Is it just me, or are some of the rule references that support many example plays tenuous, at best?

You read the play ... you read the ruling ... then look up the cited reference and find NO BASIS for the suggested ruling based on the reading of the rule. I see this happen time and time again.

Here's an interpretation that I just read from the NFHS website:

<font color=blue>SITUATION 10: With 1 out and R1 on first and a count of 2-1, B2 hits a bouncing ball along the first base foul line. U1 mistakenly declares “Foul!” as F1 picks up the ball in fair territory. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 returns to first. B2 continues at bat with a count of 2-2. (5-1-1h)</font>

Seems reasonable enough.

The ball instantly becoming dead seems reasonable and is supported by the cited rule. But there seems to be some question as to whether an umpire can rule a foul ball strike on a ball that is clearly fair.

So, I looked up 5-1-1h.

Which says: <font color=red>Ball becomes dead immediately when the umpire handles a live ball or calls "Time" for inspecting or for any other reason, including items in Section 2 or gives the "Do Not Pitch Signal" or verbally announces "Foul Ball.</font>

That certainly explains WHY the ball is dead. I doubt anybody would argue that. But what about the heated argument on the part of the defense that the ball was CLEARLY fair and that they were unable to register any outs which would have certainly resulted. Could the umpire that called "Foul!" honestly claim that the ball *was* foul?

Rule 5-1-1h does not address THAT issue, which, in my opinion, would be the more heated point of the debate.

The question is not so much is the ball dead or not; more importantly, the defense will be demanding whether the umpire is properly ruling a "strike" for a batted ball that EVERYBODY will admit was fair and would have almost certainly resulted in an out.

5-1-1h does not address THAT issue.

The bottom line is this: I seldom find the rule references for interpretations of any value since they seldom hit at the heart of the issue.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jan 20th, 2005 at 03:22 PM]

And what about the heated argument from the offense that their runner would have beaten out the play at first - they don't get that either, and are penalized with a strike!

The ruling here is that the umpire yelling FOUL makes it FOUL. Right or wrong.

Now, at the risk of someone calling this a TWP (:)), what if the ball was a basehit to centerfield. Rookie BU on a bad day, for some reason had glanced away (perhaps watching a runner steal), saw something in his peripheral vision (perhaps even hearing something hit the fence), and yells FOUL!

Rulebook says it's Foul. And a strike. Do we, in this case, use 9-1-c to simply "do-over" or even place runners?

Well, if you are running a FED game and the ball was hit fair but the umpire called it foul, I guess you only have one choice here. The rules and interpertations are clear - the ball is dead and B1 has a strike placed on his count. There is nothing more that you can do about it - if you want to officiate by the book. Will they scream, pi$$ and moan? You betcha but that's the way it is!

I agree. While there will be moaning and groaning it is foul and a strike.

You want to make it more 3rd world? There are 2 strikes on the batter and he tries to bunt the ball and the BU or PU call foul even tho it is fair. Is the batter out? I say no but the rules state it is a foul ball and a bunted foul ball is strike 3 and an out.

David, for some reason here I just don't see how an umpires inability to make a proper decision, has anything to do with the resultant activities, once that decision is announced. The rules clearly tell you what is to happen when this takes place.

The discussion of wether or not the decision was correct, fair to one team or just a terrible decision by the official, is entirely a differnt subject.

To say that the rule references for interpretations are of any value most of the time, is in itself a "foul" statement.
Or as you would imply, a incorrect decision, announced by you. But it still doesn't make it "true" or as you have implied already, "Fair".

Sorry, I just don't understand what you are trying to tell us.

The rule reference you are looking for to declare a batted ball that is called FOUL is under 2.00 STRIKE. The umpire erred, but a batted ball verbally called FOUL is a strike and with 2 strikes would result in an OUT. [FED]

Uh, DG?
A foul ball [not bunted], with 2 strikes, is an OUT?
I thought this was a baseball question.

Correct, a bunted foul ball with a 2 strike count is an out. That is what I had on my mind and did not state it correctly.

[Edited by DG on Jan 22nd, 2005 at 10:56 AM]

David, for some reason here I just don't see how an umpires inability to make a proper decision, has anything to do with the resultant activities, once that decision is announced. The rules clearly tell you what is to happen when this takes place.

The discussion of wether or not the decision was correct, fair to one team or just a terrible decision by the official, is entirely a differnt subject.

To say that the rule references for interpretations are of any value most of the time, is in itself a "foul" statement.
Or as you would imply, a incorrect decision, announced by you. But it still doesn't make it "true" or as you have implied already, "Fair".

Sorry, I just don't understand what you are trying to tell us.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I probably didn's explain myself very well.

I have no problem with the interpretation. But the rule reference for the interpretation does not remotely address the most controversial aspect of the interpretation.

In other words, it's not as if the umpire, after making such a ruling, would be able to explain how a clearly inaccurate judgment must stand. The rule reference doesn't address the aspect about how the umpire MUST stick with a manifestly wrong call.

It begs the question: When an umpire makes a clearly inaccurate call - can he ever rectify it? Or, are there some calls he <b>can</b> rectify and some calls he <b>cannot</b>? And where does it say THAT?

And that's my point. The rule reference will not add any support to the assertion that the umpire SHOULD correct his clearly incorrect ruling.

Then again, that's the whole point of having interpretations - isn't it? Interpretations MUST exist for the simple fact that there *are* gray areas in the rules. The rules don't cover every possible situation. Not everything can be anticipated and codified.

I understand that. But let's not pretend that the application of some of these "interpretations" is in keeping with certain rules. In essence, most interpretations are "rules" all in themselves that stand independent of other rules.

A minor point - I guess.

It's just that whenever I read an interpretation and then go to the rule citation, I always seem to say to myself, "Now how and the hell am I going to convince anybody that this interpretation is correct based on THIS rule?"

Maybe I have too much time on my hands.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I have no problem with the interpretation. But the rule reference for the interpretation does not remotely address the most controversial aspect of the interpretation.

In other words, it's not as if the umpire, after making such a ruling, would be able to explain how a clearly inaccurate judgment must stand. The rule reference doesn't address the aspect about how the umpire MUST stick with a manifestly wrong call.

It begs the question: When an umpire makes a clearly inaccurate call - can he ever rectify it? Or, are there some calls he <b>can</b> rectify and some calls he <b>cannot</b>? And where does it say THAT?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B][/QUOTE]

The reason 5-1-1h is the correct reference for this ruling is that is says the ball is dead when an umpire "verbally announces "Foul Ball". Once verbally called Foul this can not be changed, even if it is an obvious erroneous call. See page 299 of 2005 BRD. This is a FED ruling.

PBUC lists a number of plays that lend themselves to consultation and correction. 1) Deciding whether a fly ball that left the playing field was fair or foul, 2) Deciding whether a batted ball left the playing field for a home run or ground rule double, 3)Cases where a foul tip is dropped by the catcher, causing it to become a foul. 4) Cases where an umpire clearly errs in judgement because a ball is dropped or juggled after making a tag or force, 5)Spectator interference plays, 6) Balks called by an umpire who clearly did not realize the pitcher's foot was off the rubber.

A FED umpire who verbally announces "FOUL BALL" is stuck with that call.

David: I have an even stranger play, one given by Kyle McNeeley of the NFHS rules committee at the TASO state meeting.

B1 pops up in foul territory behind first base. The umpire calls "Foul ball." F3 catches the pop-up. And the answer is:

It's just a dead ball, and the batter stays at bat!

You gotta be kidding me?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

How about this. Home team trailing by 1 run, bottom of the 7th, two outs, runner on 2B. The batter hits a line drive that strikes the foul pole in flight in LF. PU calls "foul ball". What a sh*th**se that will be.

Based on this rule my future mechanic for FED games will be to keep my mouth shut unless I am absolutely positive the ball is FOUL. I may "signal" foul, which leaves me an out to change the call. But verbalizing FOUL is not changeable.

[Edited by DG on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:12 AM]

Would I kid one of my favorite writers?

The moral is: Keep your mouth shut on fly balls. (Or ignore the NFHS rule.)

Note: The ball is immediately dead when the umpire calls "Foul ball!" My question: Can a dead ball be caught for an out?

Well, according to your list of occurrences that can result in umpire consultation and correction, this would be ONE of them.

Apparently, if there is no question that a batted ball has <b>not</b> left the park and "Foul!" is called, no matter how outrageously incorrect - such a ruling must stand - even if everybody in the park realizes it is was fair - even the umpire who made the ruling.

On the other hand, if the ball has clearly left the park, and has been outrageously ruled "Foul!", it can be changed.

Is that where we are?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

No, this is not where we are. The PBUC is OBR. FED ruling would be that a verbal FOUL can not be changed, no matter how bad the call is.

You're right. I didn't notice that your list was a PBUC list.

Well, at least FED is consistent on this one - no matter how illogical.

FED 10-2-3l says: Umpire-in-chief duties - <font color=red>Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage.</font>

Why not say no decisions can be reversed? Some can? Which ones? Where are those listed in the FED rulebook/casebook?

If such a list is soley the product of an interpretation, then there is no point in citing any rule when one of these interpretations are invoked. The essence of most interpretations is a tacit acknowledgement that either <b>1)</b> there is no rule that directly addresses a certain situation, or <b>2)</b> the applicable rule is too vague, or <b>3)</b> the applicable rule is too specific and does not encompass alternate/similar variations along the same theme.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

That's completely inconsistent with last year's interp #14:

SITUATION 14: With R1 on first and one out, B2 hits a fly ball down the third-base line. U1 errs and announces “Foul ball,” but F5 catches the ball several feet in fair territory. RULING: B2 is out. R1 may tag and advance at his own risk. (Rule 5-1-1h does not apply on a caught fly ball.)

That rule has been in the book for ... a long time. Until last year, it even applied to the mistaken "foul" call.

FED decided that the rule should not apply to the mistaken "foul" call and changed rule 5-1-1h to reflect that. It's now much more in line with the NCAA and OBR interps.

And your point is? (grin)

There is one difference between McNeely's play this year and his interpretation last year: #14 featured a FAIR ball, and this year's play is about a FOUL ball. (another grin)

I don't make 'em up; I just report 'em.

And after Kyle announced the new interpretation, I spent a few minutes looking for my upper plate.

On the other hand, diligent enforcement of that rule will correct some very bad mechanics' habits.

Carl and DG have made the point that needs to be made - use of good mechanics is the only way to minimize (unfortunately, we won't eliminate)the problems that will arise. This rule is much like other "bad" rules we have endured over the years. Some officials say, "I don't like that rule and I won't enforce it", but what we all should be saying is, "If we enforce it as written and it causes problems it will be changed." If we don't enforce these types of changes as written, the NFHS will not know of the problems proper enforcement will lead to.

How about the interp that now the pitcher, from the stretch position, before bringing his hands together, may turn his shoulders to check a runner at first base - and he may do it "quickly and abruptly"! We used to call that "feinting", but now it's perfectly legal. I have visions of a pitcher "quickly and abruptly" turning those shoulders, the runner diving back to first, and the pitcher then calmly delivering the pitch while the runner is spitting dirt out of his teeth.

John, I don't believe many players will be "spitting dirt".

Most of these players have utilized this same rule during the summer months, for leagues using OBR or similar rules. I for one am glad to see Fed finally come around.

I don't understand. "Most of these players have utilized this same rule [quick move is ok?] for leagues using OBR or similar rules [it's a balk in OBR and NCAA]. I told my association last Wednesday the same thing John did: quick move, runner dives back, pitcher delivers while (my words) "he's brushing off the dirt."

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jan 24th, 2005 at 02:41 PM]

QUOTE]

John, I don't believe many players will be "spitting dirt".

Most of these players have utilized this same rule during the summer months, for leagues using OBR or similar rules. I for one am glad to see Fed finally come around. [/B][/QUOTE]

This has ALWAYS been a balk in OBR. It's deception. High School games will be fun this year!

This has ALWAYS been a balk in OBR. It's deception. High School games will be fun this year! [/B][/QUOTE]

Am I missing something here? Before coming set, the pitcher is not allowed to turn his shoulders toward first quickly or otherwise.?

Am I missing something here? Before coming set, the pitcher is not allowed to turn his shoulders toward first quickly or otherwise.? [/B][/QUOTE]The pitcher is not allowed to feint to first. A quick movement of the shoulders, before coming to the discernible stop, is a feint and hence a balk. A slow turning before the stop is nothing since it cannot deceive the runner.

A turn of the shoulder, slow or fast, after coming to the pause is a balk everywhere.

Yep,
 

jicecone:

I think perhaps there is a little disconnect in your view:

I'm guessing here,

R1 and F1 not in contact with the pitcher's plate . . . any type turn is OK, afterall he is an infielder at this time.

R1 and F1 is legally engaged with the pitcher's plate. Set position has not been done, yet. Slow turn of shoulders to look over: OK in FED, NCAA and OBR. Quick turn to look, Balk in NCAA/OBR but OK in FED.

R1 and F1 not only in legal engagement but has also gone to the set position. Quick look, balk in all rules books.

Each of these situations R/H F1's shoulder "opens" to first base.

FED appears to have made more than just a huge change in the rule but have taken it too far.

Tee

Re: Yep,
 

I agree 100% with that Tee.

Mabey its the cold up here in the NE that has the brain on freeze or mabey I just don't recall seen that move used over the years.????

Old dogs still learn too.

Kyle just left out the part about ejecting the head coach, two assistants and the scorekeeper.

Re: Re: Yep,
 

OK, After further review, the play stands as called by several in this thread.(Except me)

I will charge myself with an official Time Out.

Thanks

Last year's Interp #14 has been superceded by 2005 Interp #5.

Situation 3 is perhaps what you meant. Situation 3 and 4 really confuses this issue. For example, Situation 4 says we can correct an erroneous FOUL BALL call on a HR ball, but Situation 3 says the ball is dead because the umpire called FOUL BALL on one in LF. But foul balls can be caught for outs, so why not call this an out instead of a strike, and treat it like a FOUL BALL that was caught? I know, FOUL BALL means dead ball in FED, by rule. That's the answer to my own question. They really should look at changing the rule, instead of coming out with interps that just confuse things.