The Official Forum - Pickoffs from the windup?

Page 8 of 9

« First

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)

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]

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32am.

Page 8 of 9

« First

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

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1