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?

I nominate all the FED rules that deal with illegal actions by the pitcher which are different from OBR. For instance, why can't a pitcher pick off a runner from the windup? Since he can't pick off a runner from the windup in FED, why do they call balks for illegal actions from the windup?

Add to that the shoulder turn, the glove below the chin, etc., etc., etc. Fortunately, the FED has made an attempt to get rid of these gratuitous rules differences, but they have a long way to go.

I think it's kind of weird how their is no distinction between a fielder's glove and a first basemen's mitt.

J/R manual NFHS-... There is no distinction between a fielder's glove and a first basemen's mitt; either may be worn at any position. ...

To me, that is ridiculous. So a coach could go out and buy a first basemen's mitt for every player on his high school team? Migosh! Obviously the catcher would need a catcher's mitt, but I guess it would be legal to wear a first basemen's mitt behind the plate. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jeremiah

I'm not sure that that would always be an advantage -- especially for a middle infielder trying to get the ball out of his glove quickly to turn a DP. My understanding is that infielders (other than F3) usually want a smaller mitt than outfielders.

Having said that, I have seen the final out of a game be made by F6 making a diving catch using (you guessed it) a first baseman's mitt!

John

Sure, the middle infielders like small gloves. I know of a high school player who had a lot of trouble fielding at 3rd base and became a 1st basemen. Now he's pretty good and, IMO, his biggest tool is his bat. I'm sure that more guys would want to try a 1st basemen's mitt at other positions if they knew it was legal. Heck, why not give one to your pitcher to scoop the shots back at him? lol

Jeremiah

Bob Pariseau put together a series of articles on what he called "gratuitous rules changes". He posted them to r.s.o. probably about 7 years ago.

You might still find them doing a search on-line.

Guy:

I can give you the silliest FED rule with this play:

R2. B1 singles. R2 scores, but he misses third. The defense throws the ball to third, F5 says: "The runner missed third," and the umpire -- who saw it -- calls out R2.

Why? It was a clear violation. Why didn't the umpire call him out without an appeal?

The football referee doesn't wait for the defensive coach to appeal there was holding on first and ten.

The basketall referee doesn't wait for Team A coach to claim there was goal tending by Team B.

Serena Williams doesn't have to appeal that her opponent's serve was out.

Baseball is the ONLY sport where a significant rules violation must be appealed.

Now, don't couple batting out of order with missing a base. A player might bat out of order, and the coach deliberately does not appeal because he gains no advantage. That cannot be the case with a baserunning error. The defense ALWAYS gains when that appeal is upheld.

Now, don't say: "Well, that's the way they do in OBR." That's an excuse, but it's not an explanation.

The explanation is simple: Baseball rules are <i>designed</i> to favor the offense. Forcing the defense to appeal a major blunder is just another way of "helping" the offense.

So, back to my original question:

WHY does the umpire have to wait to "call the foul"? What baseball tenet is protected by that statute?

Don't give me history or harmony. I want a "baseball"reason.

Of course, I've been asking that question for more than 50 years, and nobody has ever provided an answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong
 

Like I've gotta tell you that.

Anyway, I don't call Fed ball, but if memory serves me correctly, didn't Fed try this exact thing for a year or two, Carl?
I think I remember hearing all kinds of teeth gnashing, from both umpires and coaches, over that one.
If it was such a good idea, why didn't Fed keep it when they had the chance?
Inquiring minds wanna know...........

Carl:

The game is more spread out. There are fewer officials. Things like fair/foul and catch/no catch are more important.

Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

The FED tried this for more than a couple of years. It was over 10 years. You are right. Coaches and umpires hated it.

Anyway, Carl is taking a play out of my playbook. He is just trying to stir up s$$$.

Assignors hated this rule as well. Since it was different from OBR and NCAA, it inevidably caused problems when umpires failed to do their job in FED. Many FED umpires do not know FED rules very well and default into OBR. They learn the FED safety and participation rules and pretty much ignore the rest. For some reason, they all master the 10 run rule fairly quickly. :D

Peter

Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

Peter: The FED abolished appeals in 1981 and reinstated them in 2002. So for 21 seasons they did it right.

Coaches hated the "no appeal" rule because now someone (the umpire) was "appealing" baserunning blunders. Kids were getting called out. So all of a sudden runners were stopping at third who would in earlier times have scored. It takes a step to touch the base, you see.

<font color=red>Added as an edit: My records show that in the last year I called under the FED "no appeal" rule (1996), I had one baserunning error. R1 missed third, and I called the sucker out!

My records show that since that time (2002-2004), I've called out three. (Two of those happened this past season, and the same coach made dead ball appeals.) But I've observed more than 30 errors that were not appealed. In the old days (pre-2002) all of <i>those</i> suckers would have been out.</font>

Umpires hated it because it put the burden squarely on their shoulders. A coach at third <i>knows</i> when his runner missed the base. If the umpire is in charge of "appeals" and doesn't say anything, the coach knows one of two things: (1) the umpire didn't pay attention; or (2) the umpire doesn't have any guts.

But those aren't "baseball" reasons.

Rich Ives (the well-known rat of a coach who writes for me -- and well) gave a possible reason: "The game is more spread out. There are fewer officials. Things like fair/foul and catch/no catch are more important."

But Rich:

That doesn't hold true for this reason: If an umpire who is supposed to watch a runner touch second has responsibilities elsewhere (catch/no catch is more important), <i>it doesn't matter</i> whether the umpire skips the call because he didn't see the runner miss the base or because nobody appealed the infraction.

If you have to cover another play, you can't call the runner out, either on your appeal or any one else's.

The rule was abolished purely because of OBR umpires who hated the impurity of it: "My grandfather would have rolled over in his...."

You want more evidence? In 1985 FED decreed an immediate dead ball after a balk. Do you remember the screams and hollers of OBR umpires? "Good Lord, you're ruining the game. Tradition means nothing."

Amazing!

Why? Throughout the history of OBR baseball, the ball was immediately dead after a balk (just like FED) until 1956.

I'd already been umpiring for two years!

We amateurs screamed: "Why? It's so easy to administer now. Call time and advance the runners. But with this new rule: What do we do if there's a balk and a wild pitch and the runner from first is thrown out at third? Is he out? Does he return to second? Do we count the pitch if he's safe? Do we count the pitch if he's out?"

The "tradition" the FED was dropping had existed for exactly 20 seasons!

In fact, the FED was returning to the origins of our beloved game. THEY were the traditionalists, not those who griped about have to enforce an immediate dead ball on a balk.

Here's where I agree with Peter, and there's enough evidence in the posts on this Board to prove we're right: FED games are <i>not</i>, by and large, being called by FED umpires. "Hey," somebody says, "I don't care what Indianapolis says, in Illinois we'll do it our way." OR: "Hell, I never called that shoulder turn balk." OR: "I don't care if the batter steps out of the box after a pitch. Forget about the penalty."

So, when coaches finally understood that their umpires weren't going to enforce the <i>rules as written</i>, they just said, "Ok, let's ditch those ideas and make up the rules as we go along."

I have no respect for any umpire who takes money to work a FED game and yet won't call by their mandates.

It's dishonest!

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 9th, 2004 at 05:26 PM]

I don't do Fed but have read a lot about it on these boards and know a few fed guys. It is my belief that they changed it back because half the Fed guys weren't calling the missed base and the other half got there arse wrung out when they did.

Rather than go to straight OBR on the appeal deal, they make some other crazy rules to compromise the situation.

The one Fed rule I like is the obstruction rule where the fielder has to have the ball before he is allowed to obstruct, not just in the process of making a play. G.

Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

Is this written by the same person who wrote in his book that he wouldn't balk a pitcher who, from the windup position, steps off the rubber with the wrong foot after his coach has alerted him to throw from the stretch?

Is this choosing which rule to enforce or not to enforce?
Does this mean he disrespects himself?
Is he therefore dishonest?


So the question might be..........
Have you called every balk you've seen occur?

And the answer most of us would say is "No, I haven't!"
In fact, I'll bet there may be other rules that at times we have overlooked.

Hmmmm.......it looks like we are a very dishonest and disrespected bunch not only lacking respect, but in some cases, lacking self-respect.........



Just my opinion,

Freix

Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

</I>From <I>51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game</i>, Right Sports, Inc., 2002:<font color=navy>
<b>Call a (highly) technical balk</b>

Perhaps I should have skipped this one, but I am if anything courageous. My mother always called that “foolhardy.” What’s in a name?

My first speech at the Texas State Umpires’ Meeting was entitled “How to Call a Perfect Game, or Why I Got Scratched in Brownsville.” The idea was that there are certain calls an umpire may make that are <i>exactly</i> by the book but wrong for that game, <i>any</i> game really.

You’ll recall I said we may ignore some rules. A technical balk is one. Wait up: You might even agree with me.

<b>Play 9:</b> R1. The pitcher assumes the set position. The umpire notices F1's pivot foot extends about two inches outside the edge of the pitcher’s plate. He stretches, he discernibly stops, he fires. Blue screams: “That’s a balk! Time! You – second base.” <b>Ruling:</b> The umpire has made a correct call.

He’s also made a stupid call.

The “reason” for the rule is so the pitcher cannot creep 10 or 12 inches closer to first. But when the amateur pitcher sets his foot outside the rubber, he’s not cheating. Generally, there’s a hole that gets dug in front of the rubber, so most pitchers are simply trying to find a comfortable spot from which to deliver. They are <i>close</i> to the proper spot; “close” is good enough.

My advice: Make that a “fix it” rule. That is, ignore it until somebody calls it to your attention. (<i>They never will.</i>) Then, enforce it equally for both sides. In the meantime, don’t try to call a perfect game. Ignore highly technical balks. Like this one.

<b>Play 10:</b> R3, 1 out. The pitcher is in the wind-up position. His coach yells: “Bubba, get’n the stretch!” Bubba very carefully and slowly, without moving his arms, steps back from the pitcher’s plate with his non-pivot foot first. <b>Ruling:</b> “That’s a balk!”

<i>Don’t call it!</i>

Face it: Everybody in the park knows what Bubba is doing. He is not trying to deceive the runner. True, he has committed a highly technical balk, but he placed no runner at a disadvantage. The purpose of requiring a pitcher to step back first with his <i>pivot</i> foot when he disengages the rubber is to prevent him from simulating a pitch. If Bubba in Play 10 had raised his arms at the moment he stepped back, that would have been a <i>real</i> balk.

<i>Note: Suppose the pitcher stepped back correctly with his pivot foot but raised his arms at that moment. That, too, would be a real balk – at most levels. Dave Yeast, director of umpires for the NCAA, posted on the an Internet message board, 3/17/00, that such a move is not a balk in the college ranks. After reading NCAA 9-3-m, I am not convinced.</i>

Now, you can email me at the address listed on the copyright page [[email protected]] and argue this point all you want: “Carl, a balk is a balk is a balk. If you don’t call it, the offensive coach is going to be welded to your face.” I promise not to scream or cuss. I like to discuss knotty problems. My position is that there are three kinds of balks: technical, penalty, and deceptive. The main idea: You ought to save your breath for the latter two.</font>

Everyone will note I'm talking about a technical balk that can occur at <i>any level</i> (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)

That's not (yet) a FED rule.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

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 <b><U>YOU</U></b> 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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

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

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

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

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 ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

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.

Re: Re: Refresh my memory
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

Reagan's sick?

Intelligence... logic... reason for the rule
 

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.

<i> Originally posted by scyguy </i>

<b> 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? </b>

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

Re: Intelligence... logic... reason for the rule
 

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....

Re: Re: Intelligence... logic... reason for the rule
 

Good one! :)
mick

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.

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.

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 <i>securely</I> (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]

Carl, I agree with you
 

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?

:(

Re: Carl, I agree with you
 

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 <i>intentionally</i> 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.

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.

Nice subterfuge
 

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. :D

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."

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!

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?

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. :)

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.

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 <i>my</i> ruling. Would that everybody had paid attention to him on that point.

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

Carl, Somebody reads your posts
 

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! :D

Peter

Re: Carl, Somebody reads your posts
 

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.

Re: Re: Carl, Somebody reads your posts
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Carl, Somebody reads your posts
 

Ok, my memory is not as bad as I thought. T'was both Garth <i>and</i> 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."

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]

Re: WCU
 

Peter: Their headquarters are in Alexandria, VA, and I hear they are looking for an executive director. Why don't you apply?

As George Takei (Sulu) would say, "Oh, myyyyyy!"

For someone who doesn't care or have a vested interest in this, your fingertips sure have been busy. Faxes to Fitz, emails to Eliot, shameless back patting resumés, you should give your wrists a break. (I could go there, but won't.)

The inaccuracies continue to spew forth. Several other members have now pointed out the MLB stance. Brinkman and Froemming were the guys I paid to learn, so if Joe is giving his blessing to something, I'll bite. Fitz ran my world for a few years, so I'll be interested to see what he wants the boys to do. Fed is and always has been a step behind. It's just nice to see that others have seen behind the curtain, too.

I know, I know,...you don't care.

Emails to Elliot? (Eliot was the British poet -- from St. Louis, MO.) Funny, I don't have any copies of those.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 16th, 2004 at 03:05 PM]

Re: Re: WCU
 

Carl;

I guess I should have gone to their website before I wrote them off. However, on the website, they don't list anything about Alexandria, VA. They list Evanston, IL as their home turf. Maybe Windy wants a job as their baseball interpreter. :D

Peter

Evanston is not very close to home, but I'm flattered.

I'm beginning to notice a propensity for Wizard a**kissing from HHH. Anyone else?

You should be familiar with No Limit Texas Hold Em...

My Eliot with one "T"

would have been beat by your "mea cuilpa"

but then the dealer threw down several
[Edited by Carl Childress]s
and I've got you beat.


Why would you have to edit that last post? It takes twenty seconds to type that drivel. Did you find another error in your grammar or spelling? That was the best the Editor in Chief could offer?

I know, I know, you don't care.

That must be the reason you deleted the thread that had my comment about Brian O'Nora puking after reading your latest Pulitzer submission.

Re: Re: Re: WCU
 

Does it say anything about Rick Roder writing their intepretations?

Ouch!

Okay, Garth...that beats my Straight. :)

I don't delete any threads. I don't that capability.

Besides, it's not threads I would delete.

Carl,
The thread WindyCityBlue is talking about was the Jim Evans Interview thread.
Since you were the thread starter you could have deleted the entire thread if you had chosen to do so.
mick

mick: Right. I deleted my post because it had served its purpose.

If someone thinks he was censored, I'll put up a similar thread and everybody can have at it.

Of course, I can't understand why any umpire would not want to hear what Jim Evans has to say. added in editing: -- even if the umpire does have to read it at Officiating.com

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 16th, 2004 at 09:56 PM]

Fact.
:)

It seems that many in baseball have a hard time with actually writing rules that are clear and unambiguous and can be interpreted with a minimum of explanation/casebook examples.

This rule, along with the long discussion on an appeal play ruling I engaged in earlier (OBR 7.10(b)) are perfect examples of rules that should be rewritten so that they actually mean what they say. Don't use absolute words like "immediate" if that clearly is not what the application of the rule is going to be.

There are people called "technical writers" whose sole job is to write clear, unambiguous, well formed writing of a technical nature. Those in charge of writing rules should at minimum consult with such a person, if not hire them to do the actual writing.

It is clear from reading these various rulings that the authors of said baseball rules really do need some help in this area. Alas, it will never happen. Too many egos would likely get in the way.

Windy;

You show your ignorance with a statement like that. My credentials for Carl bashing are unmatched except by perhaps Steve Freix. In that department, you are still wet behind the ears. Carl did not call me an enemy for nothing - although I do think enemy was a bit strong. A worthy but obnoxious opponent would be more accurate.

I am surprised that Carl wastes time with a wannabe like you who is too scared to use his real name. You are not worthy but he has a known weakness for wasting his time stomping on pi$$ants. We have had too many cases of fraud on the boards over the years. Wannabes posing as D1 and minor leauge umpires are a dime a dozen. If you were a real big time umpire, you would have established your reputation here in a different way. You would have started out with careful accurate posts. You would then have used the boards to leverage your reputation. You cannot do any of that as a troll. I came to the attention of a D1 assignor through my writings here. You are wasting your time except to entertain us. For that, I thank-you.

I have never had an interest in arguing rules with Carl. Rules are not where big time umpires make their living. Wannabes argue rules, real umpires discuss situations. It is convenient to have a rules guru to supply the rulings because even real umpires have weird situations arise now and again. It is simple to ask the number one rules differences expert in the world the answers. Even if he is wrong, he will have a bunch of evidence that will blow away a protest committee. Even if he is wrong, (and he is not wrong often) he will get in right in the next issue of the BRD. In summation, I don't see the point of arguing rules. Nerds and wannabes love rules minutia. For me, I want the answer and then I want to move on. Carl provides answers and 99.9% of the time, they are right. When you find a person with a better average, let me know so that I can dump the BRD in the trash can.

Carl is a great tool. Try to get an answer from another known expert on any subject and it can take weeks and they want money. For baseball rules differences, you can come to the Internet, stroke Carl's gigantic ego, and out pops the right answer. What a deal.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 17th, 2004 at 09:18 AM]

Triple HHH...move next time. Stationary targets are too easy!
 

I am surprised that Carl wastes time with a wannabe like you who is too scared to use his real name. You are not worthy but he has a known weakness for wasting his time stomping on pi$$ants. We have had too many cases of fraud on the boards over the years. Wannabes posing as D1 and minor leauge umpires are a dime a dozen. If you were a real big time umpire, you would have established your reputation here in a different way. You would have started out with careful accurate posts.


I must have missed a memo. “You would have started out with careful accurate posts.” This statement is not only untrue but another demonstration of your poor writing skills. “League” is a tricky word - I advise against using it in the future unless you spell it correctly. “Careful” and “accurate” mean roughly the same thing here. If you had intended to use them as a pair of descriptives, a comma between them would have been in order. Tsk, tsk!
But I digress, you must have missed my earliest posts on this board. Wait a minute...you not only saw them, but came to embrace them. (I could copy and paste them here, but that would only embarrass you more.) For some reason you felt compelled to antagonize me while coming to the Wizard’s defense. You have made two mistakes.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
You would then have used the boards to leverage your reputation. You cannot do any of that as a troll. I came to the attention of a D1 assignor through my writings here. You are wasting your time except to entertain us. For that, I thank-you.


I don’t need to use this Board to leverage my assignments or further my career.
Apparently, you did - that says far more about your talent than mine. I earn my games every time I go onto the field. As you indicated, words are never proof of one’s abilities.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I have never had an interest in arguing rules with Carl. Rules are not where big time umpires make their living. Wannabes argue rules, real umpires discuss situations.


Oh, you’ve got to be kidding. You know this from your time at Pro School?
Joe Brinkman used to love quizzing us on rules - which inherently lead to situation discussions.
It is damn near impossible to separate the two, genius! How often have you seen a member ask for a ruling - ONLY A RULING - without a situational discussion ensuing? Isn’t that the same number of times as you’ve worked an NCAA D-1 playoff game.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

It is convenient to have a rules guru to supply the rulings because even real umpires have weird situations arise now and again. It is simple to ask the number one rules differences expert in the world the answers. Even if he is wrong, he will have a bunch of evidence that will blow away a protest committee. Even if he is wrong, (and he is not wrong often) he will get in right in the next issue of the BRD.

Is that more a** kissing? “The number one rules differences expert in the world” - even Bob Jenkins showed the Wizard that he was clueless with regards to the OBR ruling for this case. Several others have come forward to offer the same input.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

In summation, I don't see the point of arguing rules. Nerds and wannabes love rules minutia. For me, I want the answer and then I want to move on. Carl provides answers and 99.9% of the time, they are right. When you find a person with a better average, let me know so that I can dump the BRD in the trash can.

When someone says “in summation” or “finally” they usually don’t have another paragraph follow it, but you said that your terrific writing skills led to being noticed. I can only imagine the baseball talent, if this was your strength. You’ve started a battle that you can’t possibly win. You’ve made several assumptions that you’ll never be able to prove. In addition, several of the things you’ve claimed have come back around and bitten you.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Carl is a great tool.

Truer words were never written! Thank you.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Try to get an answer from another known expert on any subject and it can take weeks and they want money. For baseball rules differences, you can come to the Internet, stroke Carl's gigantic ego, and out pops the right answer. What a deal.

If I want a baseball related answer, I will talk with one of my regular partners first. I trust the guys that take the field with me. If we cannot come to an agreement, I can always call
an NCAA or IHSA rules interpreters. MLB.com has served me well with OBR questions and I own a copy of J/R (although I don’t use it very often). If I’m still stumped, I still have enough friends in Fitz’s office to get the job done. I’ve never come here to resolve a baseball question.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 17th, 2004 at 09:18 AM]

Why would you need to edit this? Imitation is the finest form of flattery, but the Wizard edits his mistakes, while yours remain.

Total amount of time spent on this post....six minutes. That includes unfolding the collapsible keyboard and breaking your thoughts into plausible sections. My work is done and it’s time to surf the web. It really is nice to be the boss.

Just watching.
 

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_5.gif' alt='Sharing Popcorn' border=0></a>

Re: Triple HHH...move next time. Stationary targets are too easy!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue

I don’t need to use this Board to leverage my assignments or further my career. Apparently, you did - that says far more about your talent than mine. I earn my games every time I go onto the field. As you indicated, words are never proof of one’s abilities.

Oh, so you are satisfied with where you are. Have you worked in MLB? Have you worked the CWS? Have you done an NCAA regional? Except for the top MLB guys, we can all move up a notch or two. If you are satisfied with where you are, then you are on your way down. Words are not proof of one's abilities but they might get you noticed so that you get a chance to prove your abilities.


Oh, you’ve got to be kidding. You know this from your time at Pro School? Joe Brinkman used to love quizzing us on rules - which inherently lead to situation discussions.
It is damn near impossible to separate the two, genius! How often have you seen a member ask for a ruling - ONLY A RULING - without a situational discussion ensuing? Isn’t that the same number of times as you’ve worked an NCAA D-1 playoff game.

Yes, I have been to pro-school - Wendelstedt. I doubt that you have done any D1 playoff games, either. Until you come forward with a date and place, you are just an unnamed source like the one that provided Dan Rather with those so called original documents.


Is that more a** kissing? “The number one rules differences expert in the world” - even Bob Jenkins showed the Wizard that he was clueless with regards to the OBR ruling for this case. Several others have come forward to offer the same input.

So what, did Bob or anyone else provide any enlightenment that would help an umpire in a real game. It matters not where the information came from, only what the correct ruling is. The correct ruling is that a glove with a ball lodged in it can be tossed to first in MLB and NCAA but not FED. We knew that a week ago, thanks to Carl. All the rest of the posts were history lessons and entertainment but that had absolutely no relevance to real umpires working real games. Nerds track rules endlessly. Nerds are necesary to keep computers running and rules interpretations up to date but I would rather use a computer and umpire real baseball. Thanks to the nerds, I do not need to endlessly pick at rules.


When someone says “in summation” or “finally” they usually don’t have another paragraph follow it, but you said that your terrific writing skills led to being noticed. I can only imagine the baseball talent, if this was your strength. You’ve started a battle that you can’t possibly win. You’ve made several assumptions that you’ll never be able to prove. In addition, several of the things you’ve claimed have come back around and bitten you.

It's the ideas, not how they are expressed that are the most important. In my paid writings, I take time to edit them. I do not bother with that here except if an idea is misstated. I got noticed for the ideas, not my writing skills. I was not interviewing for a job as editor, but rather as a job as umpire.


If I want a baseball related answer, I will talk with one of my regular partners first. I trust the guys that take the field with me. If we cannot come to an agreement, I can always call an NCAA or IHSA rules interpreters. MLB.com has served me well with OBR questions and I own a copy of J/R (although I don’t use it very often). If I’m still stumped, I still have enough friends in Fitz’s office to get the job done. I’ve never come here to resolve a baseball question.

I work with the top umpires in the DC area. They have worked NCAA regionals and yet Carl's answers have proved more accurate than the ones that they provide for exceedingly knotty problems. Carl has the history, the contacts, and the notes going back decades. No one else has that information for OBR, NCAA, and FED combined.

Our Virginia state interpreter is worse than useless when it comes to providing interpretations and it would appear that your Illinois intepreter blew a rule as well. Like it or not, unless Carl is wrong, your Illinois guy got the lodged ball problem wrong.

Windy, you are wannabe umpire that has fooled us for a long time. You hang around with the right guys and regurgitate what they tell you. You probably buy drinks for the pro umpires that come through town and pump them for information. You have provided us no proof that you are anything but a FED/JUCO umpire.

You mentioned your contacts in MLB. Lots of umpires have contacts in MLB. Tee, himself, has contacts in MLB that he can call on to find out the latest inside scoop. That does not make you anything more than a wannabe or umpire groupie.

Without a name, you have no credibility. You have made up reasons that you do not give us a name but they are undoubtably a lie. If we knew who you were, we would find out that you have grossly exaggerated your resume.

Peter

Re: Just watching.
 

Rut;

"Just watching" and I will bet that you are loving every minute of it. See what I mean about Internet umpiring being great entertainment.

Peter

Re: Just watching.
 

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_5.gif' alt='Sharing Popcorn' border=0></a>

This is getting good.

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_17_2.gif' alt='Boxing' border=0></a>

Peace

can you pass over some of that popcorn? Thanks! *g*

I prefer Junior Mints and the gallon size coke!
 

Oh, so you are satisfied with where you are. Have you worked in MLB? Have you worked the CWS? Have you done an NCAA regional? Except for the top MLB guys, we can all move up a notch or two. If you are satisfied with where you are, then you are on your way down. Words are not proof of one's abilities but they might get you noticed so that you get a chance to prove your abilities.

You should read your last line again. I have never been given an assignment because of my words. Judging from the quality of your writing, I hope that Freshman game was every thing you hoped.

You are not sharp enough to get me to reveal exactly where and what I worked. Suffice to say, if you don’t believe that I have not achieved your exalted level of umpiring, I will not lose a minute of sleep. As a matter of fact, I like having you think otherwise. It will only serve my purposes when you get made to look like an a** by a “wannabe”.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Yes, I have been to pro-school - Wendelstedt. I doubt that you have done any D1 playoff games, either. Until you come forward with a date and place, you are just an unnamed source like the one that provided Dan Rather with those so called original documents.

For many months now, I have said B-F (Brinkman & Froemming) and pointed out that Joe Brinkman and Bruce Froemming are far more versed than Jim Evans or Harry Wendlstedt. You really should read more closely. In fact, I believe the last post contained an allusion to my mentor.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

So what, did Bob or anyone else provide any enlightenment that would help an umpire in a real game. It matters not where the information came from, only what the correct ruling is. The correct ruling is that a glove with a ball lodged in it can be tossed to first in MLB and NCAA but not FED. We knew that a week ago, thanks to Carl. All the rest of the posts were history lessons and entertainment but that had absolutely no relevance to real umpires working real games. Nerds track rules endlessly. Nerds are necesary to keep computers running and rules interpretations up to date but I would rather use a computer and umpire real baseball. Thanks to the nerds, I do not need to endlessly pick at rules.

I choose to use my computer for fun. Are YOU having fun yet? BTW “necesary” isn’t a word, “necessary” is. Keep up the good work, it is entertaining.
Bob pointed out that Carl was wrong. Carl said that there was no official ruling for MLB and several others supported Bob. I’ve never seen Bob Jenkins pick a battle here. He simply stated the facts. In your state, you may the call this way. I’ve been told otherwise and know that if this play ever occurs, the coaches will defer to my judgement. Since there is no appeal process here and our state interpreters seem to let logic prevail, I doubt this will be an issue.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


It's the ideas, not how they are expressed that are the most important. In my paid writings, I take time to edit them. I do not bother with that here except if an idea is misstated. I got noticed for the ideas, not my writing skills. I was not interviewing for a job as editor, but rather as a job as umpire.

It’s too bad you’ve failed miserably at both.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I work with the top umpires in the DC area. They have worked NCAA regionals and yet Carl's answers have proved more accurate than the ones that they provide for exceedingly knotty problems.

I would choose better partners. It sounds to me like you’re bringing sand to the beach.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Carl has the history, the contacts, and the notes going back decades. No one else has that information for OBR, NCAA, and FED combined.

And...he knows which wine goes with fish, he doesn’t snore and he smells good, too.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Our Virginia state interpreter is worse than useless when it comes to providing interpretations and it would appear that your Illinois intepreter blew a rule as well. Like it or not, unless Carl is wrong, your Illinois guy got the lodged ball problem wrong.

“Intepreter”, you say, maybe that’s the problem, I’be been asking teh “interpreter” for a ruling.

No, our Illinois Interpreters (plural) actuallyrefer to this play that came up a few years ago in our State Championship. They realized the folly of the call and have taken up the cause of getting it changed. You had an extensive thread that indicated how many state associations are letting certain things slide. (Dugout extensions, official baseballs, mercy rule, etc.) Must we revisit this mess or or you willing to admit that certain governing bodies allow for different interpretations and rigor of rules.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Windy, you are wannabe umpire that has fooled us for a long time. You hang around with the right guys and regurgitate what they tell you. You probably buy drinks for the pro umpires that come through town and pump them for information. You have provided us no proof that you are anything but a FED/JUCO umpire.

Actually, I have to sleep with them in order to get the information. (They are very secretive about mechanics and rulings!) It is more than amusing that you are consumed with discrediting me. Assume what you wish. I will continue to add to conversations and point out the mistakes in interpretations and logic as I see fit. Much like the Lone Ranger, I’m not seeking fame from my postings. Only a handful of people know my identity and all of those are amused. They, too are hoping to break into the big time - Virginia and DC ball!
They’ve already seen that no matter how hard you try to impress and how inept your attempt to reason, you can get an assignment near our nation’s Capitol.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


You mentioned your contacts in MLB. Lots of umpires have contacts in MLB. Tee, himself, has contacts in MLB that he can call on to find out the latest inside scoop. That does not make you anything more than a wannabe or umpire groupie.

Actually it makes me someone who got a paycheck from them for several years and left on good terms. I never claimed exclusivity to this club, but we’ve already learned of your reading disability.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Without a name, you have no credibility. You have made up reasons that you do not give us a name but they are undoubtably a lie. If we knew who you were, we would find out that you have grossly exaggerated your resume.

Is “undoubtably” a word in your state? Easy...count to ten and then hit yourself in the head with something hard. When Rut would chide you for losing your writing job, I didn’t know what to believe. The fog has lifted.

When I close my eyes at night, I can dream of the things I’ve done and places I’ve worked. You can only dream to be there some day.

From your words, I take it that you are an atheist. Otherwise believing in something, without proof, is what most of us do everyday. It must be lonely in your world.

Geez !
 

That last WindyCityBlue post is so difficult to follow.
I can't tell who said what, or who wrote what....
I just can't tell the players without a program

Oh, my!

<small> My popcorn's gone anyway. :rolleyes:</small>

Re: Geez !
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick
That last WindyCityBlue post is so difficult to follow.

Apparently he doesn't know how to manipulate the "quote" feature.


I can't tell who said what, or who wrote what....

Yes, it is confusing.

I just can't tell the players without a program

Should we tell him how it works?

Re: Re: Geez !
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Quote:

Originally posted by mick That last WindyCityBlue post is so difficult to follow. Apparently he doesn't know how to manipulate the "quote" feature. I can't tell who said what, or who wrote what.... Yes, it is confusing. I just can't tell the players without a program Should we tell him how it works?

NO. Let him call Joe Brinkman.

Waiting for the book!
 

I'm just waiting on WCB's book to come out - interpretations included. I'm sure then his resume would be on the prologue etc.,

Then we will have the real scoop ...

Pass me a DPepper please.

Thanks
David

[Edited by David B on Sep 18th, 2004 at 08:53 AM]

Re: Waiting for the book!
 

I'll handle this one, Carl.


That's Dr Pepper. With no period.

Re: Re: Waiting for the book!
 

Hey, that's my shorthand. I guess I should have called it the 10/4/2 for my drink of choice.

Do notice though there was no period.

Thanks
David

Windy's been drinking again
 

Windy, this is not up to your standards. You have numerous errors in your writing and they are not just typing errors, either. The logic and form are totally missing, and judging by the responses, I am not the only one who finds it difficult to comprehend.

You better join HHH in atheism. With an attitude like yours, God won't want want you around and we all know what that means.

Re: Re: Re: Waiting for the book!
 

David: Pay attention! We play in B-flat here. It's 10-<font size=12>2</font> and 4. Is everybody in Mississippi dyslexic? (grin)

Re: Re: Geez !
 

Garth,
Uh, no....
I think he's a smart guy and can figger that out ... already.
mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Waiting for the book!
 

The short answer - YES! (g)

Have another for me ...

Thanks
David



[Edited by David B on Sep 18th, 2004 at 08:58 AM]

Mr. (I'm assuming) Bob Lyle,

Please specify the numerous errors. Your enlightenment is sure to entertain.

WCB

I've emailed Bob and asked him not to try. We have a limit of 26,000 kb per message.

Actually, Mick and Garth, I was unable to use the quote button. My PDA uses Mac based software and it was simply easier to copy and paste Triple H's post. I've tried italicizing, bolding and page breaking to no avail. You'll just have to manage. I figured that putting lines between them would indicate the start of another of Peter's poignant points and follow it with my retort. Apparently italicizing my thought doesn't transfer when it is transfered to the Board.

None to worry, though. Peter's ramblings usually have some grammar or spelling errors. That should make it easier.

Papa C. - Joe Brinkman told me to have you edit the JEA interview again. By the way, how many years of professional ball did you work? (grin).