Pickoffs from the windup?

[BayouUmp]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

NO BALK!
NO BALK in FED! NO BALK in OBR! NO BALK in China! NO BALK on Mars! (They don't play baseball on Mars.)

No Balk in FED, Carl?

6:1:2 "With his feet in the wind-up position, the pitcher may only deliver a pitch or step backward off the plate with his pivot foot first."

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by BayouUmp

No Balk in FED, Carl?

6:1:2 "With his feet in the wind-up position, the pitcher may only deliver a pitch or step backward off the plate with his pivot foot first."

Yes, there is no legal pick-off from the pitcher's plate in FED. Sorry. I got carried away with the cadence of the prose.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by GarthB
A coach with integrity could achieve the same results without being manipulative or devious. There is a room for honesty in baseball. I'm sorry, but I will reject forever the Rat approach.

I had a fantastic coach at a game tonight. Honest in his communications with me, fair with his players and opponents and genuinely interested in what was good for "the game." No mind games. No devious manipulation, no need to second guess his intent. All questions were open, blunt and honest. This type of coach does exist, just apparerently not in this thread. [/B]

Garth, did you make a HUGE misapplication of any rules?

Hell, it's easy to be straight forward with competent and professional people. You're an excellent umpire! There's no need to deal with you in any other way. If you were a buffoon - I can assure you things would be different.

For all you know - you HAVE been manipulated by this coach. You are now all enamored with him and, undoubtedly, will give him considerable leeway in your next encounter. I'm not suggesting you've necessarily been duped - but you should know that is a technique used by many coaches. This is especially true when the game goes smoothly with no controversy.

Many of you who are participating in this thread need to re-read the excellent series by Peter Osborne: Manipulating the Umpire.

Needless to say, this series created quite a stir amongst a select group of the officiating.com membership. In my opinion, that's because it was so painfully TRUE.

* * *

Garth, when you award R2 two bases on a pitched ball that lodges underneath the backstop, scoring a run, in a close game, while this great coach's team is out on the field ... THEN you can tell me a story about how calm, honest, and straightforward he is ... UNTIL then, you don't know. You never know who the "heroes" are until there is "combat".

By the way, Garth, I don't see acting perplexed in order to open a dialogue with the umpire any different than when you tell your wife that her new hair style looks "Great!" when, in fact, you hate it.

There's no yelling or screaming. Nobody gets hurt. There is no "bad example" being foisted upon the youth as you've suggested because the dynamics of what is going on is WAY beyond them. You're giving these kids too much credit for perception. The adults don't even get it.

People play roles in life. Often we play roles in order to keep the greater peace - like when you tell your wife that the dress she's wearing doesn't make her look fat. Or when your boss asks you what you think of his new car, of which he's very proud, and you say that it looks "Sharp!" when, in fact, you can't stand it. You're simply finding a way to be nice without creating conflict - to your advantage.

So what is it you expect a coach to do when an umpire has completely blown a call that cannot be immediately protested (because it's a judgment call) but you are well aware of how he has misapplied a rule to come to this poor judgment?

Without jumping up and down and screaming, like most coaches, I approach him calmly and ask, "What happened?" Yes - I'm playing a role. The predicament that is about to occur for this umpire is of his OWN making. HE made the bad call and HE is the one that is about to seal his fate by discussing with me something that he has no obligation to discuss.

You can characterize it as evil deceit all you want but I would suggest that you are being a Pollyanna about this. As I've explained to you countless times - I don't hassle umpires, even when their strike zone is horrible and inconsistent ... even when they call one of my runners out when he clearly beat the throw by a step ... or even when he says my outfielder trapped the ball when he clearly caught it. Those are pointless arguments - and I know it. True, I don't like it. But I don't say a word. I don't even call time and ask to discuss it. And that's because I am an umpire and I realize the futility of it all. I don't think I can say the same about many other coaches. So, in that regard, being both a coach and umpire is a breath of fresh air for many umpires ... right up to the point where he grossly misapplies a rule to my team's severe detriment. And then my job is to be a coach, not a member of the fraternal order of umpires, and lobby to have the injustice rectified. And sometimes that involves playing a role to facilitate the objective.

In your own inimitable brand of naiveté - I realize you find all this very distasteful.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 23rd, 2005 at 03:20 PM]

[DG]

Too much ado...

If a manager wants to calmly discuss a ruling I will discuss. I tell them this at pregame. If a manager wants to argue a judgement call, I am not interested, and I tell them this at pregame also.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG
Too much ado...

If a manager wants to calmly discuss a ruling I will discuss. I tell them this at pregame. If a manager wants to argue a judgement call, I am not interested, and I tell them this at pregame also.

Do you then pull out the rulebook and read rules 1 through 9?

Take the lineups and wish them luck. Anything else is nonsense.

[hardball3b]

Gentlemen - this discussion (and hundreds more like it) have finally broke the straw on this camels back. Is there ANYONE out there that can give a honest example of why there are rules differences (OTHER THAN FOR SAFETY, THE TIME WINDOW, & PARTICIPATION?SUBSTITUTION) between OBR, Fed, or College? I just don't get why in OBR, a balk is not an immediate dead ball, and in Fed it is. The pick being discussed is just another example. Wouldn't life on the diamond be better if the "rules where the rules"? Other than "political ego's", what's is the reasoning behind playing a simply complicated game under different sets of rules? One thing it does do: Increases my resource library!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by hardball3b
Gentlemen - this discussion (and hundreds more like it) have finally broke the straw on this camels back. Is there ANYONE out there that can give a honest example of why there are rules differences (OTHER THAN FOR SAFETY, THE TIME WINDOW, & PARTICIPATION?SUBSTITUTION) between OBR, Fed, or College? I just don't get why in OBR, a balk is not an immediate dead ball, and in Fed it is. The pick being discussed is just another example. Wouldn't life on the diamond be better if the "rules where the rules"? Other than "political ego's", what's is the reasoning behind playing a simply complicated game under different sets of rules? One thing it does do: Increases my resource library!

Easy:

Despite the common belief that MLB is adults playing a kids game, it is not. Baseball is an adult game and its rules (OBR) are written for adult players.

When adapting this game to youth and students, leagues and officials have adapted the rules for the level of their players. 60' diamonds, malicious contact, no lead-offs are some of the changes made for kiddie ball.

The honchos in FED make changes to make the game more appropriate for their level based on four considerations:

1. Safety....malicious contact and FPSR are examples.
2. Increased participation. Re-entry is the example here.
3. Speed-up... Courtesy runners
4. Lack of guaranteed and uniform training of umpires. The different balk rulings are the best examples here.

Most organizations have reasons for altering the rules. It doesn't matter if you agree with those reasons or not. If you want to work their games, you call by their rules.

[stanump12474]

It depends on what rules govern USSSA, if governed by Federation rules, there are no pick offs from the wind up. Official rules I, believe make it possible , but it is VERY rare. In either event, both heels on the rubber is illegal. You MUST have both feet on top of the rubber.

[hardball3b]

As I noted in my comment (please refer to CAPITAL LETTERS IN PARENTHESIS). Not so simple, eh?!

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by stanump12474
It depends on what rules govern USSSA, if governed by Federation rules, there are no pick offs from the wind up. Official rules I, believe make it possible , but it is VERY rare. In either event, both heels on the rubber is illegal. You MUST have both feet on top of the rubber.

USSSA doesn't even have a rulebook, per se.

In fact, if you pursue the above link you will find the following commentary regarding USSSA: Playing rules not specifically covered shall follow the Official Major League Baseball Rules as published by the Sporting News.

FED rules do not apply to games played under USSSA.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by hardball3b
Gentlemen - this discussion (and hundreds more like it) have finally broke the straw on this camels back. Is there ANYONE out there that can give a honest example of why there are rules differences (OTHER THAN FOR SAFETY, THE TIME WINDOW, & PARTICIPATION?SUBSTITUTION) between OBR, Fed, or College? I just don't get why in OBR, a balk is not an immediate dead ball, and in Fed it is. The pick being discussed is just another example. Wouldn't life on the diamond be better if the "rules where the rules"? Other than "political ego's", what's is the reasoning behind playing a simply complicated game under different sets of rules? One thing it does do: Increases my resource library!

The reason rule differences exist is so Carl can keep getting royalty checks from the sales of BRD.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Do you then pull out the rulebook and read rules 1 through 9?

Take the lineups and wish them luck. Anything else is nonsense.

Managers generally come out with only one thing on their mind (sometimes two), so there is no need to interpet the whole book. Hear them out, explain what you have, and they will go back to the dugout. I don't see discussing a ruling with a manager as nonsense. I have never seen a major league, college, or high school game where a manager was tossed simply for coming out for a discussion, especially if done in a calm, professional manner. They only get tossed when they show their a**.

[DG]

We have different political parties, different religions, different cultures. And we have different baseball rules. Everybody has their beliefs. As umpires we would rather have just one rulebook, it would be easier for us not to have to learn the differences. But we have a choice. We can choose to do only one kind of ball, and learn only that set of rules. Or we can choose to learn the differences and do games in different leagues. I prefer the later, it's more fun than specializing.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

Managers generally come out with only one thing on their mind (sometimes two), so there is no need to interpet the whole book. Hear them out, explain what you have, and they will go back to the dugout. I don't see discussing a ruling with a manager as nonsense. I have never seen a major league, college, or high school game where a manager was tossed simply for coming out for a discussion, especially if done in a calm, professional manner. They only get tossed when they show their a**.

I was talking about the pregame and telling them to feel free to discuss calls during the pregame. You're already putting in their minds the idea that they will have something to discuss. Just take the lineup cards, do the ground rules, and go.

He11, I have a video clip of a discussion I had with a college coach last year that lasted almost 2 minutes. Nobody got tossed. No voices got raised. I'm happy to talk with civilized people.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by hardball3b
Gentlemen - this discussion (and hundreds more like it) have finally broke the straw on this camels back. Is there ANYONE out there that can give a honest example of why there are rules differences (OTHER THAN FOR SAFETY, THE TIME WINDOW, & PARTICIPATION?SUBSTITUTION) between OBR, Fed, or College? I just don't get why in OBR, a balk is not an immediate dead ball, and in Fed it is. The pick being discussed is just another example. Wouldn't life on the diamond be better if the "rules where the rules"? Other than "political ego's", what's is the reasoning behind playing a simply complicated game under different sets of rules? One thing it does do: Increases my resource library!

All rules are designed to strike an appropriate balance between offense and defense. The measure of what's appropriate is a value judgment and that value will vary by the individual(s) making the judgment. In addition, the skill levels (of the players, coaches and umpires) vary by level, so rules need to be in place to be sure that whatever balance is desired is maintained.

For example, take the "skunk in the outfield" play. It's legal at all levels. But, I can see a case for making it illegal at lower levels (LL, for example), where the players run better than they throw and catch. Allowing the play in youth ball *might* give the offense too much of an advantage.