fuel for discussion

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Everyone will note I'm talking about a technical balk that can occur at any level (stepping off with the wrong foot). I'm not talking about a proprietary balk specific to one book only (such as the former FED "shoulder-turn" balk).

I am glad for a chance to plug my book. (grin)

I know you think I disagree with everything you say and believe Carl, but you are wrong there also. I agree with many things you say---including the technical balk. I'm also aware that many disagree with you. That point is left for further discussion.

Still, the point I now bring forward is that "the technical balk" is part of the rules. Since YOU have decided you wouldn't call it, then aren't you doing the exact same thing you are accusing someone else of doing?

Why is it okay when someone elects to ignore the rule you elect to ignore, yet improper, dishonest, and disrespectful when they elect to ignore a rule or ruling which you feel should be upheld?

Methinks I see a double standard here.
Still, I will add that I believe the decisions an umpire makes on that which he chooses to ignore and when to ignore it will reflect upon his success as a progressing umpire. I think we'd both agree that an umpire calling every balk he sees at every level of play he calls may be destined to continue doing just that----at the lower level ball he will destined to call.

Let he without sin cast the first ball......or something like that.............


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

I know you think I disagree with everything you say and believe Carl, but you are wrong there also. I agree with many things you say---including the technical balk. I'm also aware that many disagree with you. That point is left for further discussion.

Still, the point I now bring forward is that "the technical balk" is part of the rules. Since YOU have decided you wouldn't call it, then aren't you doing the exact same thing you are accusing someone else of doing?

Why is it okay when someone elects to ignore the rule you elect to ignore, yet improper, dishonest, and disrespectful when they elect to ignore a rule or ruling which you feel should be upheld?

Methinks I see a double standard here.
Still, I will add that I believe the decisions an umpire makes on that which he chooses to ignore and when to ignore it will reflect upon his success as a progressing umpire. I think we'd both agree that an umpire calling every balk he sees at every level of play he calls may be destined to continue doing just that----at the lower level ball he will destined to call.

Let he without sin cast the first ball......or something like that.............


Just my opinion,

Freix

Once and for all, there is a difference between ignoring a technical balk AT ALL LEVELS and announcing you will not enforce a specific rule in a specific League because you don't like it.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by scyguy
after reading the tossed glove thread, I began trying to think of other FED rules which seem to conflict with common sense. Please let me say that I have the utmost respect for those that establish and interpret the FED rules, but the tossed glove situation seems to be contrary to common sense. Can anyone think of another rule which could apply?

The Fed's ruling of awarding bases to the offense because a pitcher may have fielded a batted or thrown ball with a multicolored glove is ridiculous in logic. The color of the glove has nothing to do with improving the pitcher's ability to use it during a catch. If the offense felt they were at a disadvantage due to the color, then they should have complained and had the situation corrected prior to the pitch.


While this stands as perhaps the worst ruling I've ever seen from the Fed, someone advised me to look for its repeal in next year's casebook. I hope that rumor is correct.......


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress


Once and for all, there is a difference between ignoring a technical balk AT ALL LEVELS and announcing you will not enforce a specific rule in a specific League because you don't like it.

I wouldn't argue that, Carl...........
I'm just tweaking you like old times to question your godliness.......
Thanks for responding.........and I knew I'd be promoting your book..............


Freix

[LMan]

I'd appreciate it if more folks would disagree with Mr. Childress on these fine points....I'd like to read more of his book

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Mills

So, if one ignores a specific rule in a specific league because one does not like it, one is dishonest.

If one ignores a rule common to every league in every league because one does not like it, one is honest.

You're right, there certainly is a difference.

It is ironic that you are critical of a rule that does not allow an umpire to unilaterally impose a penalty without first receiving a complaint from the offended party. If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not), you recommend instances of ignoring the infraction even when the offended party does complain.

Jim: Refresh my memory: Quote me where I said to ignore "don't-do-it" infractions after they were called to my attention. Maybe I'm contracting Reagan's disease.

Or maybe you are, after all, wrong.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Jim Mills

I don't think either is true; at least, not based on the instant question. However, I'm not sure you're clear about that to which I was referring.

I wasn't talking about "don't-do-that" infractions (e.g., F1 taking signs off the rubber, B not having both feet completely in the box.) I thought my quoting your text from an earlier post in the thread made clear that I was talking about a runner missing a base--a clear violation punishable upon proper appeal. You do agree that's not a "don't-do-that", don't you?

When you said...

...I was sure you took exception to the fact that an appeal by the defense is required, and that you preferred that the umpire be allowed the power to rule based on his viewing the infraction--just as officials do on every other infraction, as you noted. Maybe my inference was wrong.

Proceeding based on my inference being correct, and that you don't like the appeal rule, I found it curious based on a position you took in a thread some time ago. Since I don't save others' posts lest I need them to support a position many months or years hence, I can't "quote" you; however, I can describe the language (grin).

Batter hits a walk-off dinger, but misses home plate by an inch. F2 appeals the missed base, which the PU also sees. Now, I remember your recommended handling of the situation was to remind the runner to touch home as he approached, thus avoiding the situation. You said that was fair, since you did it for both teams. Should, however, the runner miss by an inch in games where the PU keeps his mouth shut, was it not your recommendation to deny the appeal? I thought it curious that you should wish the umpire had unilateral power to call the runner out, when even upon a proper appeal (remember, I said you "...recommend instances (emphasis not in original quote) of ignoring the infraction", not that you recommended it be ignored every time, most of the time, or even any other time.) you would not rule him out.

Mr. Freix, I recall, thinks my handling of this appeal (I would uphold it) is one that destines me to a life of calling lower ball. I always thought it was because I balked pitchers for stepping off with the wrong foot. (LOL)

I'm well aware that given the power, you'd unilaterally call the runner out in 99.-something % of the time you saw it, and also of your advantage-disadvantage reasons for denying the appeal in the case I described. It's merely a bias of mine to justly reward guys who use the rules to their own advantage when the opposition does something as dumb as missing a base on a dead-ball advance. Color me as a no-talent, frustrated bench-warmer looking to vicariously get even with my high-school-baseball-betters if you like, but there's something irresistable to me about players who use "that lump three feet above (their) a$$" for something other than a place to hang jewelry.

No, let me set the record straight:

I don't ignore any FED rule BECAUSE it's a FED rule I don't like. To the contrary, the more I dislike it, the stricter I bgecome. I figure if I piss off enough coaches, they'll start screaming to Indianapolis.

If they MISS the base, I call 'em out (unilaterally when it was legal, on appeal now that's it not).

I wouldn't call out a runner who scored on his own home run and who missed the plate during the celebration. But that decision would hold true for every level of play.

What people don't seem to understand is the context of my comments. I've made it clear, since my first speech at the Texas State Umpires Meeting, in 1982 (?) or 1 (I don't remember, and I'm too tired to look it up). Durwood Merrill was in my session, which was titled "How to Call a Perfect Game." Durwood said he wanted to meet the su'm ***** who could do that. But the subtitle was, "Or How I Got Scratched in Brownsville."

My point is: Nothing is gained from being technical. The example was: The #1 FED official interpretation for the spring will be: "If a ball is lodged in a player's equipment or uniform, the ball is dead immediately. There's no allowing an out by throwing around a glove that has a batted ball in it."

One of the self-proclaimed big dogs let it be known he wouldn't call that if (an unlikely occcurence) it happened in his game. That's criminal failure to abide by the rules of his league.

Surely people who READ understand the difference between that rogue and me.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Maybe I'm contracting Reagan's disease.

Reagan's sick?

[DownTownTonyBrown]

My perception of the mentality of participants on the baseball forum is different from what I see on the other forums... Basketball in particular.

Many are the times that I participate in discussions there, that turn into the generation of a well thought out interpretation... that holds water, and is defensible, based upon the combination of various rules and casebook plays. Baseball discussions don't seem to work that way; we seem to stick, steadfastly, to the rulebook statements despite their illogical application to inappropriate situations.

Why would we award two bases for a ball that is trapped in player equipment? Is it really to reward the offense for a job well done? Or is it to penalize the defense for this undefensible, serendipitous, anomaly? WHY? It is a simple question. Why is there not a simple, LOGICAL answer? Why do we enforce rulebook legality when we have the capacity to think logically and make an appropriate enforcement? It is done time and time again for basketball using the advantage/disadvantage principles. I think there are times we do this in baseball as well.

Two base award for DETACHED player equipment...? Okay, penalize the defense for leaving their equipment laying around - that's alright. The only places I can envision a ball getting trapped for properly ATTACHED equipment is in a shirt, or behind a catcher's chest protector, or stuck in a mitt/glove. None of those three anomalous situations are too terribly difficult for the defense to remedy and wouldn't take more than a couple seconds. Runners are fast but I can't imagine one of them gaining two bases during the recovery time of pulling out a shirt or lifting a chest protector to find the ball. So now does the FED rule penalize the offense by limiting it to two bases... NO. I don't think so. Does the FED rule penalize the defense by making an award of two bases, that would likely not have been acheived... YES; I do think it does - defense penalized.

I think it is a very stupid rule and a very shortsighted RULEBOOK interpretation. If the defense can get the ball out and make a play or throw his mitt to make a play... more power to them.

It is the defense that is going to be slighted in these unforeseeable, undefensible situations and I think it is a very poor judgement to award two bases unless the ball really is so severly trapped that it is impossible for the defense to make a play... then I do agree - the offense should be limited to two bases because the defense has done nothing wrong... and the offense has done nothing spectacularly right to warrant a live ball, run until you get home.

If the ball really is trapped such that no play can be made, then the rule fits. And it is likely more reward than the offense deserves.

I hope the FED rulemakers clarify this rule.

I just envisioned a play where the ball is stuck in the pitcher's glove such that when he desparately pulls the ball from his glove, the ball and the glove separate and the glove falls from his hand to the ground. The ball is free and is thrown for the out.... stop all play and award two bases???? Heaven forbid.

It hasn't happened to me yet but when it does... the entire crowd is going to say they've seen a similar play on ESPN highlights where the pitcher threw his entire glove and the ball and the umpire called the out.

Yeah, I saw it too. NFHS has a specific, extremely narrow minded interpretation that the offense should get two bases for such a heinous act by the defense. Sorry. It sucks but those are the rules. And there goes my officiating carreer down the ****ter.

Well it's late, I gotta go to bed.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by scyguy

after reading the tossed glove thread, I began trying to think of other FED rules which seem to conflict with common sense. Please let me say that I have the utmost respect for those that establish and interpret the FED rules, but the tossed glove situation seems to be contrary to common sense. Can anyone think of another rule which could apply?

Nothing is Perfect, but IMO for amateur baseball, no amateur league that uses OBR has a case book to explain rulings ala FED. Leagues that are OBR based borrow the rules from MLB and then try and fit those rules into THEIR game.

Here's an example; There are no sliding restrictions in OBR based games other then the runner be able to reach the base with his/her hand. The runner comes into the base, plows over the fielder and except for ejection, for the most part the play stands and everyone is in an uproar.

In FED, legal vs. illegal slides are defined. Also, No malicious contact whether the fielder has the ball or not. In other words, the rule is explicit and IMO fits the amateur game. Some might not like FED's Force play slide rule (FPSR) but NCAA played by young men also has a FPSR.

Are there rules which are contrary to common sense - YES but they exist in OBR as well. In fact, to truly understand OBR rules, one needs supplemental materials ala J/R, JEA, the BRD etc. because the OBR rule book is poorly indexed. In order to understand a situation more often then not, one needs to search in several places to find the answer. In FED, the Case Book explanations give the umpire a reference.

Nothing is Perfect, but IMO there needs to be separate rules for the amateur game and FED makes an effort to do this.

As for what rules make no sense - ie; The uniform rules. Personally I couldn't care less what the players wear, if a coach is in uniform etc. I am there to umpire a game not be Tommy Hilfigar.

Pete Booth

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Why would we award two bases for a ball that is trapped in player equipment? Is it really to reward the offense for a job well done? Or is it to penalize the defense for this undefensible, serendipitous, anomaly? WHY? It is a simple question. Why is there not a simple, LOGICAL answer? Why do we enforce rulebook legality when we have the capacity to think logically and make an appropriate enforcement? It is done time and time again for basketball using the advantage/disadvantage principles. I think there are times we do this in baseball as well.

It is the defense that is going to be slighted in these unforeseeable, undefensible situations and I think it is a very poor judgement to award two bases unless the ball really is so severly trapped that it is impossible for the defense to make a play... then I do agree - the offense should be limited to two bases because the defense has done nothing wrong... and the offense has done nothing spectacularly right to warrant a live ball, run until you get home.

If the ball really is trapped such that no play can be made, then the rule fits. And it is likely more reward than the offense deserves.

Let's assume R1 moving on the pitch. The come-backer to the pitcher lodges in his glove. He's frantic as B1 speeds down the line, so he tosses glove and ball to F3. Meanwhile, speedy R1 has rounded second, sees the first baseman with TWO gloves, and heads for third.

F3, frantic now, throws....

[mick]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
...F3, frantic now, throws....

Good one!
mick

[Atl Blue]

Or, R3, smash back to the pitcher, ball lodges in pitcher's mitt, R3 hung up, pitcher runs toward R3, who retreats toward 3B. Pitcher throws glove and ball to F5. Do you let F5 make a TAG with the glove/ball combination?

I agree, two bases seems harsh, and maybe one would be more appropriate, but, I do not think an F3 that catches a glove/ball combo from a pitcher is any more "in possession" of the ball than was the Toronto F3 who had the ball inside his uniform last year, grabbed the ball through the shirt, and was awarded the out. And apparently the powers that be thought so as well, which is why the interpretaion was written that would deny this out today.

For those that want to rule based on the OBR way, maybe the OBR way is the one that's wrong. And maybe it will evolve over time, with another interpretation, just as the ball in the shirt situation did.

[JJ]

I dropped a note to Elliot Hopkins about some of this "lodged ball" stuff - here's the exchange -

Elliot,
I've been watching the baseball section of the Official Forum (http://www.officialforum.com/) and there's been some interesting discussion on FED rules and interps. Here's an interesting one -
"R2, one out. Screaming liner to F6, who catches the ball and tags the frozen R2 off the bag. As F6 reaches in his glove to toss the ball on the mound on his way to the dugout, BU notices F6 has to dislodge the ball from between the fingers of the glove. The boys in Indianapolis want us to reverse both outs, score R2 and put the B/R on 2nd? It'll take both hands to count the ejections."
There have been some insightful threads - including one I started asking for suggestions on revisions for the NFHS umpire manual for upcoming issues. Enjoy!"

His reply -
"It is funny you mentioned that scenario. I just added two new casebook plays to address lodged equipment issues. We are going through the umpire’s manual revision as we speak. If you have something really pertinent please send it to me so I can review it. In terms of your situation, I do not see how you can justify reversing both outs. The below mentioned play is covered by rule in NFHS BB rulebook 2-9-1 (out) and 2-24-4 (tag out). We would not make that interpretation for those reasons. . Keep well."

Elliot

[GarthB]

Originally posted by JJ
I dropped a note to Elliot Hopkins about some of this "lodged ball" stuff - here's the exchange -

Elliot,
I've been watching the baseball section of the Official Forum (http://www.officialforum.com/) and there's been some interesting discussion on FED rules and interps. Here's an interesting one -
"R2, one out. Screaming liner to F6, who catches the ball and tags the frozen R2 off the bag. As F6 reaches in his glove to toss the ball on the mound on his way to the dugout, BU notices F6 has to dislodge the ball from between the fingers of the glove. The boys in Indianapolis want us to reverse both outs, score R2 and put the B/R on 2nd? It'll take both hands to count the ejections."
There have been some insightful threads - including one I started asking for suggestions on revisions for the NFHS umpire manual for upcoming issues. Enjoy!"

His reply -
"It is funny you mentioned that scenario. I just added two new casebook plays to address lodged equipment issues. We are going through the umpire’s manual revision as we speak. If you have something really pertinent please send it to me so I can review it. In terms of your situation, I do not see how you can justify reversing both outs. The below mentioned play is covered by rule in NFHS BB rulebook 2-9-1 (out) and 2-24-4 (tag out). We would not make that interpretation for those reasons. . Keep well."

Elliot

From what I've heard privately about Elliot and his ruling and your email, it seems the issue is still not black and white in regards to ALL lodged ball scenarios.

I would hope you would accdpt his invitation and attempt to get a case play based on the scenario you sent him. I would also like to see him address this situation, which actually happened in one of my games this season:

R3, R2. Two outs. Deep fly to RF. I was BU in C. F9 catches fly for third out and runs in. As I head for short right, I reach out to indicate that I'll take the ball. "Can't get the damn thing out of my glove, blue" F9 says running past me.