Ran across this sit at eteamz

[mcrowder]

Tee - sorry if I was confusing.

What I was trying to say was --- can you rule on the situation described? Assuming you can, don't you think that discussing the rules (not necessarily by number) in play will, in general, make those others reading the post better umpires? If not... oh well - I disagree.

PS - I'm not a football guy lurking on the baseball board. I'm a softball/baseball guy (20+ years) who has recently (only 3 years) taken up football officiating. And as a newbie over there, I can attest that discussing odd or possibly even impossible plays has helped me officiate the improbable plays that really do happen.

I guess my overall point in the past 3 or 4 posts is - there's nothing wrong with discussing the bizarro plays on a board. If you choose not to, fine - but there's no reason to denigrate those who do. If NO ONE wants to, well, the post will quickly filter its way down the page and out of sight. I, personally, think there is much to learn in discussing the odd plays. You, obviously differ - but there's no need to berate those that disagree with you.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Tee - sorry if I was confusing.

What I was trying to say was --- can you rule on the situation described? Assuming you can, don't you think that discussing the rules (not necessarily by number) in play will, in general, make those others reading the post better umpires? If not... oh well - I disagree.

PS - I'm not a football guy lurking on the baseball board. I'm a softball/baseball guy (20+ years) who has recently (only 3 years) taken up football officiating. And as a newbie over there, I can attest that discussing odd or possibly even impossible plays has helped me officiate the improbable plays that really do happen.

I guess my overall point in the past 3 or 4 posts is - there's nothing wrong with discussing the bizarro plays on a board. If you choose not to, fine - but there's no reason to denigrate those who do. If NO ONE wants to, well, the post will quickly filter its way down the page and out of sight. I, personally, think there is much to learn in discussing the odd plays. You, obviously differ - but there's no need to berate those that disagree with you.

If you want to learn the rules and how to apply them study the case book that the Fed. puts out. Better yet get J/R it's the best way to learn the rules JMHO.

[NFump]

The rule would be 6.03: The batter's legal position shall be with both feet within the batter's box. If he hits the ball while he's out of the box it's an illegally batted ball and he's out. If there are runners they return to TOP base.

[dddunn3d]

Tee, what happened to you to make you so vitriolic? TWPs are nothing more than mental gymnastics; are you afraid to get onto your cerebral parallel bars?
One other thing: I did indeed bring this post over to watch the flames, figuring that your's would probably be the first. I was wrong on that count, but your's certainly were the most intense.
I suppose you could consider this entire thread my little experiment in internet civility.

[Tim C]

TWPs are a waste of time, intellect and bandwidth.

ANYTHING discussed on eTeamSleeze follows that same definition.

It is my OPINION that they are not "mental gymnastics" they are primarily based on people that have little else it their lives to fulfill their needs to show how smart they are.

Seeing that there is a shortage of "offical rulings" it is simply a bad direction to take younger inexperienced umpires.

You have attempted to defend yourself. That is not necessary -- as each person posts, and over a period of time, those that have value will always be respected for whatever they say.

You think that a TWP is good expereince -- I'd rather deal with the basics and help umpires stay on the same page.

Tee

[David B]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
Tee, what happened to you to make you so vitriolic? TWPs are nothing more than mental gymnastics; are you afraid to get onto your cerebral parallel bars?
One other thing: I did indeed bring this post over to watch the flames, figuring that your's would probably be the first. I was wrong on that count, but your's certainly were the most intense.
I suppose you could consider this entire thread my little experiment in internet civility.

Keep those TWP in your own little world, we have too many young learning umpires who come to this board who need to know the basic information.

There's just not a lot to be learned discussing plays that will never happen.

Now, if its happened in your game and you need help with a ruling that's different, but this type of play is NOT going to happen so its simply a waste of time.

The "problem" with TWP, is that many times there are "many" inaccurate attempts to answer the situation, and that simply will confuse the young umpire.

Sometimes, less is better.

Thanks
David

[dddunn3d]

To David B:

So ,what you're saying is that out of 2559 threads in this baseball forum, containing over 26,000 replies, a newbie umpire will be drawn into this one and be all confused? Maybe to the point that he just throws his hands up and declares "I can't take it, I just don't understand?" We should be ever so thankful that you're on the job protecting the weak.

To everyone else:

Now I do agree that the original play, in toto, is farcical. However, the reason I brought it over from eTeamz(aside from Tee vs Rat entertainment value) is the first premise that this play is based upon: F1, in a legal delivery, loses control of the pitch. That's a common enough occurrence. The ball travels towards the vicinity of the plate, either rolling or bouncing slightly along the ground(not so common). The batter can obviously offer at it if it gets close enough. But what if the ball stops a foot or two in front of the plate? Can the batter still take a golf swing at it? How long must such a stopped pitch be considered live? Now add a runner. What are the balk implications, and when are they enforced? How about the runner moving on the pitch? Does F2 have to wait for the ball to stop moving, or for the batter to offer?

So IMO it's not the TWP in itself that causes problems, it's how they're thought about and discussed. I'm one of those new(albeit not so young) umpires that everyone here seems to be so concerned about. I was actually looking forward to having this play parsed by the more knowledgable umpires that inhabit this site. Truth is I am somewhat suprised that Tee, as inimical as he is sometimes, was the only one who looked beyond the nature of this play and pulled something of value out of it.

[ozzy6900]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
To David B:

So, what you're saying is that out of 2559 threads in this baseball forum, containing over 26,000 replies, a newbie umpire will be drawn into this one and be all confused? Maybe to the point that he just throws his hands up and declares "I can't take it, I just don't understand?" We should be ever so thankful that you're on the job protecting the weak.

I agree with David and others that these TWP's just turn into a shamble every time we get one. I for one do not agree that this is a pitch as per the situation. (I got into it with Rich Ives on the other board and I will not continue the discussion any further on either board.)If these questions would stick to REAL baseball, we wouldn't get into the arguments and confuse others.

Twelve of my fellow umpires and I meet on a regular basis off season to discuss the new FED & NCAA rules for the coming season. We come up with plays and situations and banter them around just like on the boards. The difference is, we have a moderator who pulls the plug when we get carried away with the "what if's...". We also discuss youth and LL rules and situation for those who officiate in those leagues. We hold the same rules and pull the plug when needed. Maybe that is what we need on the boards.

Either way, I stand firm on my statements on the other board.

[Tim C]

3d thinks that TWPs are "mental gymnastics" --

I think they are "mental masterbation" --

This play has NO significance in real baseball. Sorry, I have wasted yet more bandwidth.

Tee

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
To David B:

So ,what you're saying is that out of 2559 threads in this baseball forum, containing over 26,000 replies, a newbie umpire will be drawn into this one and be all confused? Maybe to the point that he just throws his hands up and declares "I can't take it, I just don't understand?" We should be ever so thankful that you're on the job protecting the weak.

To everyone else:

Now I do agree that the original play, in toto, is farcical. However, the reason I brought it over from eTeamz(aside from Tee vs Rat entertainment value) is the first premise that this play is based upon: F1, in a legal delivery, loses control of the pitch. That's a common enough occurrence. The ball travels towards the vicinity of the plate, either rolling or bouncing slightly along the ground(not so common). The batter can obviously offer at it if it gets close enough. But what if the ball stops a foot or two in front of the plate? Can the batter still take a golf swing at it? How long must such a stopped pitch be considered live? Now add a runner. What are the balk implications, and when are they enforced? How about the runner moving on the pitch? Does F2 have to wait for the ball to stop moving, or for the batter to offer?

So IMO it's not the TWP in itself that causes problems, it's how they're thought about and discussed. I'm one of those new(albeit not so young) umpires that everyone here seems to be so concerned about. I was actually looking forward to having this play parsed by the more knowledgable umpires that inhabit this site. Truth is I am somewhat suprised that Tee, as inimical as he is sometimes, was the only one who looked beyond the nature of this play and pulled something of value out of it.

There's nothing of value in this. If you want to learn the rules of baseball study the NFHS Case Book. Get J/R which in IMHO is the best way to learn the rules of the game.


In the hundreds of games that I have done at various levels I have yet to see a ball slip out of the pitchers hands and roll toward home plate. I've had it slip out and cross either foul line but never toward home plate.

[Edited by gordon30307 on Jan 14th, 2005 at 10:57 AM]

[cbfoulds]

Gordon & Tee are 100% right about this.

The "what if ...." " ...balk implications ..." " ...now add a batter ..." TWP scenarios add nothing to one's knowledge or understanding. It's nothing more than "playing w/ yourself" to try to show how smart you are about obscure applications of the rules.

In many hundreds of games at all levels, including my Little League years when TWP-like occurences were common (all sorts of wierd stuff happens w/ 10 year-olds), NOTHING like this has happened. F1 Dropped/ lost control of the ball, you bet. Batter doing anything but stand there: has never happened, and will never happen.

In the cosmicly-unlikely event that something like this did happen in a real game, I am sure that any umpire with any experience and understanding of the rules will rule correctly; the rest will simply make something up, just like they do for everything else.

[David B]

Originally posted by dddunn3d
To David B:

So ,what you're saying is that out of 2559 threads in this baseball forum, containing over 26,000 replies, a newbie umpire will be drawn into this one and be all confused? Maybe to the point that he just throws his hands up and declares "I can't take it, I just don't understand?" We should be ever so thankful that you're on the job protecting the weak.

Not protecting the weak, but maybe to help ease the confusion.

Its hard enought to get a grasp on the rules without someone throwing in plays that would never happen.

If an umpire can learn the basic rules, and game management skills, then handling obscure plays such as you listed will become mere childlike.

So if you want to bring actual game situations, we're here. I haven't seen many of those with your name on them though.

Thanks
David

[Kaliix]

To all of you who think that this TWP has no value at all and will only serve to confuse younger, inexperienced umpires, I have one thing to stay.

STOP F$*#$NG RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION/THREAD.

You guys could have just let the post die with little or no responses and it would have drifted to the bottom of the board with little or no fanfare.

Instead, you end up making this thread grow to 3 pages and pique the curiousity of umpires reading this board so that they are more inclined to actually read the thread and get confused. By responding you, as you put it, "waste bandwidth" and draw attention to a thread, that, by your own accounts, we shouldn't be wasting our time talking about.

You guys don't get it!

Geez....

[Tim C]

Kaliix intoned:

"STOP F$*#$NG RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION/THREAD."

Now we see the articulate ones are chiming in . . .

Actually I have come back to add to this message because what Kaliix writes really bothers me.

What Kaliix has suggested is what is wrong with umpire websites and, in a sense, America.

If we do not respond to a post such as this by our silence we are allowing something wrong (in our opinion) to go forward.

Kaliix, we are actually the ones that "do get it!" We are the ones that make sure that a second side of an issue is reported, that a second opinion is offered and that correctness, as we see it, reaches umpires.

Tee


[Edited by Tim C on Jan 14th, 2005 at 05:19 PM]

[dddunn3d]

That goes woithout saying; I've only posted twelve times.