fuel for discussion

[scyguy]

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

[Bob Lyle]

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

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.

[Jeremiah]

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

[jprideaux]

Originally posted by Jeremiah
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

[Jeremiah]

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 jenkins]

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

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.

[Carl Childress]

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

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 designed 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.

[Been Dare]

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...........

[Rich Ives]

Carl:

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

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by Been Dare
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...........

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.

Peter

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

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.

Peter

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.

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 those suckers would have been out.

Umpires hated it because it put the burden squarely on their shoulders. A coach at third knows 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), it doesn't matter 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 not, 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 rules as written, 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]

[Gee]

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.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress


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]

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

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

From 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game, Right Sports, Inc., 2002:
Call a (highly) technical balk

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 exactly by the book but wrong for that game, any 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.

Play 9: 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.” Ruling: 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 close 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. (They never will.) 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.

Play 10: 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. Ruling: “That’s a balk!”

Don’t call it!

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 pivot 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 real balk.

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.

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.

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

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Gee
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.

That's not (yet) a FED rule.