than anyone, other than perhaps Freix. Yet if I could stir up the old man by going after one of his proteges, I did. Why do you think that I started so much trouble with you? :D

You ask about Rutledge. This is a deliberate red herring. You, I, and everyone on the forum knows that Rutledge's problems are all of his own creation. No one has implied or stated that Wobster is a lying moron. Rutledge's situation is completely irrelevant to what we are discusssing here.

Frankly, I don't find anything in Wobster's statements inconsistent. In the big picture of things, he has never presented himself as anything but a kiddie ball umpire. We are arguing about whether he has 6 or 8 years experience. It is simply not relevant as to which of these is correct. No matter what the truth, he is a kiddie ball umpire and all of us at the senior level know what that means. 6 years, 8 years, who cares. He has presented an accurate portrait of himself. Now if he had claimed to have worked one year of NCAA or a FED state tournament, that would be a significant distortion.

OTOH, if your purpose is to slam Carl and show him to be an employer of liars, then the criticism makes sense. That was my point.

Peter

I thought it was because I was an a$$hole. ;)