toss glove

[TBBlue]

[i]
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. [/B]

I'm impressed if you can keep it under 2 minutes Keeping it within the fence is a chore...

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bob Lyle

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.

Bob:

I've just added WCB to the list of Forum members I won't reply to anymore.

It's a short list.

[JRutledge]

I have to take issue with your point of view here. I agree that the NF is a major force for those states that are members, but to suggest that everything they say is accepted and practiced is ridiculous.

I work three sports and in all of them there are rulings that come out that are rejected by people in our state. I agree we cannot just pick and choose what rules we use, but there is a philosophy that is accepted from the powers that be. The NF does not hire officials for the playoffs in my state. All the NF is create the rulebook. We have clinics that are required for all to attend or they lose their license. And if they want to work playoffs, umpires/officials have to attend certain type of clinics in order to be considered. In each of these sports there is a rule or a mechanic in which the IHSA wants us to do. In football we were told to use sideline warnings for conduct purposes. In basketball we have changed the mechanics for 3 person to fit what he clinicians wanted. They even wanted us to do something that is not supported by the NF Mechanics books. In baseball there are PowerPoint Presentations that defines mechanics that the NF does not advocate. I am sure all states have things they wish their people to adhere to.

I am not saying that everything Windy is saying is correct on this issue. Actually I cannot remember any particular ruling that suggests what he is saying is true. Now that does not mean he is wrong, but I have never heard anyone suggest that you award two bases for this type of play. I just think to suggest that every time the NF says something there is 100% agreement by all its members is rather silly.

I remember that when PSK came out in football there were officials all over the country were trying to tell me how wrong I was on what the NF wanted us to do. The NF came out with much contradictory information on this new rule and the IHSA told us how to enforce the rule based on the information they distributed to the officials and coaches. The NF ended up siding with the IHSA and their point of view on the rule.

I had a discussion on this board and others about a rule of informing coaches or teams about timeouts in basketball. I not only cited the rules, I also talked to our clinicians and our Head Clinician as well. They philosophy that was relayed to me was clearly different than what many were doing across the country. It was clear they did not want officials going over and reporting timeout situations to coaches. It was even said that "officials have more important issues to worry about." But folks on this board did nothing but tell me I was wrong and I had no idea what the rule was.

I tell you these stories to illustrate that a state can do what they want to and tell their officials what they want to. The NF cannot tell states how to run their officials and what rules have to be emphasized. The IHSA is a member of the NF and we have members from our state that sit on the rules committees in multiple sports over the years. The editor in a couple of sports is a person that worked in the IHSA Office for some years (was in that position when I started officiating). Yes, any state can make a ruling or decide what is important and what rules or mechanics are to be used. It happens in every sport I know of and these situations are widely discussed. I know in baseball this year there were many mechanics that we used that were not ever in the NF books. Life will go on.

Peace

[WindyCityBlue]

Bob:

I've just added WCB to the list of Forum members I won't reply to anymore.

It's a short list.
__________________
Papa C
Editor-in-Chief
Officiating.com


That's a smart move. You stepped into the box and forgot your bat. Your wordsmithing may fool others, but you give up when someone successfully challenges the veracity of your statements. Truer colors were never seen.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Bob:

I've just added WCB to the list of Forum members I won't reply to anymore.

It's a short list.
__________________
Papa C
Editor-in-Chief
Officiating.com


That's a smart move. You stepped into the box and forgot your bat. Your wordsmithing may fool others, but you give up when someone successfully challenges the veracity of your statements. Truer colors were never seen.

Windy;

Carl is a reporter, not an interpreter. He "reported" the FED interpretation that is in conflict with OBR and NCAA. In order to report this interpretation, he had to use his extensive experience to interpret their language. It turns out he got it right, at least as far as the national FED is concerned. Carl does not concern himself with how the state interpreters rule.

My Carl bashing credentials are exceeded only by those of Bfair. You are relatively new here but as any long timer can tell you, Bfair and I have a long history of beating up on Carl. Yet Bfair has indicated that Carl reported this ruling in the only way that he could, absent an official ruling from the FED. Likewise, I opined that it was dangerous to argue with Carl when he knows all of the history and had the inside contacts.

Rather than stepping in the box without a bat as you claimed, Carl stepped in the box with a very big bat indeed. To claim otherwise is to turn logic on its head. You have engaged the man from Wheaton in so many discussions that you have started to think like him. Standing logic on its head is his specialty; being illogical is also his specialty.

After a long discussion (flame war if you will), when Carl is proven right, he tends to gloat. That is his specialty. To call this anything other than a home run for Carl, is to be out of contact with reality. If Carl can hit home runs without "a bat", so much the better for him.

The only thing that would have been sweeter for Carl would be to have Bfair on the other side so that Carl could gloat at Bfair as well.

All that being said, I don't recall Carl taking a position one way or another as to whether he thinks the ruling is good for baseball. Unless Tim Stevens surprises us, Carl was reporting the facts and he got them right.

Peter

[scyguy]

I'm just proud that little ole me was able to ask a good question. But seriously, I have been trained to respect the ruling of the NFHS and inforce accordingly. Some rules seem out of place, including this one, however if told this is a two-base award----then two base award it shall be!!

[mcrowder]

Wow. Page 5 of this discussion is just as useless as page 2. Yawn.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by His High Holiness


You have engaged the man from Wheaton in so many discussions that you have started to think like him. Standing logic on its head is his specialty; being illogical is also his specialty.

Which one? There is more than one person here that lives in that town.

Bet you did not know that one?

Peace

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 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....

As I emailed Peter at the early stage of this thread: "I wouldn't be surprised if FED rules contrary to Tim. It's dangerous to rely on common sense when dealing with FED."

Tim's honesty and loyalty are unquestionable. I have no doubt that his original ruling was the one he preferred, but being the good soldier, he will follow Elliot, as should all FED umpires.

It's good to know that we won't have to deal with the play as an illustration of language any more.

[Edited by GarthB on Sep 9th, 2004 at 01:32 AM]

[Rich]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

No, but *I* do. I'm familiar with the area and some of its officiating residents.

About the thread -- I can't imagine not enforcing something that will be #1 in the list sent out next season. It would be pretty hard to get away with that unless the STATE specifically thumbs its nose at the ruling.

[Bfair]

It's unfortunate that Windy knows the rule and says he wouldn't rule per the game rules. However, I'd bet money that in ignoring the Fed rule he'd likely be ruling as most NFHS officials would rule..........

That is, aside from those dedicated enough to visit these boards to sharpen and further their knowledge, I'd doubt if a majority of HS officials would rule in accordance with the NFHS rule despite its black/white existence. Since there currently exists no caseplay, it's likely most would rule as it is ruled in OBR.......BECAUSE THAT'S THEY WAY THEY'VE SEEN IT DONE ON TV.........and because that's the way the spectators (and likely the coaches and players) expect it to be ruled.

With that said, I'll leave the rest to Peter........


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

Carl wrote:

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

This begs the question, to whom is he listening? Apparently not to Tim or other sensible state level interpreters who preferred that FED adopt an OBR-like intepretation.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
Carl wrote:

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

This begs the question, to whom is he listening? Apparently not to Tim or other sensible state level interpreters who preferred that FED adopt an OBR-like intepretation.

I expect I will hate myself in the morning, but....

Those of us, like Tim, who dealt regularly with the FED before, when Rumble was the editor/rules interpreter, have quickly perceived the difference between the two men.

You know of two state interpreters (Tim and [allegedly] the Illinois guy) who urged Hopkins to follow the lead of the OBR.

Now, what you don't know is how many state interpreters counseled him to say that "lodged" means stuck, and the rule says "two bases."

The point is obvious: As opposed to Rumble, Hopkins says that he welcomes your input; but there's no guarantee you'll be in the majority or that the majority will win.

When you read Tim's article about the ruling, I hope you'll understand better how and -- importantly in this instance -- why interpreters rule as they do.

In the meantime, I have clipped your message and sent it to Tim. No doubt he'll get a good laugh when he finds out you thought he was begging the question.

Note that what I wrote is a quote (Said he: "You bet! I like Elliot. He listens."). They are not my words, and I checked the quote with Tim to be sure it was accurate.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

In the meantime, I have clipped your message and sent it to Tim. No doubt he'll get a good laugh when he finds out you thought he was begging the question.

Note that what I wrote is a quote (Said he: "You bet! I like Elliot. He listens."). They are not my words, and I checked the quote with Tim to be sure it was accurate.

I doubt Tim will laugh. I emailed him myself with the same remark. He knows it is not an insult, but rather an honest question. And Tim is one who answers honest questions rather than avoiding them or trying to make them out to be something other than just what they are. I've never heard a cross word from Tim and I've never, in the long time we've been acquainted, seen him belittle anyone.

This is just one reason Tim, in the opinon of many,is the most respected umpire on the internet.

I expect instead an intelligent reply as to why he thinks his opinion didn't sway Elliot.




[Edited by GarthB on Sep 10th, 2004 at 01:20 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

I doubt Tim will laugh. I emailed him myself with the same remark. He knows it is not an insult, but rather an honest question. And Tim is one who answers honest questions rather than avoiding them or trying to make them out to be something other than just what they are. I've never heard a cross word from Tim and I've never, in the long time we've been acquainted, seen him belittle anyone.

This is just one reason Tim, in the opinon of many,is the most respected umpire on the internet.

I expect instead an intelligent reply as to why he thinks his opinion didn't sway Elliot.




[Edited by GarthB on Sep 10th, 2004 at 01:20 AM]

Good look over someone's shoulder next week. Stevens writes for Officiating.com. He'll explain it for you.

BTW: I, too, knew you didn't realize you were accusing Mr. Stevens of deceptive argument. Fact is, you just can't let it go when you're wrong.

I knew I was going to hate myself for "talking" to you.