BRD on lodged batted ball

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
Carl;

Go to the thread "Toss Glove". The accuracy of the BRD has been called into question.Peter

Peter:

We're discussing only a batted ball lodging in a player's equipment or uniform.

A history lesson is in order:

Here's the relevant statute in 1992: Ball becomes immediately dead when: A batted ball which is on or over fair ground... or goes over or through or wedges in the field fence. (FED 5-1-1e)

Here's the relevant statute in 1993: Ball becomes immediately dead when: A batted ball which is on or over fair ground... or goes over or through or wedges in the field fence; or lodges in players equipment or uniform. (FED 5-1-1e)

That addition is not marked as a change in the FED rule book nor is it listed on the inside cover as a change or editorial revision.

The rule has been in the BRD since the 14th edition (1994). Since the clasue was not marked as a change, it's likely I missed in preparing the 1993 BRD.

But it's there in 1994 (Section 18) marked New: with this note: "The change is an unannounced editorial revision that gives the umpire something to do following last year's unannounced editorial revision as 5-1-1e." (Last year's revision is not relevant to this issue.)

The BRD has carried the section in every edition since.

But the issue was clarified in the 2002 BRD since both the NCAA and PBUC had issued rulings on the play.

Rich Fetichiet ruled that a batted ball lodging in a player's uniform results in a dead ball, two-base award. He skipped ruling on a ball lodging in equipment. (NCAA website, 4/18/01) The next year, the NCAA added the interpretation as a rule at 8-32L.

Mike Fitzpatrick took my play to the 2002 minor league umpires meeting in Boston and asked them to vote on what the status of the ball should be. They said: "A batted ball that lodges in a player's uniform is alive and in play." (Fitzpatrick phone call to me, 12/26/01)

So here's my play from the 2002 edition:

B1 hits a sharp, one-hop come-backer to the mound. F1 gloves the ball instinctively, then discovers the ball is lodged tightly between the fingers of his glove. As B1 hustles down the line, F1 removes the glove and thorws it, with the ball still ldoged, to F3 in time to retire B1. Ruling: In FED, the ball is dead when it lodges in F1's glove; award B1 second. In NCAA and OBR, B1 is out.

Note: The only rule book (or interpretation) that mentions what happens when the batted ball lodges in equipment is the FED.

The discussion, then, has nothing to do with the BRD. I reported the rule accurately in every edition since the rule was changed.

If now some state rules interpreters are "explaining" the meaning of "lodges," that's their business. That's the business of any of their umpires who find it out. It is not the business of the BRD.

Just to be sure, I went back and read through every NFHS Official Interpretation for every year since 1993. There is no mention of the "editorial revision" and no play illustrating any meaning of "lodge." (I knew there would not be since that would have instantly made the BRD. Still, in the interest of thoroughness, I looked.)

If this issue matters to Hopkins, he can issue his own ruling on the NFHS website in January. In 2003 they appeared in time to show up in the 2003 BRD: 11 of the 20 interpretations made it into the book. In 2004, they were late and so none are in the 2004 edition.

As one final note: Situation 17 is a significant rewrite of casebook play 3.2.2b; situation 17 is definitely headed for the 2005 book. BTW: I'll bet a dollar to a penny the NFHS does NOT correct 3.2.2b to align ith with the black letter law of the case book.

[GarthB]

B1 hits a sharp, one-hop come-backer to the mound. F1 gloves the ball instinctively, then discovers the ball is lodged tightly between the fingers of his glove. As B1 hustles down the line, F1 removes the glove and thorws it, with the ball still ldoged, to F3 in time to retire B1. Ruling: In FED, the ball is dead when it lodges in F1's glove; award B1 second. In NCAA and OBR, B1 is out.


Carl:

Did you come up with this situation or did FED? If it is of your creation, did you pass it by FED or did you rule on it based on your understanding of FED?

The discussion seems to now center on FED intepreter's disagreeing with the application of the rule in this specific situation, not the wording of the rule. So it would seem to matter if they are disagreeing with a specific Hopkins ruling or yours.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
B1 hits a sharp, one-hop come-backer to the mound. F1 gloves the ball instinctively, then discovers the ball is lodged tightly between the fingers of his glove. As B1 hustles down the line, F1 removes the glove and thorws it, with the ball still ldoged, to F3 in time to retire B1. Ruling: In FED, the ball is dead when it lodges in F1's glove; award B1 second. In NCAA and OBR, B1 is out.


Carl:

Did you come up with this situation or did FED? If it is of your creation, did you pass it by FED or did you rule on it based on your understanding of FED?

The discussion seems to now center on FED intepreter's disagreeing with the application of the rule in this specific situation, not the wording of the rule. So it would seem to matter if they are disagreeing with a specific Hopkins ruling or yours.

I thought my previous post was self-explanatory. The rule says a "lodged ball is dead: two bses." In my play the ball is "lodged"; even after the glove is tossed, the ball is still "lodged."

I also thought I made it clear there has never been any official interpretation from the NFHS defining that word.

When you create a test for umpires in your association, do you write the questions to illustrate the rule? Or do you wait for Indianpolis to send you examples?

I repeat: Individual state interpreters to the contrary notwithstanding, the BRD will make no change until Hopkins posts the "official" interpretation; i.e., a definition of "lodge."

The point? Too many state interpreters fall prey to their own prejudices. They have a "vision" of what FED ball should be, so they enforce that vision, even if it may not coincide with the NFHS rules committee.

[Tim C]

Then some states, such as Oregon, have rules interpreter that not only does not know FED rules but argues about his misconceptions.

Lah Me!

Tee

[David B]

Originally posted by Tim C
Then some states, such as Oregon, have rules interpreter that not only does not know FED rules but argues about his misconceptions.

Lah Me!

Tee

Ditto for the fine state of Mississippi.

Most of the new interpretations (and old ones for that matter) are never discussed at our mandatory meetings much less expected to be ruled on by our umpires.

Ugh!

Thanks
David

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

I thought my previous post was self-explanatory. The rule says a "lodged ball is dead: two bses." In my play the ball is "lodged"; even after the glove is tossed, the ball is still "lodged."

I also thought I made it clear there has never been any official interpretation from the NFHS defining that word.

When you create a test for umpires in your association, do you write the questions to illustrate the rule? Or do you wait for Indianpolis to send you examples?

I repeat: Individual state interpreters to the contrary notwithstanding, the BRD will make no change until Hopkins posts the "official" interpretation; i.e., a definition of "lodge."

The point? Too many state interpreters fall prey to their own prejudices. They have a "vision" of what FED ball should be, so they enforce that vision, even if it may not coincide with the NFHS rules committee.

I'm sorry if you took this wrong Carl. I am the sort that needs to ask his own questions to clarify things.

So, then, if I have sorted things out correctly:

1. FED as a national organization has not ruled specifically on the play in question.

2. The interpretation of the FED rule as it applies to this play in the BRD is yours.

3. Some state FED interpreters disagree with that interpretation.

Is this a fair representation of where we stand, or have I missed something?

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

I'm sorry if you took this wrong Carl. I am the sort that needs to ask his own questions to clarify things.

So, then, if I have sorted things out correctly:

1. FED as a national organization has not ruled specifically on the play in question.

2. The interpretation of the FED rule as it applies to this play in the BRD is yours.

3. Some state FED interpreters disagree with that interpretation.

Is this a fair representation of where we stand, or have I missed something?

No more than usual. (grin)

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.

Likewise, my Play 26-22 (Hey, go next door and look over your friend's shoulder - another but smaller grin), which appeared eight straight years in the BRD without a whimper of opposition, is NOT an interpretation.

It's not what I think ought to be the ruling.
It's not what I think a FED interpreter might do.

We all know that English may not be the native tounge of those who toil in the FED vineyard.

My play (Did you get back yet?) simply shows what "lodged" means. "Stuck." Maybe I'll say "stuck."

American Heritage says: "Lodge: To be or become embedded." I'd say a ball that remains in a glove even after it's thrown some distance across a baseball diamond is "embedded," uh, I mean "stuck."

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Originally posted by GarthB

No more than usual. (grin)

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.

Likewise, my Play 26-22 (Hey, go next door and look over your friend's shoulder - another but smaller grin), which appeared eight straight years in the BRD without a whimper of opposition, is NOT an interpretation.

It's not what I think ought to be the ruling.
It's not what I think a FED interpreter might do.

We all know that English may not be the native tounge of those who toil in the FED vineyard.

My play (Did you get back yet?) simply shows what "lodged" means. "Stuck." Maybe I'll say "stuck."

American Heritage says: "Lodge: To be or become embedded." I'd say a ball that remains in a glove even after it's thrown some distance across a baseball diamond is "embedded," uh, I mean "stuck."

Okay, you are against "yes and no" answers. So let me see if I have it correct this time.

1. You make no interpretations at all, rather you adjudge what language means. Thus when someone says "...that according to the interp in BRD..." they are incorrect in their reference and assumption.

2. The play in the BRD (14-20) was created by you and not FED and thus is indicative of your opinon of how the language should be illustrated and is not an interpretation put forth or approved by you or FED.

So, it would seem to follow that since the BRD play does not contain an interpretation, but rather a discussion of language, an actual interpretation made by recognized state Fed interpretors should be the one followed within their state. Would you agree?

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Okay, you are against "yes and no" answers. So let me see if I have it correct this time.

1. You make no interpretations at all, rather you adjudge what language means. Thus when someone says "...that according to the interp in BRD..." they are incorrect in their reference and assumption.

2. The play in the BRD (14-20) was created by you and not FED and thus is indicative of your opinon of how the language should be illustrated and is not an interpretation put forth or approved by you or FED.

So, it would seem to follow that since the BRD play does not contain an interpretation, but rather a discussion of language, an actual interpretation made by recognized state Fed interpretors should be the one followed within their state. Would you agree?

No. Yes. Not necessarily.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I got caught up in the moment.

[JJ]

I do so enjoy the repartee between you two.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Originally posted by GarthB

No. Yes. Not necessarily.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I got caught up in the moment.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere....2 out of three ain't bad.

But to number one:

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.

Likewise, my Play 26-22 (Hey, go next door and look over your friend's shoulder - another but smaller grin), which appeared eight straight years in the BRD without a whimper of opposition, is NOT an interpretation.

It's not what I think ought to be the ruling.
It's not what I think a FED interpreter might do.

Which then lead to this conclusion by me:

1. You make no interpretations at all, rather you adjudge what language means. Thus when someone says "...that according to the interp in BRD..." they are incorrect in their reference and assumption.

To which you replied:

No

This last reply seems to be inconsistent with your earlier description. Maybe it's because I have concentrated only on this one non intrepetation description of language.

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.)

[GarthB]

Originally posted by JJ
I do so enjoy the repartee between you two.

And, it's on the free portion of the site.

But despite the apparent entertainment value, I really did enter this discussion with just the intent to get an understanding of what is an intepretation in the BRD and what is not.

I had thought that play 14-20 represented an interpretation, and I thought it was presented that way by other posters. I was actually surpirsed to learn from Carl that it was not his or FED's interpretation.

[Carl Childress]

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.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 06:44 PM]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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.

[/B]

Carl:

You obviously don't believe me, but I really did not know the answers to the questions I have asked you. I asked them politely, with no malice, to attempt to understand your first explantation of play 14-20.

I may be a bit dim today, but I have not acted out of anything but genuine curiosity. I regret that somehow it has angered you. I actually thought it would be better to get my questions answered than making assumptions. Had I not asked the first question, I would have assumed, as have other posters who you haven't gotten cross with, that you were making an interpretation. My faith on the BRD is actually renewed to discover that I and they were mistaken.

And, no, I have never read the introduction to any of my copies of the BRD....that is a mistake. I will do right after my football game tonight.

I may sincerely have questions after I read that. Would you prefer I ask them privately?



[Edited by GarthB on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 06:50 PM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress


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.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 06:44 PM]

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