runner on 2nd, ball hit to pitcher, ball is lodged in his glove, he cannot get it out, so he tosses glove to first before batter-runner reaches first. Ruling--runner at 2nd is awarded home and batter is awarded 2nd. Is this correct?

Nope, ball is live in play. I've even seen that same play at the major league level, pitcher tosses glove to first and runner is out.

let me apologize by saying that I was looking for a FED interpretation. According to 8-3-3c, two bases if a fair batted or thrown ball becomes ....lodged in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment. So help me, I am not sure I am understanding rule.

Yes -- that's the FED interp.

thanks Bob, it almost happened last night but the kid got it out of his glove. I thought "what would I have called if he tossed glove".

Fed ruling incorrect
 

Wait a second Bob.

A kid hits a ball to any infielder, the ball gets lodged in the webbing and he removes it and flips it to the baseman for an out. Are you implying that you are going to rule that the ball was unplayable because it was lodged in a player or umpire uniform? I hope not.

The thought behind that rule, as explained by (IHSA Rules Interpreter and Officials Committee Member) Jay Lyons two or three years ago at the IACAO clinic, is to award bases for a ball slipping insde a uniform, ball bag, or in the case of a catcher, between his chest protector and jersey. We are trying to penalize a player that purposely hides a ball, with the intent of deception - or - award the offense for the ball being put in a place that would make it impossible to continue play.

This was a point of clarification several years ago and was reinforced by the Chicago White Sox game that had the exact play. In fact, that ball was gloved by the pitcher and was used as a direct reference by a clinic attendee.

Re: Fed ruling incorrect
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]Wait a second Bob.

A kid hits a ball to any infielder, the ball gets lodged in the webbing and he removes it and flips it to the baseman for an out. Are you implying that you are going to rule that the ball was unplayable because it was lodged in a player or umpire uniform? I hope not.

WCB, my question is whether he tosses the glove because he cannot remove the ball. The quote "lodges in a defensive player's or umpire's equipment" seems to imply his glove. Are you saying that in a FED game we call the kid out?

In Fed, NCAA and all leagues that use the OBR, this would be an out. The ball lodging in the webbing of the glove is not deceptive, nor does it prevent the conclusion of the play that was described.

As proof, what would you call if on that same play, the infielder took his glove off and tagged a runner that was off base? Would that not be an out according to the rules? The ball was secured by the hand or glove while it contacted a player not in possession of a base - OUT! Take it to the extreme and an outfielder charges in, dives and catches a ball that gets lodged in the webbing. He gets up, realizes the ball is stuck and runs in towards second to tage the runner who left early. He gets tagged with the ball, lodged in the mitt, still on the hand or being held...OUT!

Wait, there's more...on the same diving play, he gets up and the runner is already back in at second. You signal Out on the catch and see him struggle to get the ball out from between the fingers of his mitt. Are you telling me that you would call "Time" negate the out and award bases?

Re: Fed ruling incorrect
 

The White Sox don't play by FED rules - they play by OBR. What happened in that game doesn't apply.

In FED it is a dead ball and a two base award.

Wait, there's more...on the same diving play, he gets up and the runner is already back in at second. You signal Out on the catch and see him struggle to get the ball out from between the fingers of his mitt. Are you telling me that you would call "Time" negate the out and award bases? [/B][/QUOTE]


You make a good point with the first two examples, but this last one is a simple out since he has secured the fly ball for the out and he is not making an attempt to toss his glove. Even the other examples, if he is removing glove to apply tag then we do not have a rule violation. The rule only addresses "tossing" glove.

Sorry Rich,
I just got off the phone with one of the IHSA Rules Interpreters and he confirmed that NFSHS even had an overhead Point of Clarification on this exact play.
Any player that secures the ball in a glove or hand in order to effect the out has complied with the rules. There is no penalty for tossing, handing or kicking the mitt to the other player. Further, If that ball gets hung up in the laces of the glove or between the fingers, who is in jeopardy? What advantage does the defense gain? What disadvantage does the batter or runner have? His/Her job is to beat the ball to the bag...they failed.

You can disagree with this all you want. Call it and see what happens. You will be wrong, two rules support it.

BTW, the state interpreter I spoke to, sits on the rules committee that advises the NFSHS about points of emphasis, clarification or rules updates/alterations.

2004 BRD Item 22 Play 26-22 - Dead ball, two base award.

And if FED interpreters disagree with the BRD, what then?

I've sent this in to our state interpeter for his ruling as well. I'll post it when I receive it.

This may be a case where various state interpreters disagree with the the national interpretaion. The FED clarification that I understand is coming out this year with regards to the shoulder turn during the stretch is one area that for years has been under discussion. Some state FEDs forbid the Mike Mussina stretch, others allowed it. Now it will be legal everywhere.

The BRD only reports on the national interpretation. State interpretations may vary. We have had any number of discussions over the years on the Internet where different states do things in different ways.

When I posed that first question, Peter, I was referring to national FED interpretation, not the states. Many state interpeters turn to the national offices for their interpretations. That's how FED works, The national offices will not address individual umpires. They direct them to turn to their state organization which in turn may turn to tne national offices for guidance.

So my question remains. If FED's interpretation differs from the BRD or any other guide book, what then?

CARL!!!!! It's time for you to weigh in.
 

That's why Carl has a lifetime business. If the national FED interpretation changes, he will change his book and charge you 20+ dollars for the update.

Peter

Ball Lodged in Glove
 

How about this: F1 catches the ball which lodges in his glove. F3 anticipates the coming play by removing his glove. F1 then tosses the glove/ball combination to F3, who then puts it on his hand. Where's the violation.

Re: Ball Lodged in Glove
 

The ball is lodged.

For the record...
 

When I requested the interp from one of the IHSA baseball rules interpreters, I asked him in reference to the play as explained in the original post.

He said that the spirit of the rule is that the umpire should only rule the ball dead after it lodges in a defensive player's or umpire’s uniform/equipment AND the ball becomes unplayable. If a ball goes in an umpire’s ball bag or inside a player’s shirt, play will not easily continue and a "Dead Ball" call is in order. The offense is awarded bases based on the fact that had we allowed the kid to dig in his jersey or go into the umpire's ball bag he/she certainly would have advanced.

He said that the major Federation rules differences (from NCAA & OBR) are designed to prevent injury, speed up the game, encourage sportsmanship and involve as many athletes as possible. He related the batter’s box rule from a few years ago, as an example. The intent was to speed up the game and promote sportsmanship. Ideally a batter would not have the ability to show up an umpire and the game would move faster if he/she couldn’t wander between pitches. For the first two years, we had umpires enforcing it to the letter - a kid thinks it is ball four and starts walking to first on a borderline 3-1 pitch. It is called a strike and then the kid is called out for being out of the box. This even happened in the Colorado and Illinois High School State Finals. The outcry was incredible and the Fed made a point of clarification. Now, we've learned, “The intent of restricting the batter to the box is to prevent a delay in the game. If violation of this rule results in a delay, the result shall be a Strike called on that batter.”

He said that the same thought goes with the previous rule interpretation concerning plays of this type. Since the defense would not be jeopardized by handing, tossing or otherwise transferring the ball to another for the purpose of finishing a play and the offense clearly is not at any more risk, the play should be allowed.

He referred me to a play involving a catcher that lost his mitt (ball inside) on a swipe tag at home. There was no collision but when the mitt went flying, seeing this, the third base coach sent the next runner home. The catcher only had time to pick up the mitt with both hands (not putting it on) and tag the sliding runner. Since the tag was applied prior to the runner reaching home, he was called out - correctly! Again, the supporting rule is that the ball shall be secured by the mitt or bare hand when making the play.

If you feel that this interpretation is incorrect, I invite you to discuss any of the plays I mentioned as examples in my earlier posts (or this one) with your state rule interpreter. I would be surprised if they argue with this one. Logic should prevail with most of our rulings and I would have a hard time penalizing a kid that makes this kind of terrific play.

Per the Washigton State FED baseball clinician and the WIAA newly appointed Director of Baseball, Tim Stevens, the result of the described play would be the same as in OBR...an out.


<b>"When F4's glove is throw to F3 and F3 catches it, he has caught the ball, and it is still a force out...no different from OBR. That is what I meant by 2-9-1.

The bit about 8-3-3c would be if the ball got lodged and the kid started freaking out and spent all his time trying to dislodge the ball, and the runner is circling the bases like mad the whole time."</b>


Maybe it's for that new edition, eh Peter?

Garth;

It would appear that the BRD has an error. If Freix were here, he would have a field day :D (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

You know Tim better than that.

Can't remember the last time Stevens lost a disagreement with national. In fact, he is the author of a new interp that made it in last year. No, I think Elliot would agree with Stevens.

Re: Re: Ball Lodged in Glove
 

Sorry, coach. As Tim Stevens puts it:

Rule 2-9-1 defines a catch as possession of a live ball in flight. If that ball happens to be trapped in another's glove, it still is a catch.

Rule 8-3-3-c applies mostly to catcher's equipment and that sort of thing, although it would be applicable if for some reason the ball were to lodge in a glove and the player were unable to properly remove it (the glove) or have the presence of mind to do so.

HHH,

A couple of years ago the NFSHS tried to institute a rule that would forbid the catcher from throwing the ball down to third or first (to go around the horn) after a strike out.

The Illinois Rules Interpreters and Clinicians had a field day with it. The rule never made it and was abandoned before the season began.


Mary Struckhoff was on the IHSA staff for a long time and (now the Officials guru with NFSHS) still has many good contacts here in Illinois. I think she trusts the judgement of a select few and protects them to the end.

Of course, now we just have Rut and his 3000 words incoherent ramblings...:D

I remember that abortion of a rule. In Virginia, our state interpreter told us to enforce it. Most of the big dogs ignored him. The ones that enforced it certainly did not make any coach's lists! :D

Peter

Long posts
 

I'll try to keep mine short.

You might want to look at the casebook 8.3.3 Situation A... there is the glove toss - tossed to prevent ball from going out of play: two base award.

Garth, WCB, HHH have made the correct ruling/interpretation. The others are silly.

8.3.3 Situation D adds some more.

There is much within rule 8.3 that points to this interpretation (live, playable ball) despite this individual event (ball lodged in glove and the combination being thrown to make a defensive play) not being discussed directly.

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.

I am not Garth. I disagree with you because you are incorrect. This play has been explained and clarified at the Fed level. I'm not sure if your state requires annual attendance at rules meetings, but our does. This very rule was discussed several years ago. Several people have shown you how it should be interpreted. At least two of those sources are State reps.

You can continue to disagree, but I can't believe that you would actually call it this way. I applaud your tenacity, but would not want to be the Crew Chief when you made that call. Actually, you would not want me to be the Crew Chief when that call was made.

This is all coming from a guy that cannot handle a baseball game without ejecting someone?

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_3.gif' alt='Huh?' border=0></a>

It appears you cannot coherently get a point across without acting like a rookie. I guess you are really respected in your parts.

Peace

Different sources disagree? I don't have my BRD with me, so I don't know if its interpretation is <b> this exact play</b> 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]

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.

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?

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

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.

What happens if. . .
 

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]

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 player’s uniform or the catcher’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.

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

Not true.
 

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

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.

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.

Windy is completely right about this issue.

Peace

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] <b>remains in play</b>. (J/R, p. 32)

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:

<i>28. MLB and WUA’s Joint Committee has made an interpretation to cover situations where a batted or thrown ball enters a player or coach’s uniform or the catcher’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]”</i>

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]

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!

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

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.

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 <u>is</u> 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 <b>not</b> interpretations. Never got an answer.

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

Well, now we have an answer. According to Tim Stevens, B. Elliott Hopkins has ruled that a ball lodged in the glove may <i>NOT</i> 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 <b>responsible</b> 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].

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.

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.

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.

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

Bob:

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

It's a short list.

To Papa C.
 

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

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

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!!

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

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

Bet you did not know that one?

Peace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

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 <b>not</b> 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 <i>NOT</i> 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 <i>illustration of language</i> any more.

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

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

Carl wrote:

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

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 <i>stuck</i>, 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.

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.

I feel a moderator "thread lock" approaching.

U7

You are obviously out of touch as to the manner in which some other states handle the NFHS and filter things all the way down to the individual leagues in some instances regarding rule interpretations. FED rules may form the "vast basis" of the rule book but there are certain things that are left to the governing leagues. Just because you or an esteemed state interpreter from Washington say something should be ruled in a particular manner has absolutely no bearing on folks in my area. AFAIK I'll rule in the manner in which I'm expected to rule in MY area. If that makes me less of an umpire in the NFHS's eyes then so be it.

You're tilting at the wrong windmill in some instances.

U7

And you are who from where?

Hmmm,
 

"FED rules may form the "vast basis" of the rule book but there are certain things that are left to the governing leagues."

Please be very careful with statements such as this.

The Federation Charter states, areas, cities and leagues are not allowed to make arbitrary changes to FED rules.

While it is clear that some areas "say" they have local interpretations those changes ARE NOT condoned or accepted by FED.

FED has no process (other than FED asking states to 'try' new or corrected rulings in test situations) for states to step outside their rules.

If you don't believe me on this issue just contact Kyle McNeely and he can explain more fully.

I would appreciate that you let me contact your local assignor or association President so that we can discuss what local rules your group has established.

Thanks in advance.

Tee

Re: Hmmm,
 

Tee;

On March 26, 2001, Warren Willson said that I was umpyre007 and Warren couldn't be wrong, could he? :D Moving right along, let me answer for my area of the country. I do not know who umpyre007 is or where he lives.

I have been to any number of high school games in the DC area that modify the FED rules. I do not work a lot of FED ball any more but the most recent case that I can recall (March/April 2004) was at Flint Hill High School in Oakton, Virginia. At the plate conference, we were informed that only OBR balks were to be called and that they played with the OBR visits rule. There may have been some other changes but they had nothing to do with safety. I would not have compromised on that. Prior to FED adopting appeals, I am fairly sure that this school played with OBR appeals.

I also recall a game this spring at Paul VI High School in Fairfax, VA that was played against a public high school that had some of the same rules modifications.

My local association has not modified any rules but I do not believe that umpyre007 was talking about that. He specifically mentioned "governing leagues" as the ones who modify rules.

Peter

And you will do...what?

Don't we already have someone here who likes to take credit for involving himself in rule interps?

I'm trying to understand what your involvement would be in the situation. I imagine a call to any of the groups in our state.

"Hi, this is Tim C. and I understand that you may or may not be enforcing the entire Fed rule book. You know that the charter states that you can't arbitrarily decide which rules you will use, unless given explicit permission as a test state."

Click...dial tone.

Peter,
I couldn't have said it any better. But this was fun.
WCB

I had the privilege of spending time and having dinner with both Tee and Tim Stevens this week. Two finer gentlemen and passionate umpires you could not hope to meet.

Personally, I think the OBR ruling is loony. What if the ball becomes stuck and there's a TAG play? Are we going to allow a tag with a ball stuck between the fingers? Now, I wouldn't call the ball dead -- it's not like the fielder COULDN'T get the ball out -- he just couldn't do it in time to make the play. The call should've been SAFE from the get go, but some MLU got creative with a ruling and the powers that be decided to go the easy route and accept the ruling. Too bad.

My opinion doesn't count.

--Rich

It is one thing to have a ruling in the casebook that everyone can see. It is entirely another thing to have a play or a situation that the NF has never put in black and white. States can and do take those plays and make a decision. Or they take a fringe rule or mechanic and decide what is going to be done with their officials. There have even been situations where the NF came out and said things on their website and Official's Quarterly to only contradict with rulebook logic and common sense. I know my state in those cases have made their own rulings or interpretations to give their officials some clarity on questions their officials have come up with.

It might not be a baseball situation, but I know the IHSA has told us to not make an issue with certain religious expressions that directly contradict the rulebook in basketball. They also allowed players in basketball to wear an insulin pump, which seems to directly contradict the NF rulebook. It happens quite often around here and I could not even tell you who those people are that many refer to. Those are not the people we answer to. If they want us to do something, if we want to work the playoffs, we do what they request. When in Rome.......

Peace

Carl:

I'll never understand you. Where was I wrong?

When Tim told me his interpretation for the state of Washington and I relayed that to you?

Or maybe when Elliot issued a ruling and I said all FED umpires should follow his ruling?

Or maybe because I personally disagree with the ruling as do Rich, Tim, Tee and a number of others you chose not to harass. I guess what I did wrong was to question the BRD. God forgive me.

I don't know why you would hate yourself for posting. I said nothing against you. And when I found another error at officiating.com, I sent it to you privately rather than posting it here.

As I said I will never understand you.

Another Fed violation...
 

Jeff, we agree again. People are going to start talking.

Fed has a rule prohibiting "Dew-Rags", bandanas and head scarves in baseball. Last year, we had an umpire eject a Public League kid that was wearing the UnderArmour skullcap under his baseball hat. He was a stud who was getting scouted by a decent college. The ump tossed him in the first inning. The ruling was appealed for clarification and the Jeopardy geniuses at Fed said it should be prohibited. The Public League then asked the IHSA for a ruling and were told that the skull cap (specifically designed to keep the head cool) was allowed, as it was not visible. Logic dictated that we depart from the Fed interp.

Would you toss out a kid that has his Yarmulke under his helmet? The IHSA is light years ahead of some states in making sure that the integrity of the game isn't compromised. Differing from the Fed here is just more proof.

Re: Another Fed violation...
 

There were basketball officials that were not allowing a girl that was Muslim to play with a head dress in our state because the NF said so. Well the IHSA told officials to stop ruling that way, allow the girl to play. She had to file a letter with the IHSA and the reasoning, but they made it clear not to use the FED Rule as it related to this issue. The IHSA posted this on our personal website (you heard me right) to allow this type of religious expression. It is not the FED that is going to have to deal with the lawsuit. They made a similar ruling as it related to Yarmulkes and the pins that go in their head. It is illegal to have anything hard or potentially sharp stuck to your body. Well someone did not allow some kid to play and it was an issue state wide.

I agree the FED is the body that should be followed to some extent, but the Federation is not going to have to suffer the consequences if they sue or if they take issue with those rules. The IHSA and any state have the right to make a ruling outside of what the FED says. I have even seen some rules that changed based on some of the issues that have taken place here. They used to be a rule against wearing pants in a basketball game. Funny the following year after the paper covered a story in the Chicago Tribune about that girl that was Muslim, the NF changed their rule. Funny how that happens. BTW, at the time there was IHSA Director was on the Basketball Committee. I am sure he shared that concern with the NF.

Peace

Hehehehe,
 

Windy I do find you funny.

So you know:

I talk with the Federation National Office about six times a year. I talk directly with Mr Hopkins rarely.

I can call, and will call, any association that I care to call. I write articles on umirping and I am always researching.

See what I figure is that you really have nothing better to do than go after people in a personal way and clearly understand that there is no way but the "WCB Way" -- know what, you've just won.

I'll match resume with you ANY day . . .

Hope you have a great season.

Tee

BTW, I simply stated facts. There is no system under FED to make individual changes to their rules. If you do, then you are simply no longer playing under FED rules.

And Windy, the answer is yes . . . in my area the player would have been ejected for the skull cap. Like it or not that IS what would happen.

T

Re: Hehehehe,
 

That's true for the FED football and basketball rulesets also.

Tee,
When did you graduate Pro School?
What position in class?
Were you hired for a Minor League Roster?
How many years did you work at that level?
For whom?
How many games did you work at the D-1 level this year?
How many Minor League games did you work this year?

Those are personal questions, directed at the person who said he would match resumes with me.

I'm waiting.

Listen, most people here are sick of your nonsense.

T. Alan Christensen is a respected baseball writer, umpire, and trainer. He has been a force for honesty on the internet since its inception.

His name and number are in the phone book.

You, on the other hand, are an anonymous little pissant. You don't have the right even to ask Tee what his shoe size is.

BTW: Tee and I don't even like each other.

Go back to McGriff's.

We're waiting....

There are many more...
 

Yes, we know what the rule book says, but we've been discussing how certain things are changed at the discretion of the governing body (state or local).

Examples:
1) Enforcing the batter's box rule
2) Not allowing a JV player to substitute because he isn't wearing the EXACT uniform of the varsity (even though everyone knows his uniform is red and the opposition is black and white)
3) The dugout extensions and warm up area, as decribed this past season in a point of clarification
4) Pine tar above the allowable mark
5) Allowing only OFFICIAL Fed baseballs
6) The mercy rule
7) Blood on a uniform
8) Warm ups on the sidelines while the other team is taking infield
9) Mounds that conform to the rule book!

Listen, most people here are sick of your nonsense.

T. Alan Christensen is a respected baseball writer, umpire, and trainer. He has been a force for honesty on the internet since its inception.

His name and number are in the phone book.

You, on the other hand, are an anonymous little pissant. You don't have the right even to ask Tee what his shoe size is.

BTW: Tee and I don't even like each other.

Go back to McGriff's.

We're waiting....

Hey, Tee: I just had a thought: Maybe WCB is Erik Stahlbusch.

OK,
 

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

Thanks for your interest.

T

From Carl Childress September 7, 2004 at 9:48 p.m.

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

Pissant, moi?
I thought you were still mad that I asked for the ring back.
Okay, you can keep it. But, I’ll never love you the same.

Tim C.,
You laid out the challenge. Now you say I humiliated myself? Who is scared?

WCB

And you really think that people on this board care about whether someone has graduated from a pro school or not?

Anyone can attend a pro school and graduate and most that I have seen are NOT good umpires.

So I would drop that from your resume.

You can tell a lot about a person by what they write - enough said.

Thanks
David

Hmmm,
 

Windy:

You win. The site, from my perspective, is yours.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Sep 11th, 2004 at 12:47 PM]

Resumes begin with names. Tee has laid his out for everyone to see. Match that.

Perhaps those of your age can only intepret it that way.

However, "Begging the question, in modern popular usage, is almost always synonymous with raising the question.

While the original meaning, still defended by some, is different: it once only described a type of logical fallacy A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises; that is no longer accepted as the sole meaning."

Again except perhaps by retired high school English teachers.

Re: Hmmm,
 

Nowhere did I state that these changes to FED rules were our association's changes. We work for entities so we adjust to those entities' wishes. I doubt very little would be accomplished by you since you are not recognized in my area. Like the rest of us you're just another Internet umpire. You'll have to set up the appointment with the local leagues that are run by HS principals and ADs anyway.

U7