BRD on lodged batted ball

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B]

Originally posted by GarthB
Are you saying that the BRD does indeed include actual intrepretations in addition to the non interpretation descriptions of language? And if that is the case, how are the two differentiated. (I'm sorry, but my copies of the BRD only go to 2001, perhaps this is all handled differently in the newer editions.)

What I'm saying: I wonder if the Red Sox are ever going to lose a game.

You know exactly what I mean, and you are fooling not one soul on this Board who knows anything about your "history."

Read the introduction to the BRD, even in your antiquated edition. When I "interpret" a rule, I say so.

And you know that. As does everyone who owns a copy of the BRD.

Knock yourself out -- solo.

I'm just amazed it took me so long to figure out you weren't seriously interested in advancing your "knowledge" of the FED.

Stupid.

Wow. You won't respond to a civil question, yet you'll take the time to edit your post to add:

I'm just amazed it took me so long to figure out you weren't seriously interested in advancing your "knowledge" of the FED.

Stupid.

This addition, by the way makes no sense. From the beginning of my exchange with you, I was inquiring about the play in the BRD, not about the FED rule. I made it very clear that I was trying to advance my knowledge of your wording, not FED's. That's why I came to you.

I'm sorry if I failed to understand that your play was a description of language and not an interpetation Carl. I had honestly not read reference to that in the BRD introduction. You blast me for not knowing that yet say not a word to others who posted that play as (wrongly, apparently)an interpretation backing up their position. You didn't tell them that it was only a description of Language. Not until I asked you directly did you inform of us of that.

And why so pissy? Are we not allowed to ask what you mean in the BRD when we are confused? Great customer service, as Peter would say. Jesus Carl, lighten up.

[Edited by GarthB on Sep 4th, 2004 at 06:11 PM]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Bfair

As a voice from the past I'll say.................
this entire issue brings to mind Carl's past interpretation that Fed required arm motion as part of a feint to 3B during the 3-1 pickoff play (ref. 2002 BRD Section 353) while OBR and NCAA did not . This interpretation was significantly argued between Carl, myself, and others. Still, I don't recall The BRD's old, incorrect ruling as noting that it was merely Carl's interpretation of the rule (perhaps I missed something in my BRD issue). Of course the Fed has now directly addressed that issue and Carl has, of course, now corrected HIS interpretation within The BRD to coincide with the correct interpretation.

I also note that the 2003 BRD, section 353 indicated that under NCAA rules it is legal for a pitcher to feint to a base from the pitching plate without a need to first step there. While I note that Carl has not indicated this to be HIS interpretation, I find this interpretation to be in disagreement with NCAA rule 9-3c which specifically states:

The pitcher, while touching the pitcher’s rubber, must step toward
the base, preceding or simultaneous with any move toward that
base. [my emphasis]

I don’t know if Carl has made any corrections to his later BRD’s, but I will note that I’ve pointed out this inconsistency in interpretation many times to Carl with his failure to even to care to address the question of the inconsistency.

Since I've been off the board for awhile I won't fail to add that The BRD is certainly one the best values for any umpire to add to his library. However, be careful in accepting all of its interpretations without question. When something seems unusual, use The BRD’s rules references to specifically read those rules to assure the interpretation shown agrees with the written rule. If it seems not to, look for an interpretation reference supporting The BRD’s indicated ruling. If not shown, assume it may be mere author interpretation---and quite possibly incorrect. Carl was proven wrong many times in our past arguments.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Steve:

Long time!

If I remember correctly, when you and Carl were discussing the 3-1 move requirements, The word "interpretation" was used quite freely.

In this recent discussion, Carl has stated that he has not given an interpretation, rather he has "illustrated what the language means." His exact words were:

"Example: Able should bat but Baker bats and singles. Before a pitch, the defense appeals that Baker was an improper batter.

NOW, if I include that in the BRD, with a ruling, am I making an interpretation?

No: I'm illustrating what the language means. Well, at least, that's what I think I'm doing."


I was not sure what that meant, but when I pursued an explanation, Carl cut off communications. He accused me of being insincere in pursing knowledge of FED. However, I thought I had made it clear that was I was attempting was a pursuit of knowledge of the BRD.

He suggested that had I read the introduction to the BRD I would have understood what he was doing with play 14-20.

I read the introduction and no where does could I find a reference to "illustrating what the language means." Neither could I find any statement giving guidance as to how to accept or consider the plays listed, other than when they are accompanied by a filled in black square "the material applies to all levels."

The play in question appears to give a ruling. But the ruling is not from FED. Carl has said, I believe, that FED has not issued a ruling. I could only surmise then, that it came from Carl. I don't think Carl has disagreed with that exactly, but rather he explained that his ruling was, as I said before, an illustration of language and thus not an interpretation.

Like you, I think the BRD is an indenspenable umpire tool. I would just like to understand it better should I need to rely not just on the differences in rule wording, but also any of the "rulings" or "interpretations" or "illustrations of language."

Several posters at this board have in the past referred to these plays as interpetations and Carl never jumped in to disagree with that label; until now, that is, when I referred to his ruling as an intepretation.

I guess, absent of any further explanation by the author, it would be best to consider plays and rulings such as 14-20 as "possible, yet unofficial interpretations"

[Bfair]

Garth, that's why I presented the past examples of the Carl's statements, not illustrations, of the previously mentioned pitching movements. To say as he does that is legal for an NCAA pitcher to feint to a base from the rubber without first having to step to that base is, indeed, an interpretation----not an illustration. No differently than it was Carl's interpretation when he stated, not illustrated, that arm movement was required by Fed for a legal feint to be accomplished (since the Fed had never stated that).

Play whatever type rhetorical masquerade he may try, these are all merely examples of author interpretation that has permeated The BRD, and are similar to some past issues where he has later needed to correct The BRD. No problem...people make mistakes.

What amazes me most is that I pointed out to Carl that his NCAA interpretation is in direct conflict with the written rule, but for years he failed to even address the issue to at least try to get a ruling to support his interpretation. That's simply a case of his choosing to leave that error in his book merely because he doesn't like the person who pointed out his error. I'd strongly suspect had Bob Jenkins pointed out that error to him he'd have checked it out and corrected it immediately. (I'll bet a dollar to a donut that Bob would balk an NCAA pitcher who, from the rubber, makes an arm pump to a base without first stepping there). Apparently Carl's dislike of me is greater than his desire to maintain accuracy within The BRD. Hopefully I'm wrong, and he made that correction in his last rewrite of his book.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[cowbyfan1]

Really what difference does it make if it is an interpetation or not? Isn't it sumantics if it is an "interpetation" or a "description of language."

You have OBR rules (and even interpetations) in the OBR rule book. Now how many book are out there that offer their interpetations of those rules? J/R, PBUC, Evans, BRD, just to name a few. Is any one right or wrong? No. Do they all agree on everything? No. So what to do. How bout take what you like or think works best and applying that. If MLB comes out and says this is the official interpetation book then you can point that is totally right. But is it? No. Why, because will they come out with edits to that book? Count on it.
Until FED comes out and specifically says what lodged is then you have to use your own interpetation. Carl mentioned the ball stuck in the glove. If you don't consider that as lodged then fine and dandy, state what you feel is lodged. A ball inbehind a catchers chest protector. Is it lodged if he has to reach in and get it out? Or is it lodged if it just does not fall out on its own within a second or 2? Or is it lodged if he has to undo straps to get it out? Ask 100 unpires to pick one of the above as a minimum requirement for "lodged" and I doubt you'll get 60% of them to agree on 1 of the above. Carl offered some case plays in BDR. That is more than what the Fed has done so it is something you can use as a guideline for this type play. If you don't agree with it, then find something you do like in another publication.