toss glove

[JRutledge]

Windy is completely right about this issue.

Peace

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
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.

Thought the WUA does not interpret rules, they do report on them. The material above was either written by Rick Roder or borrowed by Rick for the 9th edition of the J/R. He offers as his source MLB 5.10.

But here's an important caveat that's omitted in some of the posts dealing with this subject: "A ball that becomes stuck in a glove [as opposed to catcher's equipment] remains in play. (J/R, p. 32)

[ump3]

I understand that may have been reported by the WUA, but the "common sense" ruling was thrown out at this past year's Rules Committee meeting. This was because there are several rules which awards of bases do not seem to conform to the "common sense and fair play" way of thinking. In the interest in conformity, they have decided to give it a strict base award.

For instance:

Pitched ball which enters a player's uniform- 1 base.

Thrown or batted balls which enter a player's uniform- 2 bases.

I would tell the genuises that brought up the idea to give arbitrary base awards, "Why even have rules? Why not make every type award of bases based on the umpire's judgment?"

[Rich Ives]

Originally posted by ump3
I understand that may have been reported by the WUA, but the "common sense" ruling was thrown out at this past year's Rules Committee meeting. This was because there are several rules which awards of bases do not seem to conform to the "common sense and fair play" way of thinking. In the interest in conformity, they have decided to give it a strict base award.

For instance:

Pitched ball which enters a player's uniform- 1 base.

Thrown or batted balls which enter a player's uniform- 2 bases.

I would tell the genuises that brought up the idea to give arbitrary base awards, "Why even have rules? Why not make every type award of bases based on the umpire's judgment?"

Roder says (in his 2004 updates) the interp is as follows:

28. MLB and WUAÂ’s Joint Committee has made an interpretation to cover situations where a batted or thrown ball enters a player or coachÂ’s uniform or the catcherÂ’s gear. This has necessitated several changes in the Jaksa/Roder manual:
a. Chapter 2, section H, definition of lodged ball: “Lodged ball: baseball that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, or unreachable. If a ball impacts something, stops abruptly, and does not fall or roll immediately, it has lodged. Exceptions: 1) A ball that becomes stuck in a glove remains in play. The glove/ball combination is treated as a live ball. 2) A batted or thrown ball (does not include a pitched ball) that enters a player or coach’s uniform or the catcher’s gear is treated differently than other lodged balls. When a batted (or thrown) ball enters a player’s uniform or catcher’s gear the ball is to be ruled dead. The umpire must 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 may have occurred had the ball remained live. Outs occurring before the ball went out of play stand. [MLB 5.10]”

Note the absence of a fixed award.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rich Ives

Roder says (in his 2004 updates) the interp is as follows:

28. MLB and WUAÂ’s Joint Committee has made an interpretation to cover situations where a batted or thrown ball enters a player or coachÂ’s uniform or the catcherÂ’s gear. This has necessitated several changes in the Jaksa/Roder manual:
a. Chapter 2, section H, definition of lodged ball: “Lodged ball: baseball that remains on the playing field but has become wedged, stuck, lost, or unreachable. If a ball impacts something, stops abruptly, and does not fall or roll immediately, it has lodged. Exceptions: 1) A ball that becomes stuck in a glove remains in play. The glove/ball combination is treated as a live ball. 2) A batted or thrown ball (does not include a pitched ball) that enters a player or coach’s uniform or the catcher’s gear is treated differently than other lodged balls. When a batted (or thrown) ball enters a player’s uniform or catcher’s gear the ball is to be ruled dead. The umpire must 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 may have occurred had the ball remained live. Outs occurring before the ball went out of play stand. [MLB 5.10]”

Note the absence of a fixed award.

Rich, funny: I referenced the same material in the "other" thread, the one started by you-know-who. He's the guy who thinks you're smarter than you let on to us umpires. (grin)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 05:48 PM]

[Atl Blue]

The MLBUM has the interp which the WUA reported. The ruling came from the MLB Joint Rules Committee. It does not include any fixed award.

For instance: R2 in a rundown between 2B and 3B. As he is being chased back to 2B, F5 throws the ball and it gets into R2's shirt. Are you going to award home to the runner?

Good luck with THAT call!

[Bfair]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Garth;

It would appear that the BRD has an error. If Freix were here, he would have a field day (and make us suffer through a 3000 word post.) OTOH, I would not put it past the National FED to overrule Washington state and Illinois.

Peter

I agree with Carl on this one and many more. I just don't mind stating if and when I do disagree with him.

Unfortunately, this rule is clearly written in Fed, and the glove is clearly player equipment. Once the player removes his glove to throw it BECAUSE he cannot remove the ball, he has now proven the ball is lodged. In the example of the ball remaining in a loose glove after it comes off a player's hand it doesn't mean the ball is lodged in it........it's merely secure. I would also agree with the decision of that play mentioned.

While I strongly like and respect the logic of the interpreter, and would also like concurrence with OBR ruling.......I wouldn't accept a verbal interpretation (unless instructed to by my association) until put in writing by the Fed since the issue is already clearly covered in black and white written rule.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

Steve:

I would agree that a black and white reading would indicate that Carl's illustration of language would be a correct ruling. However, a black and white reading of the OBR would indicate that the base path is solely a straight line between bases.

In this case, our State FED interpreter has stated that FED did not mean for the rule to be applied as illustrated in the BRD. I acknowledge that using common sense in connection to a FED rule is dangerous, but I'll go along with Tim.

Again, with me this was not an issue of what was right or wrong with the FED rule. I have my marching orders. If it ever happens, I'll call it the way our state wants it called. My interest was in trying to understand how the play in the BRD came about and whose intepretation it represented. The answer: it's not an interpetation.

That confused me. But, what the hell, it's not about brain surgery, peace in the middle east or preserving the Mona Lisa, it's just another baseball book. I'll live.

[Bfair]

Garth, I won't disagree that interpretations can change the black letter law. However, what I'm saying here is that I can accept verbal interps from accepted sources when it comes to "grey areas" not specifically addressed (i.e., can coach's interference occur during a dead ball). A batted ball lodged in equipment is specifically addressed by black letter law as written. That doesn't mean interpretation cannot override it, but it does mean (to me) that I'll need it in print by an authoritative source or I'll need it being mandated down to me verbally by my working association. Also, if Fed rule read the same as OBR, then I'd accept the OBR interp until Fed addressed the issue.......but that's not the case here.

That is, while I respect Tim tremendously, I'd not accept his verbal in Texas since he doesn't govern this state. IMO, the Fed needs to get changes to black letter law into print via casebook or rule change, or at least ascertain that if verbal it gets to the proper sources nationally.

The example you provide is not a good analogy because there already exists written case and interpretation that supports the change of the black/white print on that issue. I'd stand beside Carl on this one until changed somehow in print.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Bfair
Garth, I won't disagree that interpretations can change the black letter law. However, what I'm saying here is that I can accept verbal interps from accepted sources when it comes to "grey areas" not specifically addressed (i.e., can coach's interference occur during a dead ball). A batted ball lodged in equipment is specifically addressed by black letter law as written. That doesn't mean interpretation cannot override it, but it does mean (to me) that I'll need it in print by an authoritative source or I'll need it being mandated down to me verbally by my working association. Also, if Fed rule read the same as OBR, then I'd accept the OBR interp until Fed addressed the issue.......but that's not the case here.

That is, while I respect Tim tremendously, I'd not accept his verbal in Texas since he doesn't govern this state. IMO, the Fed needs to get changes to black letter law into print via casebook or rule change, or at least ascertain that if verbal it gets to the proper sources nationally.

The example you provide is not a good analogy because there already exists written case and interpretation that supports the change of the black/white print on that issue. I'd stand beside Carl on this one until changed somehow in print.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Again, and this somehow is getting lost in the translation, I have no problem with your position or Carl's "illustration of language". I don't care how anyone rules on this, should it EVER happen. The only reason I stayed in the thread was over my confusion as to where Carl's intepretatiom came from. That's all. It isn't FED's. They haven't issued one. And accordiong to Carl it isn't an interp at all. I then began to wonder if other BRD "interpretations" were also not interpretations. Never got an answer.

Okay...fair enough. I have other things to occupy my time with.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
[About a ball lodged in the glove and Carl's ruling/illustration on the play:] It isn't FED's. They haven't issued one. And accordiong to Carl it isn't an interp at all. I then began to wonder if other BRD "interpretations" were also not interpretations. Never got an answer.

Well, now we have an answer. According to Tim Stevens, B. Elliott Hopkins has ruled that a ball lodged in the glove may NOT be thrown for an out. Instead, it is immediately dead and each runner, including the batter runner, is awarded two bases measured from the time of the pitch.

Tim called to say that he remembered such a ruling from a play that happened in California a few years ago. Apparently, the IHAA interpreter remembered the same thing. But, according to Elliott....

I'll stop there. Tim is preparing an article for Officiating.com that will explain the history of the rule and how conflicting interpretations came about. Expect that article within a week, he said.

For now, suffice it to say that the ruling in the BRD is correct. But it is now not an illustration of a ruling but a report of one. The look on my face is not smug, just satisfied.

Mr. Hopkins told Tim that the ruling would be #1 on the NFHS website this spring.

Think about it for a second: The thread here on the Forum and my BRD play are responsible for an NFHS official interpretation. Generally, those come out of questions from coaches. Everyone connected with this discussion should be proud of his part in it and offer thanks to the FED for their prompt resolution of the matter.

As I told Tim, things are different now that Rumble has retired. Said he: "You bet! I like Elliot. He listens."

We're listening, too, Tim.

If you are in doubt about the accuracy of my post, Tim said you should email him: [email protected].

[WindyCityBlue]

Another example of justifying their existence.

These are the same geniuses that tried to make it illegal to throw it around the horn after a strikeout. It figures that they would get this one wrong, as well. I'm proud to live in a state that has disagreed with illogical NFSHS rule interpretations. Our rule interpretors use common sense to govern the game. I feel sad for those of you that will HAVE TO call this according to the Fed interp.

A kid hits a ball back to the pitcher and it gets lodged in a defective glove. It makes perfect sense to put him on second and punish the defense, doesn't it?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Another example of justifying their existence.

These are the same geniuses that tried to make it illegal to throw it around the horn after a strikeout. It figures that they would get this one wrong, as well. I'm proud to live in a state that has disagreed with illogical NFSHS rule interpretations. Our rule interpretors use common sense to govern the game. I feel sad for those of you that will HAVE TO call this according to the Fed interp.

A kid hits a ball back to the pitcher and it gets lodged in a defective glove. It makes perfect sense to put him on second and punish the defense, doesn't it?

Listen, you're an umpire. You take an oath, albeit figurative in most places, to enforce the rules as they are written by the governing body of your League.

In Illinois, that's the NFHS.

First, remember that your interpreter probably doesn't know that Elliott issued an official interpretation this morning. Likely he'll change his mind when you tell him about the ruling.

Second, Elliott's interpretation is the result of.... Well, you can read Tim's article next week to find out how and why the interpretation is as it is.

Third, the national interpreter for any organization CANNOT make a mistake. What he say it is, IT IS. Now, you may not like the ruling; goodness knows there were plenty of Rumble rulings I didn't like. But I never accused him of being wrong.

Fourth -- and most important: Your posts indicate you consider yourself a big dog, even if you don't use the title. Yet here you are, announcing to the world that you have no intention of following the FED line IF this play ever happened.

That's anarchy, Windy. We don't have the luxury of picking the rules we like. Windy says: "Hey, when the batter interferes with a play at the plate, I'm supposed to call the runner out if there are fewer than two out. I think's that's wrong. I don't like that rule, and I ain't a gonna enforce it."

My question: What are your creditials that give you the right to decide which rules you will enforce and which you will ignore?

I thought umpires were dedicated to living life by the rules. Apparently, that leaves you out.

BTW: The NFHS never tried to make it illegal to throw the ball around the horn after an out. They offered it as a speed-up rule, in effect if both coaches agreed.

In youth ball here, we never let them throw it around: All games are timed, and getting 10u kids to throw it around short of two minutes is a major undertaking.

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Listen, you're an umpire. You take an oath, albeit figurative in most places, to enforce the rules as they are written by the governing body of your League.

In Illinois, that's the NFHS.

First, remember that your interpreter probably doesn't know that Elliott issued an official interpretation this morning. Likely he'll change his mind when you tell him about the ruling.

I thought umpires were dedicated to living life by the rules. Apparently, that leaves you out.

I never took an oath either literally or figuratively about enforcing the rules, but I've had a few coaches swear oaths at me.

Along the same line, I recently engaged Windy on the football forum in a long discussion about truth. Windy does what is best for Windy and the truth be damned.

[WindyCityBlue]

Papa C.,

I lived in Texas for a while and know that people like to stretch the truth a little, but, you've taken it to new heights. I have never taken an oath to enforce all of the rules that the NFSHS proposes. For example, we had a slaughter rule ("mercy" for the politically correct) long before the Fed adopted it. Some of our conferences alllowed it and others had their own qualifications for the end of game. So, every time I enforced it, I was in technical violation of the Fed rules. Yet, we were told it was acceptable by the IHSA.

Despite your dismissal of the "throw it around after a strikeout" rule, our interpreters dismissed it outright. The IHSA even posted it on their website. Coaches agreeing, be damned.

Hopkins is not God. He is an administrator, a mere mortal. I have seen more revisions to rulings and interpretations over the last twenty years than I care to remember. I don't pick and choose what rules to enforce, but if I see that play, I'm going to ask for the mitt and pop the ball out saying, "See it wasn't lodged." I'll then wait for Hopkins to come riding in on his horse and lock me in the stocks for abusing his sensibilities. I'm glad that you hold him in such high regard. I have difficulty dealing with people who perpetuate their own existence.

Mr. Lyle,
You still have not been able to convince anyone that your hero's legacy isn't tainted by his deeds. The simple fact remains, you could not counter his record. As the say, down yonder, "The lies have it. Motion passes." Your logic amuses me and I enjoy teaching my youngest how to read from them. Keep in touch, please.