toss glove

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Garth.

Different sources disagree.


If I said a stop sign means "come to a complete stop" you'd disagree just because of who I am.

Different sources disagree? I don't have my BRD with me, so I don't know if its interpretation is this exact play or not. Is it? This is the exact play that I sent to Tim Stevens.

As far as "who" you are...I haven't the faintest idea of who you are. Sounds like paranoia to me.

"What" you are, I believe is incorrect.

If you are intimating that I have a bias because you are a coach, you'd be wrong on that, too. I know several coaches who know the rules and interpretations rather well. Ordinarily you seem to do well in that area, just not in this instance.

Oh, and I would disagree with your statement about the stop sign, but not because of who you are, but rather because you were incomplete. In most states a stop sign means to come to a complete stop, yield to other vehicles and then proceed only when clear. At least when I was on the force, simply stopping was simply not good enough.

[Edited by GarthB on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 07:11 PM]

[Rich Ives]

The play in the BRD is the one where the ball lodges in the pitcher's glove and the pitcher throws the combo to first.

Ruling: Out in OBR & NCAA; dead ball and BR gets 2B in FED.

And I'm the messenger. I'm just reporting what's in the book. If you wan to shoot someone, pick the right person.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The play in the BRD is the one where the ball lodges in the pitcher's glove and the pitcher throws the combo to first.

Ruling: Out in OBR & NCAA; dead ball and BR gets 2B in FED.

And I'm the messenger. I'm just reporting what's in the book. If you wan to shoot someone, pick the right person.

Sheeeesh, we're testy tonight. Relax, coach, nobody's talking about shooting anyone. We're discussing a rule interp, that's all.

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by GarthB

Sheeeesh, we're testy tonight. Relax, coach, nobody's talking about shooting anyone. We're discussing a rule interp, that's all.

Sorry if I misinterpreted ""What' you are, I believe is incorrect."

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

Sorry if I misinterpreted ""What' you are, I believe is incorrect."

I'm sure you did. It was in response to your accusation of me disagreeing with you because of "Who" you are. I was simply pointing out that I was not in disagreement because of who, but rather because of what. Doesn't that make sense? If I have a differing opinion, doesn't that mean I think you are incorrect. And, of course, you would think likewise, or there would be no disagreement, correct?

Aren't disagreements allowed?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
The play in the BRD is the one where the ball lodges in the pitcher's glove and the pitcher throws the combo to first.

Ruling: Out in OBR & NCAA; dead ball and BR gets 2B in FED.

And I'm the messenger. I'm just reporting what's in the book. If you wan to shoot someone, pick the right person.

What does Carl list as the source for this (FED) interpretation (my book's in the car; my car's in the shop)?

I thought I had read an official FED interp ruling the same as in BRD. But, I couldn't find it last night in my files of interps.

I'm fond of saying, "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." That saying applies to me, too. Apparently, I've "known for sure" the incorrect ruling on this.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
What does Carl list as the source for this (FED) interpretation (my book's in the car; my car's in the shop)?

I thought I had read an official FED interp ruling the same as in BRD. But, I couldn't find it last night in my files of interps.

I'm fond of saying, "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." That saying applies to me, too. Apparently, I've "known for sure" the incorrect ruling on this.

Bob;

Rich has interpreted the BRD correctly. Unfortunately, Carl does not list a source. I was hoping to find something about how he had talked to an interpreter, etc. I have posted an alert to Carl to join this thread pronto. Unfortunately, he is AWOL. My guess is that he is scrambling to find his notes and figure out why he wrote this in the BRD or he is sitting back with delight to see how many people make fools of themselves. Then he will lay his trump card on the table and lord it over the little dogs who think that they know the rules. That is the reason that I have never debated rules with Carl. He is almost always right and even if he is wrong, he knows all the cards in everyone's hand.

Peter

[scyguy]

thanks for all the discussion. I look forward to what the right ruling should be. I agree that penalizing the defense seems out of place. But when I read the rule, it seems to apply.

[ump3]

In a recent Major League Rules Committee meeting, this play came up for discussion. Though it has widely been thought of that this particular play is an out, minds have started to shift. The main reason being, that it is not secure possession in HIS hand or glove. May other runners continue running, and if he cannot remove the ball from the glove, can he throw it (the pitcher's glove) to another player to tag out a runner trying to advance? It seems as though umpire's interpretations of this rule might be changing. In a play that occured two seasons ago, a ball went into the shirt of a player's uniform. He held the ball in his hand, with the shirt in between, stepped on first base, and this was a recorded out. Major League Baseball has since said that this is immediately dead, and runners are awarded two bases, TOP.

Side note to the first ruling:
They did come to the conclusion, that this is not EVER an award of bases, nor a dead ball. It will always be a considered a catch, if a being a fly ball or line drive, is what is lodged, because it is considered secure possession in his . . . glove. The interpretation, and from what I've heard, the wording in the new OBR being worked on, is now, "attempted voluntary release". Also, new wording will be "lodges in the uniform, paraphanaila, or equipment, other than a fielder's glove or mitt, of a player or umpire."

[Edited by ump3 on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 10:56 AM]

[Atl Blue]

Major League Baseball has since said that this is immediately dead, and runners are awarded two bases, TOP.

Not true. MLB said use common sense in placing the runners. For a ball that never left the infield, two bases TOP would not be common sense.

From the WUA press release of Aug, 2002:

When a batted or thrown ball enters a playerÂ’s uniform or the catcherÂ’s gear, the ball is to be ruled dead and no subsequent outs can be obtained by the defense. The umpire is then directed to employ common sense and fairness and place the runners such that the act of the ball becoming dead is nullified. The umpire may not, however, enforce any outs that he thinks may have occurred had the ball remained live. Outs occurring before the ball went out of play stand.

But this is an entirely different issue than the ball becoming lodged in a glove. MLB umps have never ruled that a ball lodged in a glove that is held by another player is not a held ball. At least once a season, we see a hard shot back to the mound, hwere the pitcher gets the ball lodged in his glove, and throws the entire glove to F3. This has always, and is still ruled as an out, providing, of course, that F3 has possession before BR reaches first.

Rich is correct in that the BRD AND the FED case book both say this is a two base award. I have never had it happen to one of my FED games, so I am glad to learn of the "national interpretation" before it does. I could understand the national interp, I could also understand an interpretation saying that F3 holding the pitcher's glove with a lodged ball in it is NOT possession, and therefore not an out. But what is hard to accept is a pitcher getting his glove up on a hot shot through the box, having the ball become lodged in the webbing, and awarding the offese two bases. It is a "punishment" that simply does not fit the "crime".

I do wish this "national interpretation" that has been mentioned would be published in a national FED book, either rules or case book, so those of us without direct access to the NFHS office and interpreters could get it right also.

[WindyCityBlue]

A "National Interpretation" may be of no consequence for those of us that have logical rule interpreters in our state. Once again, check with your official rule interpreter or state association. We have already seen several states that will not permit the "national interp".

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
A "National Interpretation" may be of no consequence for those of us that have logical rule interpreters in our state. Once again, check with your official rule interpreter or state association. We have already seen several states that will not permit the "national interp".

Windy;

Your post is a good lead in to a political observation that I made a number of years ago.

When faced with obscure or idiotic FED interpretations, it is best to call the game as it is called on TV. The particpants and some fans will know how MLB calls a certain rule. If you enforce the OBR interpretation in a high school game even if it is in violation of a FED rule, few if anyone will notice. OTOH, if your enforce an obscure and idiosyncric FED rule, everyone will think that it is the umpire that is incompetent. You won't make any coach's lists that way and your association may sustain a black mark.

Peter

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by His High Holiness


If you enforce the OBR interpretation in a high school game even if it is in violation of a FED rule, few if anyone will notice. OTOH, if your enforce an obscure and idiosyncric FED rule, everyone will think that it is the umpire that is incompetent. You won't make any coach's lists that way and your association may sustain a black mark.

Peter

If you enforce a rule, someone will know. You will find inconsistency if you do that. Many of the FED Rules are in place because FED coaches did everything to find loopholes. You cannot use OBR Rules in FED games when the kids might mainly play under FED Rules. I do not do a lot of summer baseball, but there are a lot of HS leagues that are supported by the schools. Many leagues play under FED Rules. So these players and coaches are playing under the same set of rules from the spring to the summer. Not everything they see on TV is understood by the players and coaches.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Bob;

Rich has interpreted the BRD correctly. Unfortunately, Carl does not list a source. I was hoping to find something about how he had talked to an interpreter, etc. I have posted an alert to Carl to join this thread pronto. Unfortunately, he is AWOL. My guess is that he is scrambling to find his notes and figure out why he wrote this in the BRD or he is sitting back with delight to see how many people make fools of themselves. Then he will lay his trump card on the table and lord it over the little dogs who think that they know the rules. That is the reason that I have never debated rules with Carl. He is almost always right and even if he is wrong, he knows all the cards in everyone's hand.

Peter

I don't argue rules with Carl, either, although I will question until explained to my understanding. Carl well mey indeed have a trump card somewhere, but in Washington, Tim Stevens' interp will carry the day. Where Tim's ruling may falter in the end, though, is that it applies a common sense interpretation to the letter of the law. In FED that is dangerous. My money is still on Tim, though. In the past his interps have moved national to change theirs.

[WindyCityBlue]

In the Chicago area, you will likely be assigned playoff games with a partner or two that you have never seen before. As our different groups focus on enforcing rules differently, you see Fed rules get destroyed. The batter's box, safety slide, equipment check, roster check (for Sectional, Super-Sectional and Finals) are summarily dismissed by some groups. I get out there and during pre-game tell the coaches that we will be enforcing all rules that will be of consequence during the playoffs. You would think I said that I had eight eyes. "Our guys don't call that." "No one enforces that anymore." "The guys we see all season say something different."

That is why the IHSA went to a uniform instructional clinic that mandates attendance by all registered officials. Yet, we still get guys that say that they won't enforce rules because they consider them petty. As I suggested earlier, ask your state rule interpreter if you have a question. Each state values these rules differently. Some areas have dismissed the 10-run rule, while others have adopted a wood bat approach to the BESR problem. We will not have a consensus on the one that started this thread. Call what will be supported by your program, association or state. This will certainly be addressed by the NFSHS in the near future since we have some members that have already alerted them to this debacle. Hopefully, logic will prevail and we will reward the defense for heads up play and not award bases for a defect in the mitt.