How am I supposed to manage effectively if I don't know the rules and how they are administered?

A few years ago somebody queried the ASA rules people on the following play:

In a slow-pitch game, with a 3-2 pitch on the way, the batter drops the bat and starts for 1B. The bat lands on home plate, and the ball lands on the bat.

Could happen.

I believe the ruling was to ignore the contact with the bat and call the pitch, which would in this case be a ball because it would have hit the plate.

Of course, this has nothing to do with OBR, but it shows that this type of crazy play can happen.

What if, in OBR, the batter thinks an intentional ball 4 is coming and so drops the bat with the pitch on the way, and the ball hits the bat as the runner is several steps toward 1B? It seems to me that this is different from a swing where the bat leaves the batter's hands and hits the ball.

But I admit I don't know the answer.

For all of you living in the "Great White North" , the weather is much better down here in Florida! Where we play all year round.

As far as training and practices, LL southern region just concluded their training session this past weekend. Our local LL started sign ups this week as well as the area HS all have started their spring conditioning.

I'sa thinks that ah white stuff is ah over rated!

Let's take a look . . .
 

Grey:

Let's try to get to the crux of this issue:

You asked:

"What if, in OBR, the batter thinks an intentional ball 4 is coming and so drops the bat with the pitch on the way,"

And d3 stated:

"During the pitcher's delivery, the ball slips out out of the pitcher's hand and starts rolling towards home plate. The roll is relativly slow, but it is apparent that it will reach home plate."

Now these are nothing more than "red herrings" (I actually like McGuffin better - that was used by Alfred Hitchcock when he referred to items that keep a story going but really aren't important). What is important by the wording of these two statements is that each is a "legal pitch" . . .

So let's make this into a real world play and not a TWP:

(Please correct me if I am reading things into this!)

Let's say you have a real fast, left hand hitting superstar. Let's call him Ichiro for short.

The pitcher throws a legal pitch and the batter tosses his bat at the ball and takes off for first. He is clearly three or four steps out of the batter's box when the bat and ball connect.

So I digress for a moment:

We know that the pitch, even if bouncing or rolling on the ground is a legal pitch as long as it crosses a foul line so that ends the issue that d3 tossed at us. We know that is baseball a ball can be hit even if it bounces or is on the ground -- ergo -- hitting the ball is legal.

Now we have a rule that says a batter shall be called out if he is in contact with the ground outside the batter's box when a ball is hit . . . it does not make a difference if the ball has bounced, it is rolling on the ground or if the batter has a bat in his hands or not.

The ruling seems rather clear to me.

(As a little bonus point: no rule book tells us that we must wait until the ball gets to home plate before we hit it either ("hey Johnny, get up in front of the box and hit that curve ball before it breaks")which means we can, under all rules, hit a ball before it reaches the plate. Therefore in d3's question only the batter's position is of value not "where" the ball is positioned when struck.

This play could have been of value if it were made into a "real world play" rather than Third World.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Jan 12th, 2005 at 09:11 AM]

I will take a little snow any day over hurricanes and entire communities being wiped out every few years. And if that was not the case, not sure I would be jealous of someone playing baseball at this time of year. ;)

Peace

Tee: That makes sense. Batter is out.

Now the jumping in the air part makes it a TWP, but that has to be an out, too.

BTW Tim - thanks for your comments on the play.

Earth shattering result: It's the same conclusion the Rat reached earlier on the other board.

Wow. I can't believe there are people here so offended by the posting of a hypothetical designed to make you think about the rules. Anyone can answer the easy ones. Nothing wrong with stretching here. Of course this would never actually happen, but if the discussion of what SHOULD be called in these odd scenarios helps an umpire down the road rule on something that DOES happen, simply because the relevant rules that would apply in this odd situation was discussed here, then what's the harm?

100% of the football posts right now are just like this, and it makes us stretch. It's a good thing.

Those of you offended by this can go piss up a rope.

Hmmm,
 

Mr. Crowder:

The "old Tee" would say "phock off".

The new and improved Tee says:

Some of us would rather deal with real situations. We have way too many newer umpires that have enough trouble with balls/strikes, safe/out and fair/foul to involve them in silliness like this initial post.

Since you have named yourself the monitor for this thread I guess you can take which ever of these answers fit your needs.

Tee

Actually, if anyone's named themselves monitor, it's the crew that chimed in to this thread saying "Don't Post This Here", not me.

If it's so important to you to discuss "real" situations and educate umpires on how to call balls/strikes and safe/out, I suggest you feel free to do so (although I wish you luck - as this is an all-text board, I fear you will have some difficulties there).

However, I would add that I suspect that while you think you know what to do in ALL "real" situations, and maybe you actually DO know .... can you tell us the relevant rule(s) that would cause you to rule a certain way in the situations provided in this thread. In other words ... what would you rule, and why. And after determining that - is it possible that the rule needed to cause you to make such a ruling is applicable in other situations? If so, can you see how discussing the impossible makes us all better at ruling on the improbable?

If not ... for goodness sake just ignore the thread - don't blast those that might have actually been interested.

Huh,
 

"However, I would add that I suspect that while you think you know what to do in ALL "real" situations, and maybe you actually DO know .... can you tell us the relevant rule(s) that would cause you to rule a certain way in the situations provided in this thread. In other words ... what would you rule, and why. And after determining that - is it possible that the rule needed to cause you to make such a ruling is applicable in other situations? If so, can you see how discussing the impossible makes us all better at ruling on the improbable?"

*********

For the life of me I do not understand this paragraph.

Honest, not taking a shot I just can't make it make sense.

I mean I did apply rules and logic to the play and made a call . . . I guess I am just confused by a football guy that is trying to post to a baseball board.

Plus in the eight years I have been on these type boards I have never cited rules by number.

I will leave tht up the guy over on the NASO board.

Thanks,

Tee

Those of you offended by this can go piss up a rope.

I tried that once when I was younger, long before I studied physics and gravitational pull. By the time I got back down to the bottom of the rope.......What a mess!!!!

I guess it must be a FOOTBALL THING.

And no, I am not offended by this insult. A GOOd official has thick skin!!!!!

Been doing it for a century
 

Now, now, coaches (and very good coaches at that) have mastered the art of managing and they never know but a few rules and then only what they were told.

Matter of fact, most good coaches don't know the rules, and they don't care. They just want to know what the official is calling and why.

A perfect example is the new rule changes that go in effect every year in FED and NCAA. The season will be almost over and a situation will happen and the coach will say something like "when did they change that rule?"

I'm sure the memo is sitting on their desk somewhere etc.,

Thanks
David

Back in high school English class we called the above gobbly gook. And no discussing stupid plays that have a snow balls chance in h*ll happening is a waste of time.

Enough stupid things happen on the field that should be discussed at length missed bases, interference, obstruction advantagous fourth outs etc. Don't waste bandwith on this nonsense. JMHO

"Matter of fact, most good coaches don't know the rules, and they don't care. <u>They just want to know what the official is calling and why</u>."

If that isn't learning a rule I don't know what is.


Also, I think you should read Peter Osborne's stuff so you don't think it's just me.