Wendelstedt Interpretation

[umpireschool]

We at the Wendelstedt Umpire School received notice last week that one of the emails we sent out regarding a rules interpretation was posted on this forum.
After reviewing the post's contents, we requested that it be removed from the site, which it was. Below we have included the actual correspondence between our school and the emailer, and also between our school and this site. Please take note of the differences.

Sincerely,


The Wendelstedt Staff

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendelstedt Umpire School [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 2:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Wendelstedt Interpretation

To Whom it May Concern:

We have recently been informed that a rules question that we answered
through our website had been copied to a post on your website, and that our

interpretation may have been skewed from its original form. We have
included
the saved email that we returned to the user who had asked the question. After
checking this with the posts on your site, it seems that information from
our email was added and deleted from to conform to his/her view on the play

in question. Please correct this record. We have removed this email address

from being able to submit anymore correspondence to us in order to prevent
this from happening again. We have sent him/her an email indicating this
loss of privilege. If, in the future, you encounter another person using
our
site, or our school, as an authority on a position, please inform us of
this
at [email protected]. Thank you.


Sincerely,


The Wendelstedt Staff

P.S. Please see that this is given to the proper person(s) in charge of the

website.

---------- Original Message -------------
Subject: Rules Question
Date: Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:16:19 (PST)
From: "Wendelstedt Umpire School"
To: **Deleted for Privacy**


Steven,
We have recently had a barrage of appeal play questions, and several
relating to yours. Rule 7.01 c.b. states "If a runner legally acquires
title
to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may
not
return to a previously occupied base."
There are several conflicting "penalties" for this action of the runner.
Some have said that the proper thing to do is to tell the runner that he
cannot go back a touch or retouch. We believe that this constitutes a
conflict because we are indicating to the defense (whether they already
know
or not) that the runner is in violation of base running rules. Instead, if
the runner begins to return to a previously occupied base, after the
pitcher
is on the rubber with the ball, he should be declared out. This is
permissible under the rules, though there is no specific penalty under rule

7.01 c.b. In order to call an out, the umpire must determine the actions of

the runner as running ". . . the bases in reverse order for the purpose of
confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game," as written in rule

7.08 (i).
Though this play is highly unlikely to occur, the penalty in place is to
prevent the offense from pulling "tricks" on the defense (while making an
appeal); thus the whole point of rule 7.08 (i).


We hope that this helps in your ruling.


Sincerely,



The Wendelstedt Staff

---------- Original Message -------------
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://umpireschool.com/rulesq.htm
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:36:38 -0800 (PST)
From: umpschool
To: [email protected]
************************************************** *************************

**Deleted for Privacy**


Comments:

With a runner on first base the batter gets a base hit to right field. The
runner from first goes to third, but on the way, misses second. The pitcher

gets the ball and steps up on the rubber, believing he must do so in order
to appeal. The runner, seeing that there is going to be an appeal, begins
to
run back to second. Is there something wrong with this, and if there is,
how
do you, as the umpire, correct it?

[GarthB]

A big thank you to The Wendelstedt Staff for taking the time to clear this up and, it should be to no one's suprise, for acting honorably in protecting both themselves and others from future similar abuse.

Officialforum should follow their lead and likewise revoke Steven's posting privileges and those of anyone who is found to have committed similar acts.

[mrm21711]

The Wendelstedt Staff is very classy.

[umpduck11]

I concur with Garth's recommendation of removal of
posting privileges for the guilty party in this action.
How pitiful one's life must be,to go to one of the
foremost authorities on interp,and then twist their
response to fit one's views.IMHO,I wouldn't want to
work with one that boils down to being little more than
a fabricator of facts.......