The Official Forum - Pickoffs from the windup?

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Pickoffs from the windup? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/19159-pickoffs-windup.html)

DG	Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by largeone59

Quote:

If the catcher, while fielding a bunt, throws the ball over F3's head and the umpire determines the the BR's being out-of-the-lane may have caused the bad throw ... call the BR out for a lane violation? C'mon!

I actually seen this called in the MLB playoffs when my local TV station re-airs classic Pittsburgh Pirate's games. It was the series where the Pirates lost to the Braves.... 92' i believe.

I find this hard to believe in a major league game. I can't think of a major league catcher who would try to throw over the batter-runner to avoid hitting him.

David Emerling

Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DG

Quote:

Originally posted by largeone59

Quote:

If the catcher, while fielding a bunt, throws the ball over F3's head and the umpire determines the the BR's being out-of-the-lane may have caused the bad throw ... call the BR out for a lane violation? C'mon!

I actually seen this called in the MLB playoffs when my local TV station re-airs classic Pittsburgh Pirate's games. It was the series where the Pirates lost to the Braves.... 92' i believe.

I find this hard to believe in a major league game. I can't think of a major league catcher who would try to throw over the batter-runner to avoid hitting him.

Agreed.

But worse - I can't think of a MLB umpire who would award the BR first for the catcher slinging the ball out into right field - notwithstanding the BR being out of the running lane.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

largeone59

Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:06am

Hey, i'm just telling you what i saw. It happened, no joke! haha i wish i had some proof, but the PU definitely called the BR out for being outside the runner's lane when the pirate's catcher threw one over F3's head. Game was played in pittsburgh, and Bob Walk was the pitcher at the time i believe...

[Edited by largeone59 on Mar 25th, 2005 at 12:10 AM]

David B

Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB
People act like FED is some stange, unfathomable, monolithic structure in which officials, out of touch with reality, sit around and create different rules for the sake of being different.

FED rules are the result of suggestions made primarily by COACHES. Over the past five or six years that I have actually paid attention to proposed and actual changes I have seen that those few changes that have simplified matters have come from the officiating side and those that have moved a rule away from OBR or have created something new come from coaches.

So the next time a coach b!tches about FED tell him to do something about it.

And maybe what you describe is the problem.

Why should there be so many varied inputs as to how a well-established game is played?

Somehow I doubt that the COACHES are driving the mechanism nearly as much as others.

Even some of the interpretations are downright kooky.

If the catcher, while fielding a bunt, throws the ball over F3's head and the umpire determines the the BR's being out-of-the-lane may have caused the bad throw ... call the BR out for a lane violation? C'mon!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

And just what's so bad about that interpretation?

FED doesn't want F2 drilling the BR in the head to make a point like kids in college or the pros would do.

I think for HS that's a good rule, and that's who FED is targeting.

Also, now that many Legion, and many of our youth travel teams are using FED rules during the season, it makes it pretty easy for our area.

But, in the play mentioned, it would have to be very obvious that F2 was trying to avoid the BR to make the call.

I've seen it called once and it was a good call by the PU, and in a playoff game if I remember - 1A schools.

FED has some different interpretations but I like calling FED. I just wish they would change the rule back for the missed base.

When that rule was in effect (umpires simply called the runner out) I never had a missed base in 5 or 6 years.

This year alone, I've seen at least 10 missed bases and none of them have been appealed.

I've had several appeals, but they were all when guys actually touched the base.

Just goes to prove that kids will do what is expected out of them. Expect them to touch the base or you are out and they will touch the bases. Let them get away with it and they will.

Thanks
David

David Emerling

Fri Mar 25, 2005 01:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by David B
And just what's so bad about that interpretation?

FED doesn't want F2 drilling the BR in the head to make a point like kids in college or the pros would do.

I think for HS that's a good rule, and that's who FED is targeting.

Thanks
David [/B]

One of the biggest myths is that coaches teach their catchers to drill any runner who is out of the runner's lane. I assure you, they do not.

Why hit the runner with the ball then cross your fingers and hope the umpire calls him out when, the much easier way to go is to simply complete the throw to the 1st for the sure out?

Ask any big league catcher if he's ever intentionally thrown at a BR to get an interference call. He'll tell you NO. In fact, you see BR's out of the running lane all the time. And what do the catcher's do? They simply throw him out.

Catchers are taught to establish a throwing lane (usually on the inside) and to make a throw directly to the receiving fielder. If the ball happens to hit the BR, so be it. They should be called out. But the catcher never aims at the runner.

Here's why: What if the catcher misses the runner? Then it's just a bad throw with no assurance that the umpire will call the BR out for interference. The umpire will likely rule that, although the BR was out of the lane, the throw was not of sufficient quality to make a case that the BR interfered with the fielding of the ball at 1st.

Fielders are NEVER taught to throw at runners. They're taught to establish throwing lanes.

This also applies to the myth that pivot men are taught to drill a runner who fails to get down. Not true. All they are thinking about is making an accurate and timely throw to 1st. If R1 happens to be in the way, yes, he'll get drilled. But there is never any attempt to hit him.

Again - what if the pivot man misses? Where is the ball going to go? Believe me, the defense is more intent on completing the double play than proving to the runner that he must get out of the way.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 25th, 2005 at 01:54 PM]

David B

Fri Mar 25, 2005 02:11pm

Not a myth

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by David B
And just what's so bad about that interpretation?

FED doesn't want F2 drilling the BR in the head to make a point like kids in college or the pros would do.

I think for HS that's a good rule, and that's who FED is targeting.

Thanks
David

One of the biggest myths is that coaches teach their catchers to drill any runner who is out of the runner's lane. I assure you, they do not.

Why hit the runner with the ball then cross your fingers and hope the umpire calls him out when, the much easier way to go is to simply complete the throw to the 1st for the sure out?

Ask any big league catcher if he's ever intentionally thrown at a BR to get an interference call. He'll tell you NO. In fact, you see BR's out of the running lane all the time. And what do the catcher's do? They simply throw him out.

Catchers are taught to establish a throwing lane (usually on the inside) and to make a throw directly to the receiving fielder. If the ball happens to hit the BR, so be it. They should be called out. But the catcher never aims at the runner.

Here's why: What if the catcher misses the runner? Then it's just a bad throw with no assurance that the umpire will call the BR out for interference. The umpire will likely rule that, although the BR was out of the lane, the throw was not of sufficient quality to make a case that the BR interfered with the fielding of the ball at 1st.

Fielders are NEVER taught to throw at runners. They're taught to establish throwing lanes.

This also applies to the myth that pivot men are taught to drill a runner who fails to get down. Not true. All they are thinking about is making an accurate and timely throw to 1st. If R1 happens to be in the way, yes, he'll get drilled. But there is never any attempt to hit him.

Again - what if the pivot man misses? Where is the ball going to go? Believe me, the defense is more intent on completing the double play than proving to the runner that he must get out of the way.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 25th, 2005 at 01:54 PM] [/B]

I have to disagree. Obviously you weren't a catcher or F3 when you played ball.

I played both. No you don't aim at the player and I wasn't taught to aim at any player, but you do aim at your target.

But, as you descirbed. The ball bounces into the grass in front of home. F3 hollers what - INSIDE as you stated.

BR is now running in the line of fire. This increases the risk that he will get hit because F3 is locked into his position inside. If BR is less than halfway to first there is usually no problem, but if BR is over halfway, its a crap shoot because as F3 I have the target and BR is running right into my target.

Many young catchers will hesitate when BR is in that last half of the distance to first because BR is in their lane, and we know most HS catchers don't have the most accurate of arms.

So it might be a myth, but in reality, many times by BR running out of the running lane he does create interference for F2 because as you stated, no catcher WANTS to hit a runner, but when the runner is in the way ...

Thanks
David

hardball3b

Fri Mar 25, 2005 02:19pm

Well Guys (and ladies - I know you're out there too!); Thanks for all of your responses and views on my topic OBR vs. FED vs. NCAA. These discussion boards are a great way for us to get smarter, share points of view, and yes, vent a little. We, as umpires, are never going to change the English from driving on the wrong side of the road and we are never going to get the FED/NCAA to come down from there lofty perches. I still have not heard a VALID reason for the rules differences. Open up any book of rules differences (Roder, Childress, etc) and give me a VALID reason for that difference OTHER THAN my original exceptions, and I'll do two plates in a row for you in July. No tangents, no sidetracks, no philosphy. Just a few actual FED/NCAA rules that have an actual valid reason for being different from OBR (GarthB's #4 is not even close to being valid!) Just a few!! Baseball!! Ain't it GRAND!!

Tim C

Fri Mar 25, 2005 03:00pm

Another Expert Opinion

"(GarthB's #4 is not even close to being valid!)"

Valid or not my man, it is one of the four driving forces for how FED rules are written.

Do a little research and you will understand a little better.

Writing to eliminate as many umpire jugdements as possible is not only a real concept but has been noted over the years by FEDlandia.

LDUB	Fri Mar 25, 2005 03:40pm

Quote:

Originally posted by hardball3b
Well Guys (and ladies - I know you're out there too!); Thanks for all of your responses and views on my topic OBR vs. FED vs. NCAA. These discussion boards are a great way for us to get smarter, share points of view, and yes, vent a little. We, as umpires, are never going to change the English from driving on the wrong side of the road and we are never going to get the FED/NCAA to come down from there lofty perches. I still have not heard a VALID reason for the rules differences. Open up any book of rules differences (Roder, Childress, etc) and give me a VALID reason for that difference OTHER THAN my original exceptions, and I'll do two plates in a row for you in July. No tangents, no sidetracks, no philosphy. Just a few actual FED/NCAA rules that have an actual valid reason for being different from OBR (GarthB's #4 is not even close to being valid!) Just a few!! Baseball!! Ain't it GRAND!!

Tee and Garth are right. Some FED rules are put in place to compensate for poor officiating.

On the ABUA board not long ago, there was a whacko name rulesgeek who started a new thread every day about how FED rules were bad and how they were not reall baseball. Check it out.

http://umpire.org/modules.php?name=F...91bf1e21ecd25a

David Emerling

Fri Mar 25, 2005 04:05pm

Re: Not a myth

Quote:

Originally posted by David B
I have to disagree. Obviously you weren't a catcher or F3 when you played ball.

I played both. No you don't aim at the player and I wasn't taught to aim at any player, but you do aim at your target.
[...snip...]

Thanks
David [/B]

You're saying exactly what I was saying. The catcher aims at his target. And that target is never the runner. It's always a fielder taking the throw at 1st base.

If a throwing lane has been established, then the catcher will throw a bullet directly to the fielder with no consideration given to the BR.

I'm not sure how you misunderstood what I said. You start off by saying that I don't get it and then go on to say almost exactly what I said.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David Emerling

Fri Mar 25, 2005 04:33pm

Re: Not a myth

Quote:

Originally posted by David B
Many young catchers will hesitate when BR is in that last half of the distance to first because BR is in their lane, and we know most HS catchers don't have the most accurate of arms.

So it might be a myth, but in reality, many times by BR running out of the running lane he does create interference for F2 because as you stated, no catcher WANTS to hit a runner, but when the runner is in the way ...

Thanks
David [/B]

The myth isn't directed to the point as to whether catchers, on occasion, hit runners with the throw. No question about it - that happens.

The myth is that coaches teach catcher's to hit runners who are out of the lane. The myth is that catchers are trying to plunk runners in order to get an interference call whenever they are out of the lane. Neither is true.

And, if a coach is teaching that, he's not really a coach.

For the coach, the issue isn't safety - it's effectiveness. You're simply better off trying to make an effective throw instead of trying to hit a moving target that you may miss and achieve nothing more than making a WILD throw.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 25th, 2005 at 08:09 PM]

GarthB

Fri Mar 25, 2005 09:30pm

Quote:

If you're going to dismiss outright an observeable and even, by some FED officials, admitted reason, (#4), there is little reason to participate with your further. Have a nice day.

David B

Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:01pm

Re: Re: Not a myth

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by David B
I have to disagree. Obviously you weren't a catcher or F3 when you played ball.

I played both. No you don't aim at the player and I wasn't taught to aim at any player, but you do aim at your target.
[...snip...]

Thanks
David

You're saying exactly what I was saying. The catcher aims at his target. And that target is never the runner. It's always a fielder taking the throw at 1st base.

If a throwing lane has been established, then the catcher will throw a bullet directly to the fielder with no consideration given to the BR.

I'm not sure how you misunderstood what I said. You start off by saying that I don't get it and then go on to say almost exactly what I said.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B]

I must have been in a hurry and didn't finish my story.

You stated the catcher never throws at the runner - wrong.

We were taught when the runner is inside and you can't see the first baseman (happens a lot because you are blocked), then just aim right over the players head and it should go right to the 1st baseman.

Maybe that was old school, long time ago, but it worked.

I'm sure there are other guys who were taught the same.

Anyway, thats my take.

Thanks
David

David B

Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:03pm

Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
"(GarthB's #4 is not even close to being valid!)"

Valid or not my man, it is one of the four driving forces for how FED rules are written.

Do a little research and you will understand a little better.

Writing to eliminate as many umpire jugdements as possible is not only a real concept but has been noted over the years by FEDlandia.

Exactly correct. All of Garth's 4 reasons have some validity I'm sure, but I know for a fact that #4 is true.

Several times in the POE's in the rule book, its has been stated by the FED rule guru's that a rule was being changed etc., because the umpires were NOT calling it correctly.

I think a little more research is a good start as Tee noted above.

Thanks
David

David Emerling

Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:37pm

Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David B
Several times in the POE's in the rule book, its has been stated by the FED rule guru's that a rule was being changed etc., because the umpires were NOT calling it correctly.
Thanks
David [/B]

And in nearly every case, the issue was the reluctance of the umpires to call it the FED way, instead, preferring the OBR way.

The appeal play is a good example. For the most part, umpires were not calling runners out in an unsolicited manner, as mandated by FED.

So FED changed it. But they still had to put their unique stamp on the rule by allowing verbal appeals. Allowing appeals by coaches - who aren't even game participants.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

bob jenkins

Sat Mar 26, 2005 09:01am

Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
So FED changed it. But they still had to put their unique stamp on the rule by allowing verbal appeals. Allowing appeals by coaches - who aren't even game participants.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

And, IMO, FED got this one "right". That is, if I were designing a new game called "baseball" and if I were trying to decide how to deal with a runner missing a base, I'd allow dead-ball verbal appeals by either the coach or a defensive player (as opposed to just having the umpire call the runenr out, or requiring that a live ball be thrown to the base missed).

I recognize that not all will agree with this. And, to be fair, I think that FED has some of the other rules "wrong" (I prefer the NCAA or the OBR ruling).

FED always(?) gives a reason fopr the changes. We might not agree with the reasons, and the reasons might be lost over the course of time, but the changes are not made just to be "different". The changes are made for the reasons given in previous posts.

David Emerling

Sat Mar 26, 2005 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
So FED changed it. But they still had to put their unique stamp on the rule by allowing verbal appeals. Allowing appeals by coaches - who aren't even game participants.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

And, IMO, FED got this one "right". That is, if I were designing a new game called "baseball" and if I were trying to decide how to deal with a runner missing a base, I'd allow dead-ball verbal appeals by either the coach or a defensive player (as opposed to just having the umpire call the runenr out, or requiring that a live ball be thrown to the base missed).

I recognize that not all will agree with this. And, to be fair, I think that FED has some of the other rules "wrong" (I prefer the NCAA or the OBR ruling).

FED always(?) gives a reason fopr the changes. We might not agree with the reasons, and the reasons might be lost over the course of time, but the changes are not made just to be "different". The changes are made for the reasons given in previous posts.

I agree - the FED method is not altogether illogical. And - true - if you were inventing a NEW game ... this might be the way to go.

But, nonetheless, it's different! It's different from what most people have grown up watching on TV. At high school games people are often surprised to discover that a runner is out, for missing a base, without an actual PHYSICAL appeal. And, as I said before, at least 50% of the time (or more) the team executes an OBR-style appeal anyway.

The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Carl Childress

Sat Mar 26, 2005 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

I agree - the FED method is not altogether illogical. And - true - if you were inventing a NEW game ... this might be the way to go.

But, nonetheless, it's different! It's different from what most people have grown up watching on TV. At high school games people are often surprised to discover that a runner is out, for missing a base, without an actual PHYSICAL appeal. And, as I said before, at least 50% of the time (or more) the team executes an OBR-style appeal anyway.

The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David: We usually agree, but this time you're dead wrong. (1) In high school games in my area, I have never seen a team try to execute an OBR appeal. We've done a good job of educating our coaches.

(2) I'm not sure I care whether "people" are surprised to discover that a runner is called out without a visible appeal. The teams know; that's enough.

(3) You say the FED rule is "needlessly different." Perhaps. But air conditioning cools more than a ceiling fan. Air conditioning, then, is necessarily better.

Just like the NFHS appeal rule.

One request: Explain one benefit of having the pitcher get onto the rubber, step off with a live ball, etc. Why, half the pitchers step on with the ball when it's already alive. One half of the remainder don't know what to do when they do step off.

And, to tell the truth, I had two appeals in NFHS in the past two and a half seasons, both by the same coach, both upheld. In the last two and a half seasons of OBR, I have had no appeals.

BTW: You owe me an article!

LDUB	Sat Mar 26, 2005 01:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

If people are confused by rules they have never read, then that is their own fault. If someone reads the rule book they will no longer be confused about how to appeal.

David Emerling

Sat Mar 26, 2005 01:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

I agree - the FED method is not altogether illogical. And - true - if you were inventing a NEW game ... this might be the way to go.

But, nonetheless, it's different! It's different from what most people have grown up watching on TV. At high school games people are often surprised to discover that a runner is out, for missing a base, without an actual PHYSICAL appeal. And, as I said before, at least 50% of the time (or more) the team executes an OBR-style appeal anyway.

The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David: We usually agree, but this time you're dead wrong. (1) In high school games in my area, I have never seen a team try to execute an OBR appeal. We've done a good job of educating our coaches.

(2) I'm not sure I care whether "people" are surprised to discover that a runner is called out without a visible appeal. The teams know; that's enough.

(3) You say the FED rule is "needlessly different." Perhaps. But air conditioning cools more than a ceiling fan. Air conditioning, then, is necessarily better.

Just like the NFHS appeal rule.

One request: Explain one benefit of having the pitcher get onto the rubber, step off with a live ball, etc. Why, half the pitchers step on with the ball when it's already alive. One half of the remainder don't know what to do when they do step off.

And, to tell the truth, I had two appeals in NFHS in the past two and a half seasons, both by the same coach, both upheld. In the last two and a half seasons of OBR, I have had no appeals.

BTW: You owe me an article!

Well, I guess the teams in our area are not nearly as well educated than yours. Around here, you're just as likely to get an OBR-style appeal than a FED-style.

The advantage of doing in OBR style? It forces the players (not the coach) to cause a runner to be out. And, it forces the one team to put the other team during LIVE action - which, I think, is the way the game is philosophically intended to be played.

Sure, under OBR, it's possible for a runner to be "out" during dead ball action, but such an out would always be self-inflicted, like one runner passing another runner during an out-of-the-park homerun.

The ball should be LIVE for one team to get outs on the other. It's philosophically the way the game is supposed to be played.

I don't have a problem with it, however. I like reading the BRD!

Regarding that other article ... NAG!

Besides, how dare you start a series using the word "INTENT". You're stealing my subject matter, man!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 26th, 2005 at 07:37 PM]

David Emerling

Sat Mar 26, 2005 01:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by LDUB

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

If people are confused by rules they have never read, then that is their own fault. If someone reads the rule book they will no longer be confused about how to appeal.

We can keep beating that drum if we like. That is a worn argument and has been used for a very long time.

"They should know the rules!"

It's a bit naive to expect coaches, players, and fans to sit down and read the NFHS rules and discern the differences.

This is especially true since NFHS rules are so proprietory. You can find OBR rules all over the place. It's proudly available on the internet.

NFHS rules?

[insert mysterious music]

Not available. Hard to find. Cannot be readily checked. And then we wonder why people are not well-educated.

Over the years, I've had unusual things happen in games (OBR games) and the next day, some fan, coach or somebody will come back to the park the next day and say, "Last night I checked that interference rule and it said ... blah, blah, blah," At least they checked! They saw something unusual, or something they didn't understand, they got curious, and they checked. Nothing like that could ever occur in a high school game. The mystery persists.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 26th, 2005 at 01:15 PM]

Carl Childress

Sat Mar 26, 2005 01:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

I agree - the FED method is not altogether illogical. And - true - if you were inventing a NEW game ... this might be the way to go.

But, nonetheless, it's different! It's different from what most people have grown up watching on TV. At high school games people are often surprised to discover that a runner is out, for missing a base, without an actual PHYSICAL appeal. And, as I said before, at least 50% of the time (or more) the team executes an OBR-style appeal anyway.

The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David: We usually agree, but this time you're dead wrong. (1) In high school games in my area, I have never seen a team try to execute an OBR appeal. We've done a good job of educating our coaches.

(2) I'm not sure I care whether "people" are surprised to discover that a runner is called out without a visible appeal. The teams know; that's enough.

(3) You say the FED rule is "needlessly different." Perhaps. But air conditioning cools more than a ceiling fan. Air conditioning, then, is necessarily better.

Just like the NFHS appeal rule.

One request: Explain one benefit of having the pitcher get onto the rubber, step off with a live ball, etc. Why, half the pitchers step on with the ball when it's already alive. One half of the remainder don't know what to do when they do step off.

And, to tell the truth, I had two appeals in NFHS in the past two and a half seasons, both by the same coach, both upheld. In the last two and a half seasons of OBR, I have had no appeals.

BTW: You owe me an article!

Well, I guess the teams in our area are nearly as well educated than yours. Around here, you're just as likely to get an OBR-style appeal than a FED-style.

The advantage of doing in OBR style? It forces the players (not the coach) to cause a runner to be out. And, it forces the one team to put the other team during LIVE action - which, I think, is the way the game is philosophically intended to be played.

Sure, under OBR, it's possible for a runner to be "out" during dead ball action, but such an out would always be self-inflicted, like one runner passing another runner during an out-of-the-park homerun.

The ball should be LIVE for one team to get outs on the other. It's philosophically the way the game is supposed to be played.

I don't have a problem with it, however. I like reading the BRD!

Regarding that other article ... NAG!

Besides, how dare you start a series using the word "INTENT". You're stealing my subject matter, man!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David: It ain't philosophy. It's just the way the OBR grew up doing it.

Who cares how the runner makes an out? For example, the pitcher has a live ball and throws it to third, saying: "We're appealing that R2 missed that base." Would you deny that appeal because the third baseman is going to take the base? After all, he's the one who should make the appeal. Right?

C'mon. The DH produces more exciting baseball than a pitcher's three whiffs and a trot to the bench. The game changes, my friend.

LDUB	Sat Mar 26, 2005 01:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
We can keep beating that drum if we like. That is a worn argument and has been used for a very long time.

"They should know the rules!"

It's a bit naive to expect coaches, players, and fans to sit down and read the NFHS rules and discern the differences.

This is especially true since NFHS rules are so proprietory. You can find OBR rules all over the place. It's proudly available on the internet.

NFHS rules?

[insert mysterious music]

Not available. Hard to find. Cannot be readily checked. And then we wonder why people are not well-educated.

Over the years, I've had unusual things happen in games (OBR games) and the next day, some fan, coach or somebody will come back to the park the next day and say, "Last night I checked that interference rule and it said ... blah, blah, blah," At least they checked! They saw something unusual, or something they didn't understand, they got curious, and they checked. Nothing like that could ever occur in a high school game. The mystery persists.

The OBR is available on the internet. But is the OBR the actual rules that the game is being played under?

R1 stealing, fly ball to left field. R1 misses second and starts to advance to third. F7 catches the ball. R1 turns and begins to return to first, he touches second, and is beats the appeal at first. Defense then appeal the initial miss of second by R1, and you rule safe.

The next time you go back to that field, the coach says
"remember that appeal play, I looke it up, and it is under 7.10. He missed the base while advancing. Why didn't you call him out?"

You: "There is a concept called last time by and ..."

Coach: "Well where can I find this in writing?"

You: "Go on the internet and by the J/R or BRD (or whatever other book you can think of)"

Well now we are right back to where we started. In order for someone to understand the rules, they have to go and buy some book. BRD cost $25 (or so) and J/R cost $40 (or so), while the FED rule book cost $6.75.

Now which one of these is an average person more likely to buy? J/R for $40, or the Federation book for $6.75?

David Emerling

Sat Mar 26, 2005 07:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by LDUB

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
We can keep beating that drum if we like. That is a worn argument and has been used for a very long time.

"They should know the rules!"

It's a bit naive to expect coaches, players, and fans to sit down and read the NFHS rules and discern the differences.

This is especially true since NFHS rules are so proprietory. You can find OBR rules all over the place. It's proudly available on the internet.

NFHS rules?

[insert mysterious music]

Not available. Hard to find. Cannot be readily checked. And then we wonder why people are not well-educated.

Over the years, I've had unusual things happen in games (OBR games) and the next day, some fan, coach or somebody will come back to the park the next day and say, "Last night I checked that interference rule and it said ... blah, blah, blah," At least they checked! They saw something unusual, or something they didn't understand, they got curious, and they checked. Nothing like that could ever occur in a high school game. The mystery persists.

The OBR is available on the internet. But is the OBR the actual rules that the game is being played under?

R1 stealing, fly ball to left field. R1 misses second and starts to advance to third. F7 catches the ball. R1 turns and begins to return to first, he touches second, and is beats the appeal at first. Defense then appeal the initial miss of second by R1, and you rule safe.

The next time you go back to that field, the coach says
"remember that appeal play, I looke it up, and it is under 7.10. He missed the base while advancing. Why didn't you call him out?"

You: "There is a concept called last time by and ..."

Coach: "Well where can I find this in writing?"

You: "Go on the internet and by the J/R or BRD (or whatever other book you can think of)"

Well now we are right back to where we started. In order for someone to understand the rules, they have to go and buy some book. BRD cost $25 (or so) and J/R cost $40 (or so), while the FED rule book cost $6.75.

Now which one of these is an average person more likely to buy? J/R for $40, or the Federation book for $6.75?

Touché!

Good point, Luke.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Michael Taylor

Sat Mar 26, 2005 07:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by LDUB

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
The point isn't whether it's "better" - it's that it's needlessly different. It causes confusion. And the reason so many teams don't realize that they can do a verbal appeal is because their higher comfort level (i.e. familiarity) with OBR rules.

If people are confused by rules they have never read, then that is their own fault. If someone reads the rule book they will no longer be confused about how to appeal.

We can keep beating that drum if we like. That is a worn argument and has been used for a very long time.

"They should know the rules!"

It's a bit naive to expect coaches, players, and fans to sit down and read the NFHS rules and discern the differences.

This is especially true since NFHS rules are so proprietory. You can find OBR rules all over the place. It's proudly available on the internet.

NFHS rules?

[insert mysterious music]

Not available. Hard to find. Cannot be readily checked. And then we wonder why people are not well-educated.

Over the years, I've had unusual things happen in games (OBR games) and the next day, some fan, coach or somebody will come back to the park the next day and say, "Last night I checked that interference rule and it said ... blah, blah, blah," At least they checked! They saw something unusual, or something they didn't understand, they got curious, and they checked. Nothing like that could ever occur in a high school game. The mystery persists.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 26th, 2005 at 01:15 PM]

David:
The reason umpires say HS kids should know the Fed way of appealing is because the coach should. I don't care that Fed rules aren't available on the internet, they are available through the school they coach for. HS coaches are paid to do a job and should be expected to have a passing knowledge of the game they are paid to teach.

David Emerling

Sat Mar 26, 2005 08:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael Taylor
David:
The reason umpires say HS kids should know the Fed way of appealing is because the coach should. I don't care that Fed rules aren't available on the internet, they are available through the school they coach for. HS coaches are paid to do a job and should be expected to have a passing knowledge of the game they are paid to teach.
[/B]

No argument from me on that point albeit somewhat utopian.

The fact is that baseball is a age old sport that most people have familiarity with almost by osmosis.

People have enough misconceptions regarding OBR rules, let alone a *******ization of those rules.

Honestly now - wouldn't it just be simpler for EVERYBODY if FED rules were nothing more than OBR rules with a few additions? Just like USSSA!

1. reentry
2. courtesy runners
3. force play slide rule
4. malicious contact
5. equipment specifications
6. no tobacco

That should just about do it!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

DG	Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:12pm

A FED rule book (and case book) is sent to anybody who registers and can be readily purchased without registering. The FED rules are not mysterious, just because you can't download them.

bob jenkins

Sun Mar 27, 2005 04:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Expert Opinion

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael Taylor
David:
The reason umpires say HS kids should know the Fed way of appealing is because the coach should. I don't care that Fed rules aren't available on the internet, they are available through the school they coach for. HS coaches are paid to do a job and should be expected to have a passing knowledge of the game they are paid to teach.

No argument from me on that point albeit somewhat utopian.

The fact is that baseball is a age old sport that most people have familiarity with almost by osmosis.

People have enough misconceptions regarding OBR rules, let alone a *******ization of those rules.

Honestly now - wouldn't it just be simpler for EVERYBODY if FED rules were nothing more than OBR rules with a few additions? Just like USSSA!

1. reentry
2. courtesy runners
3. force play slide rule
4. malicious contact
5. equipment specifications
6. no tobacco

That should just about do it!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN [/B]

Wouldn't it be "simpler for EVERYBODY" if LL, USSSA, Pony, etc. used FED rules, except ...?

That's what happens in basketball, and there are just as many rules differences between NBA, NCAA and FED

GarthB

Sun Mar 27, 2005 06:21pm

And, as you know Bob, the same thing happens in Football. FED is the default set of rules for youth play in those states that use FED. If I'm not mistaken, in parts of Oregon, Legion baseball uses FED rules as well. It was toyed with here, but no official move has been made yet.

andrewm

Sun Apr 03, 2005 07:40am

We had our first chance to try a pickoff from the windup in a USSSA league tournament yesterday. Prior to our first game I spoke with the plate ump outside the fence away from everybody. He knew about the rule and told me generally what he would look for regarding a balk. Very nice guy and helpful. Also called a great game. We didn't get a chance to try the pickoff from a windup in that game though.

In our second game we had different umps. At game time we were short one ump, so while we were waiting for the umps to show, I spoke with the one we had. He was unsure about the rule and told me he would have to call a balk. I politely mentioned the difference between OBR and FED in this particular case and he told me he would definitely read up on it when he got home. But for now, he would have to call a balk. Fair enough. With this feedback, we had planned to not try it.

Finally, the second ump arrived, who was going to be behind the plate. He was a well-known crusty old guy that generally most coaches do not like. Definitely not a guy that will stand for any arguments from the coaches. About halfway through the first inning, the base ump that I spoke with prior to the game was replaced. So we now had two umps, neither of which I had previously talked to. To make a real long story somewhat shorter, it wasn't until we were long out of the game and we made a pitching change that I wanted to try it. I told the other coaches, we had nothing to lose, and I had a good feeling about the crusty old guy. Sure enough, first pitch my son makes a perfectly legal pickoff attempt from the windup to first base. Didn't get the guy out, but other team screams balk. Our other coaches started to say something but I told them to quiet down and lets see what happens. I'll ask the ump for clarification if we get balked. The umps confer, call nothing. Offensive coach questions them, gets the answer and play moves on.

I just wanted to thank you guys for all your advice on the way to handle the situation. Keep up the good work.

David Emerling

Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:07am

Quote:

Originally posted by andrewm
We had our first chance to try a pickoff from the windup in a USSSA league tournament yesterday. Prior to our first game I spoke with the plate ump outside the fence away from everybody. He knew about the rule and told me generally what he would look for regarding a balk. Very nice guy and helpful. Also called a great game. We didn't get a chance to try the pickoff from a windup in that game though.

In our second game we had different umps. At game time we were short one ump, so while we were waiting for the umps to show, I spoke with the one we had. He was unsure about the rule and told me he would have to call a balk. I politely mentioned the difference between OBR and FED in this particular case and he told me he would definitely read up on it when he got home. But for now, he would have to call a balk. Fair enough. With this feedback, we had planned to not try it.

Finally, the second ump arrived, who was going to be behind the plate. He was a well-known crusty old guy that generally most coaches do not like. Definitely not a guy that will stand for any arguments from the coaches. About halfway through the first inning, the base ump that I spoke with prior to the game was replaced. So we now had two umps, neither of which I had previously talked to. To make a real long story somewhat shorter, it wasn't until we were long out of the game and we made a pitching change that I wanted to try it. I told the other coaches, we had nothing to lose, and I had a good feeling about the crusty old guy. Sure enough, first pitch my son makes a perfectly legal pickoff attempt from the windup to first base. Didn't get the guy out, but other team screams balk. Our other coaches started to say something but I told them to quiet down and lets see what happens. I'll ask the ump for clarification if we get balked. The umps confer, call nothing. Offensive coach questions them, gets the answer and play moves on.

I just wanted to thank you guys for all your advice on the way to handle the situation. Keep up the good work.

Just out of curiosity - where were the runners? I'm assuming 1st and 2nd, or bases loaded.

Also - was your 1st baseman holding the runner? He should not have. The best way to do that pickoff play is to make it a "timing" play - where the fielder breaks for the bag then the pitcher makes the move.

Our team calls this a "backdoor pickoff" - it's whenever we attempt to pickoff a trail runner. We use that term as a reminder to the fielders that, should the runner end up in a rundown, our fielders are not to throw the ball -rather- to simply force the picked-off runner toward the advance base, thus flushing the more advanced runners of the base. Our ultimate goal is to put out the most advanced runner.

* * *

You got a good lesson in how common it is for umpires not to understand this rule. My guess is - if you asked 10 youth league umpires about the legality of a pickoff from the windup, you would get a split of about 50/50 on the topic.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

andrewm

Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:23am

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
Just out of curiosity - where were the runners? I'm assuming 1st and 2nd, or bases loaded.

Also - was your 1st baseman holding the runner? He should not have. The best way to do that pickoff play is to make it a "timing" play - where the fielder breaks for the bag then the pitcher makes the move.

Our team calls this a "backdoor pickoff" - it's whenever we attempt to pickoff a trail runner. We use that term as a reminder to the fielders that, should the runner end up in a rundown, our fielders are not to throw the ball -rather- to simply force the picked-off runner toward the advance base, thus flushing the more advanced runners of the base. Our ultimate goal is to put out the most advanced runner.

* * *

You got a good lesson in how common it is for umpires not to understand this rule. My guess is - if you asked 10 youth league umpires about the legality of a pickoff from the windup, you would get a split of about 50/50 on the topic.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

We were getting spanked at the time. Made a pitching change, bringing in my son. The coach from the other team is a jerk and I would have loved to pick off his runner with a rule he didn't know about! He entered the game with a runner on first. We were holding the runner on because we've never practiced this as a team. I had only worked with my son at home on the correct move from the windup. I told him on the mound during the pitching change to act like he forgot (or didn't realize) there was a runner on first when he entered the game. It didn't work, but we do plan on working on it more in the future. Just to have in our bag of tricks. I like your play and we'll definitely implement it at some point.

Based on my survey so far, your ratio seems about right. But, the ump I spoke to yesterday that was unsure, said he'd definitely check into it because he likes finding out subtle differences in the rules between OBR and FED.

GarthB

Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:39pm

Quote:

Congratulations on taking the "high road" with this, despite some of the suggestions you received earlier.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09pm.

Page 2 of 2

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1