none out, no one on, 1-2 count

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. The batter, thinking on his feet, lays the bat down in front of home plate and starts running for first base.

A) and is still running when the ball meets the bat

B) the runner turns and watches the ball meet the bat, and when it is about to, hops in the air, clearly not having a foot in contact with the ground when the two objects meet

C) (Situations A and/or B may override this situation altogether) The ball rolls foul after meeting the bat (remember the batter already has two strikes against him)

D) The catcher picks up the ball before it reaches the bat and throws it to first

E) Any other defensive player picks up the ball before it reaches the bat and throws it to first base

What's your call or no call in each situation?

A. The runner is out for running away from a prearranged Ball/Bat conjugal visit, without the express written consent of their parents. In Mississippi this is a misdemeanor.

B.This runner is definitely out for entering FAA airspace during a ball/bat meeting without a pilots license or a prenuptial agreement.

C.This was tricky at first however after many hours of consideration and delirium, this is a no call situation. In accordance with the recent NFHS rule changes, "ALL foul balls result in a "NO Call" declaration by Officials, unless used in a concientious program of oral hygiene or dental health.

D. You may declare either the catcher or runner out however, the ball and bat automatically receieve honrable mention in that days box score report. On Fridays, the third baseman is instantly ejected by appeal, prior to the first baseman receiving the ball and only after the catcher has requested "May I" three times.

E. OBR rule 16.7896. ANY defensive player that touches or thinks about touching a ball, prior to its ultimate destinty with a bat, may not proceed to go an/or/mabey collect $200.00. Under all circumstances, anyone involved in answering this thread is immmediately expelled from the face of the planet and must proceed directly to their ROOM.

I certainly hope this confuses your dilemma because I hereby nominate this as "Question of the Year". Any year.

Hmmm,
 

Now let me get this straight:

We don't have ENOUGH TWPs on this site alone -- we now need to import them from eTeamSleeze.

Sheese, let's talk real baseball umpiring.

Tee

Call the batter out, eject him and forfeit the game and never umpire again and now I can die because I have seen everything and don't waste everyones time with stupid plays that have never happened in the past nor will they ever happen in the future.

Works for me too, Gordon,lol......

Amazing.
 

I just had to see it to believe it, so I wandered over and sure as he!! this thread not only exists, some "internet" umpires are actually treating it seriously. Some of the answers are absolutely astounding.

Ahhhh, Sleazeteamz...it never disappoints.

I was equally amused at the prospect of this play (or variations thereof) ever happening, even on the small field. I just wanted to see the flames.

Geez guys, it's winter. No ball being played. Gotta talk about something and maybe have a little fun doing it. No one thinks it would actually happen. It's also a good mental exercise to see if you can find a way to back your positon. Makes you think about the rules. A form of voluntary training.

It's the "hot stove umpires league" - we debate potential (and sometimes stange) plays instead of the potential (and sometimes strange) trades/hirings/firings in the normal hot stove league.

Of course if you already know it all you don't need to participate.

Yep,
 

As expected a Rat speaking with out understanding the facts.

Even those of us that live in the wet and cold Northwest are already into Federation umpire meetings and spending time working with real baseball issues.

And I do not believe for a second that ddd posted this to "see the flames" . . .

Let eTeamSleeze handle stuff such as this.

T

Re: Yep,
 

Yeah, but I had some fun with the thread on this one!

I don't care about the wet and cold NW. I'm in the snow-covered frozen NE, looking at a sleet/frezing rain forecast. Things aren't on your schedule here. Just because you're busy on baseball things there doesn't mean we are here.

BTW, the FED baseball interpreters meeting hasn't even happened yet - it's Jan 19th in Indianapolis.

People are only beginning to think about baseball here.

The only baseball item in the newspaper sports calendar is one youth league announcing signups Feb 15-17. Not a single umpire meeting notice from any of the local associations.

HS Practices haven't started yet. None of the schools even have the baseball schedule posted on their web sites.

Youth leagues haven't even done signups yet and won't for another 4-6 weeks.

LL's East Region UIC clinic is Feb 12-13 and the umpire schools are Mar 30 - April 10.

It's winter here.

Have a good season.

Hmmmm,
 

"BTW, the FED baseball interpreters meeting hasn't even happened yet - it's Jan 19th in Indianapolis."

Sooo, do you have a point or this akin to a "Rat" barking from the bench, "Hey Blue, where was that pitch?"

We have 200 umpires that work real baseball and they need to be sharp . . . we are fully into our training mode.

+++

"HS Practices haven't started yet."

They have not started here either . . . how does that stop umpires from starting their training?

eTeamSleeze is a waste of bandwidth . . . but, of course, so are the majority of my posts.

Tee

Your joking right Rich?

After going over to the other side of the mountain, I now realaize that you are serious.

If this is your form of entertainment during the winter months, they need help in South East Asia right now. At least the result will be much more satisfying. Then again, at least TO ME.

Just what is wrong with playing around with silly situations? If it's a waste of your time, don't participate.

And why is insulting people OK?

OK, I can't resist . . .
 

Then why don't Rats stay on web sites that are made for Rats rather than potificating on sites that are for umpires?

Tee

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yep,
 

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

Experiment somewhere else
 

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

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.

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.

Mmmmmm,
 

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

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]

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.

We're not the CIA
 

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

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....

Hehehehe,
 

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]

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

Re: Hehehehe,
 

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

Please note Kaliix that I did offer the correct ruling on this TWP.

Re: Mmmmmm,
 

The proper spelling is "mast<b>u</b>rbation".

Consider that a slap on the hand. :D

Tee, Fwiw, in our football and basketball training meetings, we deliberately avoid TWP's. Mainly, we avoid them because we found that if we discussed some oddball play that really never happens, we always had a coupla guys that would make sure they'd find the same call that we were discussing in one of their games, no matter how big of a stretch the call might actually be. Did you ever find the same phenomenon with some of your baseball umps?

Just wondering.

Re: Mmmmmm,
 

Tee,

So what's wrong with masturbation? Or are you too old and fat to do that? :D

Bob

Re: Yep,
 

Tim,
First to your little "articulate" job. I would venture to say that if you look at my posting history, I am one of the more articulate writers here. Using one expletive to make a point does not make me inarticulate. I was trying to get your attention because....

While you may have answered the question, you made (wasted) five posts before answering it. In the post you did answer the question in, your long and rambling post probably served to confuse the young inexperienced umpire more than help him, as you took 45 lines and 446 words to explain what could have been explained like this,

You Tim and everyone who agrees with you are the ones that don't get it. Any one of you could have made one post that answered the question and stated that the TWP's are a waste of time.

Instead, you made 12 posts on this thread alone and the others who agree with you made 15 more posts. All that does is serve to keep this thread on the top of the board, initially giving it credibility and piquing the interest of those umpires who you don't want to read this post in the first place.

In total, everyone who thought this was a stupid post to ever discuss in the first place managed to post 27 times in this thread. For people who didn't think this post warranted discussion and didn't want to confuse younger umpires with it's content, you did a very good job posting to the thread, highlighting it to everyone on the board and making sure that most people who post to this board read the thread.

Good job! You managed to do exactly what you stated you didn't want to do.

(shaking head in disbelief)

Hehehehehe,
 

Kaliix writes:

"I would venture to say that if you look at my posting history, I am one of the more articulate writers here."

And modest too . . .

Kaliix writes:

" . . .you made (wasted) five posts . . ."

God, I love reviews!

Kaliix writes:

"You Tim and everyone who agrees with you are the ones that don't get it."

Well, there were some pretty good guys in the thread that simply disagree with you . . .

It is nice to know that someone has finally passed me on the ego meter.

Tee

Tim,
I only answered your criticism of my being articulate. I am, for the most part, modest. I am, however, honest enough to know my abilities and being able to write well is one of them.

My statement of you wasting posts was only made to point out to you that you are, as you put it,
wasting bandwidth. It was not intended as a review.

As far as having "some pretty good guys in the thread that simply disagree with you" I say the following. All you pretty good guys agree that discussing TWP's is a waste of "time, intellect and bandwidth" yet you still continue to make posts to this thread. (The count being up to 28 at this point). You doing exactly what you stated you didn't want to do, which is waste "time, intellect and bandwidth". By your continued response to this thread, you continue to keep it at the top of the board, make it a hot topic, and also ensure that even more people will read the thread and perhaps become confused because we are discussing TWP's.

You are doing everything that you previously stated you didn't want to do. Congratulations, you still don't get...

(shaking head and chuckling)

TWP Forum
 

Obviously there are at least two camps with differing viewpoints concerning the relative merits(or lack thereof) of posting TWPs. Why not create a forum specifically for these off-the-wall plays? That way anyone who opens those threads knows beforehand their contents; those who don't want to contemplate TWPs, or the permutations which may arise from them, will know to avoid that forum.

That's a good idea. But, I'm afraid, those who don't want to see them would still post that they don't want to see them. They just can't help themselves.

Re: TWP Forum
 

I don't know if perhaps I was included in this group(for TWPs), but for the record, I am not arguing for one side or the other. I am just pointing out the folly of continuing to post in this thread. :)

This thread is beginning to make me miss the
days of the two windy city boys arguing.........

Under no circumstance can the pitch result in a "batted ball."

If we allow a "batted ball" then we might as well ask this:

What if, while the pitch is halfway to the plate, the batter *throws* his bat at the pitch, making contact with the ball a good 30-feet in front of the plate, and the bat actually *hits* the ball?

These type of travesties of the game cannot be permitted and I think there is a good case for 9.01(c) to be invoked.

I think under all circumstances I would rule a "no pitch", kill the play, and admonish the batter to cease further similar activity or be subjected to an ejection.

I know there are those who believe that there is hardly ever a practical application of 9.01(c). But, in this case, I don't see what rule you would apply without making a foolish ruling by trying to tenuously adhere to some marginally-applicable rule.

And, by the way, I agree with Rich - I think TWP's can often provide a useful academic exericise that can frequently result in a deeper understanding of the rules.

Actually, the initial poster of this TWP obviously gave some thought into it by purposely interjecting some elements that hit upon some critical elements of the rules that would normally apply - albeit in a very bizarre scanerio.

If an umpire continually dismisses such silliness with a shrug of the shoulder and rationalizes, "That will *never* happen", there will come a time when something bizarre actually WILL happen in one of his games - and he'll be one of those "deer in the headlight" umpires.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Amen, Brother David.

Elitist fools...
 

I have been away from this site for a while because of increased work schedule and family responsibilities. When I came back today, I found this garbage! While I agree that the situation that started this thread is ridiculous, the response coming from supposed mature people that have been here in the past helping others that are just learning is even more ridiculous.

The way you guys put down others from other websites and those that don't do the same level of ball as you is immature and insulting. No wonder there is a shortage of officials...who needs this crap from fellow umpires when we have to deal with it from spectators, coaches and players. This should be one place that an umpire feels good about coming to for information, instruction, training, and yes, even an absurd play here and there to improve the problem solving aspect of umpiring.

Tim C., I used to have a great deal of respect for you. However, after reading the filth that has spewed forth from your keyboard on this thread, you have lost my confidence completely.

It's not likely that we will be partners. However, should the opportunity arise, I will turn it down. You, sir, are a disgrace.

Umpires that are new, learning, and becoming better need the help and assistance of experienced umpires, not their disdain and insults.

Good day.

Ok Class, todays lesson is on:

C O N T R A D I C T I O N

Pay attention here!! Johnnie.

"The way you guys put down others from other websites and those that don't do the same level of ball as you is immature and insulting. No wonder there is a shortage of officials...who needs this crap from fellow umpires when we have to deal with it from spectators, coaches and players. This should be one place that an umpire feels good about coming to for information, instruction, training, and yes, even an absurd play here and there to improve the problem solving aspect of umpiring."

"It's not likely that we will be partners. However, should the opportunity arise, I will turn it down. You, sir, are a disgrace."

Miss Brown, Miss Brown, "Can I please be excused to go to the bathroom, I think I am sick to my stomach."

Yes you can Johnnie.

Amen,ji,amen.Apparently the pot DOES call the
kettle black......

Hahahaha,
 

"Tim C., I used to have a great deal of respect for you. However, after reading the filth that has spewed forth from your keyboard on this thread, you have lost my confidence completely.

"It's not likely that we will be partners. However, should the opportunity arise, I will turn it down. You, sir, are a disgrace."

Striker, why on earth would you think I could possibly care what you think of me.

My, your ego is surely in control of your keyboard.

Tee

BTW, I am still looking for the "filth" in my post.

T

that's funny!
 

"Now that's funny. I don't care what you think, but that's just funny!"

Thanks
David

Re: Hahahaha,
 

But, Tee:
Surely you were aware that some gentle souls would find offensive your allusion to that act, also known as Onanism, which is occasionally blamed for the characteristic sightlessness of all umpires.:rolleyes: