fuel for discussion

[Carl Childress]

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

Who in the world invented your play? Who are the "boys in Indianpolis" who wanted the outs cancelled? That's nonsense -- and you know it!

All you succeeded in doing was confusing the issue.

Amazing!

A batted ball caught in flight, which then lodges in the fielder's glove, is STILL a batted ball caught in flight. A tag with the ball securely (as a lodged ball would be) in the glove of a runner off the base is STILL a tag.

Happily, Mr. Hopkins did not fall for your red herring.

THE PLAY (from the BRD) for which the ruling was sought was a come-backer grounder to the pitcher. When that ball lodges, the ball is dead and runners get two bases: We don't want the defense throwing around a glove/ball combo.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 14th, 2004 at 02:59 PM]

[DownTownTonyBrown]

But that is part of the problem. When does lodged mean LODGED? Are you suggesting that lodged means when equipment must be removed to secure/control the ball? What is control? Nothing between your hand and the ball besides the material of your glove (not a shirt)? And the ball is under control and not considered lodged until an attempt to remove it from the glove is made?

Perhaps these are good rules of thumb but legal clarification has not been made. Per the rulebook interpretation a lodged ball is immediately dead and a two base award is made. When do I decide the ball is lodged - when it became lodged at the time of the catch or when I discover that it truly is lodged at the time of attempted removal?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
But that is part of the problem. When does lodged mean LODGED? Are you suggesting that lodged means when equipment must be removed to secure/control the ball? What is control? Nothing between your hand and the ball besides the material of your glove (not a shirt)? And the ball is under control and not considered lodged until an attempt to remove it from the glove is made?

Perhaps these are good rules of thumb but legal clarification has not been made. Per the rulebook interpretation a lodged ball is immediately dead and a two base award is made. When do I decide the ball is lodged - when it became lodged at the time of the catch or when I discover that it truly is lodged at the time of attempted removal?

Often I am powerfully amazed when an umpire tries to support a preconceived notion with ticker-red-tape. DTTB writes: "When does lodged mean LODGED?"

Let me ask a few questions:

1. When is the pitch a strike?
2. When is the pitch a ball?
3. When is a movement of the bat an attempt to hit the pitch?
4. When is the runner out?
5. When is it a double play because the runner intentionally interfered with a double play possible?
6. When is the batted ball foul?

Excuse me while I go look up the answers to those questions. I suggest they occur with a great deal more regularity than the lodged ball. Even so....




Hey, I'm back. Amusingly enough, the answer to all the questions (both yours and mine) is the same.

[WindyCityBlue]

Carl,
Take a deep breath...there will be no name calling in this post.

The question of when is a ball lodged is actually a lot more provocative than "what is the definition of is is".

Fed Example:
We have a tie game in the seventh inning and a line drive hit directly above the third baseman. He reacts by leaping high and extends his glove above his head. The ball crashes into his glove and gets lodged between the fingers. All anyone can see is the ball go in, on the fly, and the umpire signals “Out”. The kid brings the mitt down and struggles to pull the ball out of the now, broken webbing. He requests “Time” to get a new glove. The third base coach starts yelling that the ball was lodged and his batter should be on second and R2 should score - game over. But, the batter is now in the dugout. The defensive coach is asking for a definition of “lodged” and the umpires are beginning to understand why the attrition rate for officiating is so high.

This is not a ball lodged in a player or umpire uniform.

We need rules that make sense at this level. I am simply having trouble penalizing a defensive player for a defect beyond his control. It makes as much sense as taking away a home run when a batter breaks his bat on the pitch.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Apparently you didn't really read the post... I wouldn't have thought of you as so obtuse, Carl.

I hope others that read it understood my question. Perhaps it wasn't obvious enough for all...

Rules state that a trapped/lodged ball is immediately dead and a two base award is given. The word "immediately" is pretty well understood so I will assume that is not the point of misunderstanding. So my question now becomes at what point do we say the ball IS TRAPPED/LODGED and immediately thereafter award the two bases. It is us the umpire that decides when the ball is trapped/lodged so it is rather important for us to know when that act occurs.

DOES THE BALL BECOME TRAPPED/LODGED at the time when WE/UMPIRES recognize it is stuck (upon attempt to remove)and therefore immediately at that time call dead ball and make the two base award... and all previous plays with that ball remain. (This is the situation you agreed was correct earlier Carl, with F6 tagging R2 for the 3rd out and then not being able to remove the ball to leave it for the next half inning.)

OR

DOES THE BALL BECOME TRAPPED/LODGED at the time when it physically becomes stuck (the ball entering the glove) and therefore do we retroactively call "immediate" dead ball at the time the ball entered the glove, remove all outs made, and award two bases (This is second situation which you appeared to also state was correct in your last post, where your subterfuge and childish poke at me said lodged was LODGED.)

Hopefully you do now recognize, along with everyone else, the different outcomes/enforcements and also recognize they are a result of the different "time" at which the ball was declared dead or lodged.

Didn't realize we were having a parade... how about sharing some of that ticker-tape stuff rather than just throwing at me.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Actually, I'm not looking for an answer to the question I have posed... I'm just trying to say "We have a problem, Houston."

[JJ]

Originally posted by Carl Childress


[/B]

Who in the world invented your play? Who are the "boys in Indianpolis" who wanted the outs cancelled? That's nonsense -- and you know it!

All you succeeded in doing was confusing the issue.

Amazing!

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 14th, 2004 at 02:59 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for calling me amazing, Carl. Everyone is amazing. You again have shown me in your response that you're usually on this board to pick a fight. If you had actually read the thread, you'll see that "my" case play is from a Jim Mills post, verbatum. You should have also figured out it was asked of Elliot to demonstrate to him how silly some of the possible case scenarios can be for a rule that just isn't put together very well. Put 'em up, put 'em up!

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ

Who in the world invented your play? Who are the "boys in Indianpolis" who wanted the outs cancelled? That's nonsense -- and you know it!

All you succeeded in doing was confusing the issue.

Amazing!

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 14th, 2004 at 02:59 PM] [/B]

Thanks for calling me amazing, Carl. Everyone is amazing. You again have shown me in your response that you're usually on this board to pick a fight. If you had actually read the thread, you'll see that "my" case play is from a Jim Mills post, verbatum. You should have also figured out it was asked of Elliot to demonstrate to him how silly some of the possible case scenarios can be for a rule that just isn't put together very well. Put 'em up, put 'em up! [/B][/QUOTE]The fights get picked by umpires who want to create problems rather than solve them.

And the "Boys from Indianapolis" are who?

[JJ]

QUOTE]The fights get picked by umpires who want to create problems rather than solve them.

And the "Boys from Indianapolis" are who? [/B][/QUOTE]

READ THE POST - I DIDN'T WRITE IT - ASK JIM MILLS. And please notice I wasn't trying to create a problem - I wrote Elliot in hopes of gaining more insight into why the rule is written the way it is and in hopes of getting him thinking about clarification of that rule. That seems to me to be trying to "solve" the problem the thread brought up. Also notice I was smiling in my previous post. And yes, I am amazing. So are we all. Thank you for your insight.

[WindyCityBlue]

I promised myself, that I would be kinder...gentler, so here goes.

A few of us got together last night to watch the Cubs and have a few libations (in honor of Harry carey, of course).
One of the topics involved this play and the penalty, as Hopkins will interpret it. These guys are terrific umpires and work some of the best ball in the Midwest. One of them admitted that he was following the dialogue here. He sent an email to NFHS to urge them to reconsider. Now, this guys has worked three IHSA state finals and knows the ins and outs of high school ball, so I listened. This umpire contacted our state advisor and the baseball member of the officials advisory board. He had not heard back, yet, but anticipated that this specific play will be addressed in the upcoming casebook.

I too, sent an email addressing the complexity of this interpretation. So, that makes several others who felt compelled to seek redress of this ruling. I don't uderstand how we would be opening a can of worms by disagreeing with Carl's opinion. The last time I checked, I didn't see a memo that told me to refrain from communication with NFHS. We all have voices and some of us are more eloquent than others. This ruling stinks and I urge others to contact Hopkins, as well.

Hang in there JJ. This is still America.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
I don't uderstand how we would be opening a can of worms by disagreeing with Carl's opinion. The last time I checked, I didn't see a memo that told me to refrain from communication with NFHS. We all have voices and some of us are more eloquent than others. This ruling stinks and I urge others to contact Hopkins, as well.

I am amazed -- again -- that nobody actually reads my posts.

Show me where I'm on record as "fer" or "agin" Mr. Hopkins' ruling. Smitty -- Smitty's --it ain't there.

"Alls I said" was: "lodged" means "stuck," and the play I put into the BRD in 1994 represents what their rule means -- in English.

Mr. Hopkins told Tim Stevens he polled a lot of people about this play. You'll get the full story the first of next week when we run Tim's piece on this "controversy."

Now, show me where I advised anyone NOT to contact the NFHS. (I have not emailed Mr. Hopkins to lobby for either side.) "Alls I said" was: If the NHFS says that "lodged" means "stuck" (even momentarily), when that third-world play happens, it would be wrong NOT to call it the way the NFHS case book ruled. Rich Fronhesier made the same point. Go tell him he's an idiot for saying the same thing I'm chastised for.

It's kind of funny that nobody anywhere knows what I think about the ruling. What's more, you aren't going to know. When I feel a ruling is magnificiently bad and not supproted by logic, I generally say so -- in the BRD.

The OBR appeal rule is silly, out-dated -- and bad. The FED appeal rule is better, but it's not so good as it was.

I said NFHS umpires should call the shoulder-turn balk (the one that was changed this year). I never once announced whether I thought it was a good rule or a bad one. I think the change is bad in one respect: The FED pitcher cannot pick off from the wind-up position, so if he turns his shoulders to check a runner, nobody can be deceived illegally. But they kept the balk for that. Perhaps that will slide off into the dusk next year. (I will email Mr. Hopkins that opinion.)

I think it was Garth who pointed out I had not announced my ruling. Would that everybody had paid attention to him on that point.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 15th, 2004 at 01:26 PM]

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I am amazed -- again -- that nobody actually reads my posts.

Show me where I'm on record as "fer" or "agin" Mr. Hopkins' ruling. Smitty -- Smitty's --it ain't there.

"Alls I said" was: "lodged" means "stuck," and the play I put into the BRD in 1994 represents what their rule means -- in English.


It's kind of funny that nobody anywhere knows what I think about the ruling. What's more, you aren't going to know. When I feel a ruling is magnificiently bad and not supproted by logic, I generally say so -- in the BRD.

Carl;

Your statement above is inaccurate. Over a week ago, I wrote that you were a reporter, not an interpreter, and that you had reported the facts. Specifically, I closed out the post with the following quote:


"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"

So when you say that "nobody actually reads" your posts, you have exaggerated by at least one!

Peter

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Carl;

Your statement above is inaccurate. Over a week ago, I wrote that you were a reporter, not an interpreter, and that you had reported the facts. Specifically, I closed out the post with the following quote:


"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"

So when you say that "nobody actually reads" your posts, you have exaggerated by at least one!

Peter

Peter: I apologize. I knew it was one of my enemies who pointed out I hadn't opined my opinion. I just guessed it was Garth, not Darth.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Peter: I apologize. I knew it was one of my enemies who pointed out I hadn't opined my opinion. I just guessed it was Garth, not Darth.

1. In this thread's cousin, "ball stuck in glove",I restated your position that you had not made a ruling.

2. Enemies? A bit melodramtic. I know of no one who considers you an "enemy", Carl. Not Peter, not me, not even Freix.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

1. In this thread's cousin, "ball stuck in glove",I restated your position that you had not made a ruling.

2. Enemies? A bit melodramtic. I know of no one who considers you an "enemy", Carl. Not Peter, not me, not even Freix.

Ok, my memory is not as bad as I thought. T'was both Garth and Darth who actually listened. I do remember. You didn't say we were enemies; you just said we weren't friends. As a famous man once said: "I'm confused."