NFHS Lodged ball - casebook plays

[Rich Ives]

You have seen those highlight tapes where a MLB player tosses the glove for the out.

You know that "everyone" has seen it.

You know there's going to be a riot at the field if you award a dead ball and two bases.

Is this a case for "the expected call" - rules be damned?

[GarthB]

For example, Fed wants a strike called if batter steps out of the box, when he is not supposed to. What's that got to do with safety?


FED modifications usually come under one of three headings: Safety, increased particiation and speed-up. The one you've mentioned, called infrequently, comes under the speed-up heading.

Some that seem purely gratuitious would include the balk differences, the new intepretation on a lodged ball that began this thread and obstruction. In my opinon, there would seem to be no justification for the differences in those areas.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DG
Relatively speaking, throwing a glove with ball inside is safer than throwing a ball. Many of the Fed rules differences have nothing to do with safety. For example, Fed wants a strike called if batter steps out of the box, when he is not supposed to. What's that got to do with safety? Fed just wants to be different and I wish they would stick to safety differences, like malicious contact, force play slide rule, etc.

It's possible you don't know this. The NCAA created the "stay-in-the-box" rule in 1994. I suppose they just wanted to be different. But the FED said, "Not through the iron duke!" They adopted that rule in 1995. I suppose they just did not want to be different.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

Some that seem purely gratuitious would include ... obstruction. In my opinon, there would seem to be no justification for the differences in those areas.

For 2004, the NCAA (gratuitously?) adopted the major element of the FED obstruction rule. They left OBR Obstruction Type (a) and Type (b) in the dirt, which is where Jim Evans would leave them.

The OBR, everyone knows, is the worst written of the three major books. And it will ALWAYS be out-of-step - and poorly written - because they never make changes. Player's union, you know.

Note: On obstruction: The two amateur books are not exactly the same, but they are essentially the same. The only difference remaining is that the NCAA umpire doesn't have to award an obstructed runner a base if the defense wasn't playing on him.

[Tim C]

"FED modifications usually come under one of three headings: Safety, increased particiation and speed-up."

Garth:

I have always intoned that there are FOUR reasons why FED develops rules:

1) Additional Participation Opportunities

2) Safety

3) Speed-up rules or what could be consider "Anti-slow play rules", and

4) "Dumb Umpire Rules"

DURs are developed because at any one time FED cannot trust the quality of umpires in a game. Much like Little League there are just too many games to be covered by umpires with equal abilities.

During the 1960's FED started a few major rule views that simply atttempted to take certain "difficult" decisions out of the hands of umpires and place them into the rules.

Since the Federation system has, with out much doubt, the best OFFICIAL book for interpretations (The Case Book) it makes certain things easier to identify as Case Rules rather than judgement issues.

I, along with PapaC, relished in the "old" Federation Appeal rule . . . that change was not a great change for games umpired by lower level umpires.

I think this rule follows that spirit. It is now written clearly and should be called as Federation desires.

We are faced with the "common knowledge" arena in almost ever game. My best example of that is when a fan starts getting on the PU when a pitcher goes to his mouth (and wipes off) at the FED level -- I hear constant harping about umpires not knowing the rules because "everyone knows you can't got to your mouth shile on the mound".

Carl:

And I agree with the changes, Evans and you (if that matters to anyone). At the Federation level there should NEVER be an differnece between Type A or Type B obstruction.

It should be left in the dirt.

While that determination and ruling can be made by an experienced, well trained umpire at any level when we deal with the multitude of inexperienced and questionable abilities of some High School level umpires we should simplify things.

We'll make it through this -- trust me!

Tee





[Edited by Tim C on Dec 20th, 2004 at 06:49 PM]

[GarthB]

I think this rule follows that spirit. It is now written clearly and should be called as Federation desires.


Of course it will be called as FED desires. No problem there. Written cleanly? Nope. Got more holes than a sieve.

I've always agreed with anyone who so stated that FED's case book is the best in the rules biz. (There, that doesn't limit me to you and that other guy.) That's never been an issue. I just disagree to some extent as to which rules differences are really beneficial. Obviously you are closer in line with Carl and other giants in the industry than I am.

But what do I know? I'm just a little ol' barely qualified umpire from Spokane.

[Peruvian]

I think there is an element of the 'dumb umpire rules', for all the reasons already stated.

However, this 'ball lodged in glove' deal really has me troubled. I can't fathom why the FED would do this just for the sake of being different.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Peruvian
Tag line: Catcher - (turning to look at the plate ump) [loudly] "Where was that pitch at?"

Plate Ump - (while sweeping the plate) "Didn't your English teacher ever teach you not to end a sentence with a preposition?"

Peruvian: The rest of that famous quote is: Catcher: "Ok, where was that pitch at, a$$hole?"

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by GarthB
But what do I know? I'm just a little ol' barely qualified umpire from Spokane.

Spo ... Kane ..., Worshington. I've seen the advertisements.

My, you are humble.

Just funning, Garth. From my view, yur a big city dude.

[David B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

6.1.1j: With R1 on first base, F1, from the set position and prior to bringing his hands together while in contact with the pitcher's plate, (a) abruptly and quickly turns his shoulders toward first base in an attempt to drive back the runner; or (b) casually turns his shoulders to observe the runner at first base. RULING: Legal in both (a) and (b).

Have I been teaching this wrong all these years?

The pitcher can feint without arm motion. Right? In our area OBR pitchers always step off as they whirl their shoulders toward first. MLB pitchers do the same thing, don't they?

Wouldn't I call a balk if a play such as 6.1.1j -(a) happened in an MSBL game? [/B]

this is crazy. If he does what is in (a) above its still going to be a balk or we're going to have lots of "splaining" to do and probably an ejection to follow.

I see the point of (b) but (a) makes no sense at all.

Thanks
David

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by David B

this is crazy. If he does what is in (a) above its still going to be a balk or we're going to have lots of "splaining" to do and probably an ejection to follow.

I see the point of (b) but (a) makes no sense at all.

Thanks
David [/B]

I have to agree on this. The fast turning of the shoulders has always been looked at as being a feint and thus a balk at any level. It will lead to serious arguments on a ball field and probably ejections of coaches that are, in theory and history, right, but in reality or the new rule/interpetation are not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
It appears that the FED thinks a ball that is temporarily stuck is not lodged. What, then, does "lodged" mean? The alternatives to "temporarily stuck" are: 1) not stuck at all; and 2) permanently stuck. Which one is synonymous with "lodged?"

The "if the fielder can pull it out, it's not lodged" ruling leads to a problem with the "pitched ball gets past the catcher and sticks in the backstop" play.

Is the pitch lodged as soon as it sticks? (That's the current ruling) Is it only lodged if the fielder (usually F2) can't pull the ball loose?

[Steve Emerson]

I have another what if as to what Jim asked. The ball gets past the catcher and it does stick in the backstop or pads as we have at most parks, and as the catcher is in the process of going to the backstop to retrieve the ball it drops, do you kill it as soon as you turn around or do you wait until you see that the catcher can't retrieve it without going into the pads or fence to get it. My opinion is you wait until you see that he has to pull the ball free, but I read it in FED that as soon as the umpire sees it lodged he is to kill the play.