Pickoffs from the windup?

[jicecone]

Originally posted by hardball3b
As I noted in my comment (please refer to CAPITAL LETTERS IN PARENTHESIS). Not so simple, eh?!

For some reason, your assuming that human beings ALWAYS like to do things SIMPLE. All though, in most cases it would probably be better, it would be a strange world out there if we all dressed, looked, acted, played and did everthing the same way.

Then for sure the media would go Bananas because they would'nt have anything to write about. At least if they did , it would all be the same thing....BORING

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by GarthB

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.

Garth, I believe much of what you say above is true. Yet, I can't help getting the sense that the FED rulemakers often create differences just for the sake of being different. I think most umpires understand the points you mention above. Those aren't the frustrating rules.

In this thread we've been talking about a pitcher's ability to execute a pickoff from the windup position without first disengaging the rubber. OBR allows it, FED does not.

This rule difference (like many similar ones) has no logical basis in any of the points you've mentioned above.

Personally, I think FED would be better off adopting OBR rules with only a list of differences. Those differences should only involve the things you mention.

This is exactly what USSSA baseball has done. They adopt OBR rules and list the differences ... all of which involve logical things that address only the issues you mention ... substitution, participation, safety, etc..

Why can't FED's appeal plays be the same as OBR? Safety? Participation? The funny thing is that most teams attempt to execute an appeal OBR style anyway.

Here's what I just saw last week in a High School Varsity game.

Play: R1. One out. Tied game in late innings. Batter hits double. R1 advances to 3rd. Action stops. There is talk that the BR missed 1st. The ball is returned to the pitcher. He comes set, he steps off, and he tosses the ball to F3 for the appeal - which is denied. The pitcher nearly threw the ball over F3's head when he made the throw. Stupid.

Why did this play out the way it did? Had that runner missed 1st, this would have been a completely valid and acceptable way of appealing the play. But why didn't they just do it verbally - as allowed by FED? Why make an unnecessary throw? It's because even the players and coaches have a difficult time keeping track of all the rule differences from what they see nearly every night on TBS when the Atlanta Braves play the Philadelphia Phillies. That's the system of rules with which people have grown up with and are familiar with. FED is an acquired and learned aberration.

Most people are much more familiar with OBR-style of play than with all the quirks in FED. Everybody has an easy time understanding why high-schoolers can't bull over a catcher ala Pete Rose/Ray Fosse. But they have a difficult time digesting (and remembering) seemingly random differences.

A batter who runs into his own fair ball while exiting the batter's box is not out in FED ball, as long as the umpire considers it unintentional. Why have such a rule? It's different for what reason? He should be out just like the big leaguers. And don't tell me this rule makes it easier on the umpire as is often brought up with many of the rule differences. It would be much easier to simply call the BR out ... and much less ensuing conflict. My guess is that most high school players, coaches, and fans would expect the batter to be out in this circumstance and probably wouldn't even make the argument that "it was an accident." Further, there are probably a host of umpires that don't even know that they have the option of not calling the BR out in this circumstance. Invoke the FED ruling on this play then duck.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 24th, 2005 at 11:49 AM]

[cbfoulds]

Dave E:
This thread [PO from WU]; appeal play mechanics: all reason #4 [inconsistent/ inadequate training of officials, lack of confidence in judgment].

The FED appeal is a great example: it is virtually impossible for an umpire [no matter how clueless] to FUBAR the proceedural req's - all that's left is: did you see it? As you note, it is still possible for the teams to blow it, but that's a different subject.

[Kaliix]

Inconsistent/inadequate training of officials is a poor excuse for those rules being different. I think that if the official is poorly or inadequately trained, he is going to screw up the rules regardless. I would posit that you have a better chance of him knowing how OBR work than actually understanding the subtle FED differences versus OBR. Why would he know the FED differences is he is poorly or inadequately trained?

I agree with Dave, keep 'em the same except for the reasons he mentioned.

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Dave E:
This thread [PO from WU]; appeal play mechanics: all reason #4 [inconsistent/ inadequate training of officials, lack of confidence in judgment].

The FED appeal is a great example: it is virtually impossible for an umpire [no matter how clueless] to FUBAR the proceedural req's - all that's left is: did you see it? As you note, it is still possible for the teams to blow it, but that's a different subject.

[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.

[David Emerling]

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

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

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.

Thanks for clarification. I will take your suggestion under advisement. I started making these statements several years ago, after a play at 2B. After making the call, I turned to my left and found the 3B coach (the manager) in my face. A loud argument ensued and I ended up tossing him, he would not leave, and the game was forfeited (the tossed coach's team was losing 12-5 in the 5th at the time). I vowed that if anyone every ran onto the field at me like that again it would be a quick toss. So, the point of the pregame suggestion is that if they will be civil I am approachable, but if they run out on the field it will be a short stay. Maybe I should drop it and let them find out for themselves...

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

Thanks for clarification. I will take your suggestion under advisement. I started making these statements several years ago, after a play at 2B. After making the call, I turned to my left and found the 3B coach (the manager) in my face. A loud argument ensued and I ended up tossing him, he would not leave, and the game was forfeited (the tossed coach's team was losing 12-5 in the 5th at the time). I vowed that if anyone every ran onto the field at me like that again it would be a quick toss. So, the point of the pregame suggestion is that if they will be civil I am approachable, but if they run out on the field it will be a short stay. Maybe I should drop it and let them find out for themselves...

Do what works for you. I just don't like the idea of telling a coach how I expect him to act -- it makes it sound like I'm expecting bad behavior.

[largeone59]

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.

[largeone59]

A batter who runs into his own fair ball while exiting the batter's box is not out in FED ball, as long as the umpire considers it unintentional.

What's the rule reference for this? I haven't heard that one before.

[DG]

Originally posted by largeone59

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]

Originally posted by DG

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]

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]

Originally posted by David Emerling

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]

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]