Carl,

I apologize for suggesting that you supported Hopkins recent ruling. Your conclusion that the OBR governing this play is outdated does, in no way, serve as a tell to your feelings.

I never said that you made the ruling, but I took issue with the fact that you took pride in "ownership" of the interp. I'm not going to spend the time looking for it, but you made a comment about having a smirk on your face when you learned of it. Also, you incorrectly chastised JJ for involving himself in the matter. Is an apolgy in order?

Finally, you stated that a national interpreter is infallible in his rulings. Is that why they update and change them annually? I believe that we had interps about the batters box that were absolute one year and altered the next. Rulings get changed when there is a justifiable outcry led by the participants in the game. Umpires, coaches and players all have led the cry.

BTW, you never responded to my assertion that we are penalizing a defensive player for defective equipment, yet allow hits when an offensive player breaks his bat. Both players have made plays to the best of their abilities, despite the constraints of the equipment. This appears to be the same logic. What about my earlier example of the third baseman spearing the ball and no one realizing that the ball was "lodged" or "stuck" until the play was over. Your thoughts???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]Carl, I apologize for suggesting that you supported Hopkins recent ruling. Your conclusion that the OBR governing this play is outdated does, in no way, serve as a tell to your feelings.</b></quote>

Carl's comment: I don't recall ever saying the OBR rule governing this play is outdated. I don't <i>know</i> of any official ruling from MLB or PBUC dealing with a ball "lodged" in a glove (other than the catcher's). In the BRD I simply extrapolated a ruling from two or three instances where the pitcher throw glove/ball to first base and the umpire called "Out!" If you can get me the source where I can read it, I'll certainly include it in the 2005 BRD. I'm working on that right now.[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue </quote>
[B]<quote>I never said that you made the ruling, but I took issue with the fact that you took pride in "ownership" of the interp.</b></quote>

Carl's comment: I took pride in the <i>thread</i> that lead to an official ruling. I began with words to this effect: "Think of it: A play from the BRD and posts in the Forum...." I'm certainly glad a BRD play (present in every edition since 1994) was the genesis of this discussion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
[B]I'm not going to spend the time looking for it, but you made a comment about having a smirk on your face when you learned of it.</b></quote>

Carl's comment: Here's what I actually wrote: "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."

Carl's comment continued: Your changing the word from "satisfied" to "smirk" is a perfect example of why evidence from eyewitnesses is not as compelling as circumstantial evidence. I specifically said I was <i>not</i> smug, merely happy that my reading of the FED committee's language matched what the current rules interpreter thought.

Carl's comment: Alas, I despair. Here's what I said: "An official interpreter <i>cannot</i> be wrong." When he speaks, it's like the pope <i>ex cathedra</i>. It is the law. He may change his mind, the committee may rewrite the rule, he may be replaced by a new interpreter. You may not like his ruling. Who cares? It's the law. As I said a rules interpreter is, <i>a priori</i>, always right. That does not match your definition of "infallible" in light of the following sentence: "Is that why they update and change them annually?" BTW: I don't find that statement to be accurate either. "Update and change them annually"? There are about 1000 case play with the FED name to them. They average perhaps five revisions a year.

Here's a play I proposed to Mike Fitzpatrick back in November 2001: 2 outs, with a 10-man lineup: Abel should bat but the pitcher Jackson reports as a pinch hitter. The umpire does not discover the error. After Jackson walks, the defense appeals. Ruling:

Hey, you tell me what the ruling is. It ain't in the OBR, that's for sure.

Mike said: If the pitcher bats for anyone other than the DH: When appealed properly the pitcher in an improper batter. The proper batter is out and removed from the game. The pitcher will continue to bat in the spot of the replaced player, and the new defensive player hits in the DH spot. The role of the DH is terminated whenever the infraction is discovered. (phone call to me, 11/8/01)

So the ruling in the play above is: Able is out and removed from the game. Baker will lead off the next half inning. The role of the DH is terminated, and the player replacing Able will hit in the DH spot.

Hey, it's a ruling, isn't it?

A so-called prolific "expert" on rec.sport.officiating said: "Listen, that's wrong!"

I'm sure they heard my laugh in Mexico. It's only 18 miles to the river.

As for engaging in a discussion about an interpretation of the Hopkins interpretation, I have no interest in that.

I'm not a rules interpreter, except for high school/college in my association and USSSA 8u to 19u at the Rio Grande Valley Sports Academy.

Occasionally, the BRD offers an opinion on some Point Not Covered.

This play is not one of them.

I'm sure you'd agree there are a surprising number of inaccuracies in your post.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 15th, 2004 at 08:53 PM]

In response to WCB, you made the above statement. I agree that there are a number of inaccuracies in WCB's post. You've been smoking those funny cigarettes if you think WCB will acknowledge any errors, however.

</b></quote>Jim:

I understand that the phrase "the boys from Indianapolis" means the NFHS. But you were emailing ONE of the "boys." So it's proper for us to know who in Indianapolis told you the ruling you quoted.

Of course, nobody did. You made up the whole thing from scratch. Since you are talking to the chief, the sarcastic reference to "the boys from Indianapolis" is confusing: You can envision Mr. Hopkins memoing the staff: "Which person here wrote this ridiculous ruling?"

More to the point: It was unnecessary and rude.

Bob Lyle...you're number 1! Guess which finger?



Carl,

From your post about the tossed glove.
"The look on my face is not smug, just satisfied."

I believe I said that I didn't want to waste the time looking it up and used the word "smirk" instead of "smug". I have now done so; mea culpa for paraphrasing you (which I said I was doing anyway). If you consider that an aggregious inaccuracy, I would love to watch you work some day. I am positive that I could find bigger problems. Don't pretend that my post was anything more than pulling back thecurtain on your charade. The "Wizard" claimed that he has not shared his opinion on Hopkins' ruling. I showed how you did. I asked you to comment on the two plays that I provided. Both are excellent examples of how the FED rule will be bogus. You did not, because you could not argue with the logic.

Among the many difference betwixt us, is that I recognize that you can and have been right with your opinions. You have also been wrong. I believe that JJ, Garth and Jim have pointed out your foibles, as well. Yet, you say that my post was filled with errors. As an example, you found fault with my contention that the Fed Rules Committee justifies their existence with annual rule changes and updates. Papa C. says, "Yeah, but not every rule is changed every year, Hah!" (I put words in your mouth, just as you quoted me with a fake one in an earlier retort. At least I acknowledge as much.) I never said that every rule gets reversed; but each year we see new, altered and emphasized rulings that mystify many of us. You claim that we don't READ your posts. Try extending us the same courtesy. Answer the question I posed earlier and show the world how Papa C. would handle it. Do not change the situation or offer possibilities.

What an ego you have!

I didn't deal with your plays because I didn't want to deal with your plays. I'm not defending or attacking either ruling!

Can you get that in head?

Once and for all: I have no opinion on the Hopkins ruling, and -- of course -- nobody has provided an OBR interpretation. That's the one that everybody is so vigorously defending -- and it doesn't exist! My play in the BRD (Play 26-22) ruled that in OBR the batter-runner was out. The nearest thing to an OBR interpretation you can find in print is -- mine!

Hearty, har, har.

BTW: Bob was right. Even when you "mea cuilpa," you don't. You said "smirk," then announced you were paraphrasing and meant "smug."

That's wrong, Smitty. The correct word is "satisfied." Don't pretend you don't understand why "smirk" is a slur word and "satisfied" is a purr word.

And don't pretend your choice of words was an accident. It's nothing more than propaganda -- and bad propaganda at that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Once and for all: I have no opinion on the Hopkins ruling, and -- of course -- nobody has provided an OBR interpretation. That's the one that everybody is so vigorously defending -- and it doesn't exist! My play in the BRD (Play 26-22) ruled that in OBR the batter-runner was out. The nearest thing to an OBR interpretation you can find in print is -- mine! Hearty, har, har.

The WUA site includes this: "The new interpretation goes on to emphasize that a ball stuck in a fielder’s glove is not to be considered out of play; the ball remains live. It is legal for one fielder to throw the glove with a live ball stuck in it to another fielder. A fielder who possesses the ball/glove combination in his own hand or glove can complete a tag of a runner or base, just as if he were holding only the ball."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: Once and for all: I have no opinion on the Hopkins ruling, and -- of course -- nobody has provided an OBR interpretation. That's the one that everybody is so vigorously defending -- and it doesn't exist! My play in the BRD (Play 26-22) ruled that in OBR the batter-runner was out. The nearest thing to an OBR interpretation you can find in print is -- mine! Hearty, har, har. The WUA site includes this: "The new interpretation goes on to emphasize that a ball stuck in a fielder’s glove is not to be considered out of play; the ball remains live. It is legal for one fielder to throw the glove with a live ball stuck in it to another fielder. A fielder who possesses the ball/glove combination in his own hand or glove can complete a tag of a runner or base, just as if he were holding only the ball."

Bob: That's not an official interpretation. It's one umpire (Rick Roder) writing for the WCU. You can find the same "authoritative opiion" on page 32 of the latest J/R. But from PBUC or MLB -- nothing.

The look on my face is not smug, just satisfied.


BTW, you should edit your retort that way people won't be confused by "mea cuilpa". I didn't feel any more of a reason to apologize than you did for chastising JJ.

As the editor, you should know that choosing one's words carefully is imperative. You keep saying that you have no opinion of the ruling, yet your words and defensive posture betray that conviction. Even Bob Jenkins pointed out that the OBR ruling directs a logical conclusion to the play.

Rich Fronheiser wanted to know why I wouldn't accept the ruling of the WCU. Unfortunately, he deleted his post before I could reply to the Board.

Here's my answer, which I emailed to him:

In my message I wrote: "But from PBUC or MLB -- nothing."

The BRD uses "official" interpretations only. I include "opinion" from time to time, and Rick's from his book will be there in the 2005 edition.

Rick answers all questions for the WCU. And why wouldn't he? Joe Brinkman was the driving force behind the WCU, Karen (Joe's wife) is (the last I heard) the executive director, and Rick was the rules instructor for Joe when he owned his school.

Added for this post: I want it understood I am not criticizing any of those people. I know them all well. Karen is the best of the bunch, certainly the prettiest.

My point was: Whatever you find on the WCU, you can also find in Rick's book. Brinkman allows him to speak for the WCU, but it isn't OFFICIAL. For that, it must be in the MLB Instructions to Umpires. As yet, nobody has posted a citation to show it is.

Also added: I'll call Mike Fitzpatrick tomorrow -- after he's had a chance to digest my FAX from today. At his convenience, we'll get the official word from PBUC.

I suspect it will be "live ball, play on."

That's fine with me. So is "dead ball, you -- second base." Poor old Smitty, uh, I mean WCB, won't ever undesrtand that <font size=16>I don't care</font>, bless his heart.

Carl:

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the WCU? I'm familiar with the WUA that Rich mentioned, of which Brinkman is the vice president, but not with the WCU.

GB

WCU
 

Garth;

At the end of the 19th century, the Women's Christian Union (WCU) promoted Christian values. A subsidiary was formed from the WCU called the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). This organization had as its primary goal the passage of a constitutional amendment to outlaw the sale of alcholic beverages. This brought on prohibition and the rest in history.

The WCTU had nothing left to do after the onset of prohibition and went into relative obscurity. After prohibition's repeal in 1933, a few chapters got new life and I believe that there were groups of old broads as late as 1970 still advocating prohibition. Maybe they have started issuing baseball rulings to give themselves something to do in the 21st century.

Peter

Carl:

I think you might have to retreat just a little here. You said:

The nearest thing to an OBR interpretation you can find in print is -- mine!

Bob then showed that there is something a little closer to an OBR interpreatation, or at least as close as yours, that of Rick Roder and the WUA.

Of course Rick's interpretation is not "official". But given that he is writing for the WUA, which are the umpires that are calling MLB games, I would consider his interpretation as a little nearer to an OBR interpretation than the BRD.

I am not knocking the BRD. It is wonderful book I have recommended to many and have bought as gifts for a few close friends. My latest copy is the 2003 version, and maybe it's time for picking up the next one.

But to say that you have the "nearest thing to an OBR interpretation" is a little bit of an exageration. I'm afraid I would hold Rick's interpretation as a little closer to OBR than the BRD. I look forward to Mike Fitzpatrick's interp as well (which I agree will be, "live ball, play on", although I do wonder how they would handle a tag play with a fielder holding someone else's glove which had a lodged ball in it). And while Fitzpatrick's ruling is even closer yet to an OBR ruling, we can still only assume that MLB would rule the same way, as Fitzpatrick does not speak for MLB.

While the press release was written by Rick, it also includes the following:

"The Major League Baseball Joint Committee on Training, consisting of representatives from MLB’s Umpiring Department and its umpire staff, unanimously agreed to two new rule interpretations at a recent meeting."

and,

"The Joint Committee consists of MLB umpires Randy Marsh, Dale Scott, Mark Hirschbeck, and Charlie Reliford and MLB Umpiring Department administrator Tom Lepperd and supervisors Frank Pulli, Steve Palermo, and Rich Rieker. Wally Bell filled in for Hirschbeck, who could not be present.

"The Joint Committee put together the first comprehensive MLB Umpire Manual after the National and American League umpiring staffs were combined, completing the manual prior to the 2002 season. The new interpretations will be added to the manual during the coming off-season."

So, I'd guess it's more than just Rick's opinion.

Ok, I forgive your ignorance.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 16th, 2004 at 03:16 PM]