I'm a coach on a 11AA USSSA team (OBR). I was reading through some common rule explanations on eteamz baseball rules page and came across some balk explanations. I was caught off guard when I read that a pitcher may attempt a pick off from the windup without stepping of the rubber. I, and none of the other coaches, have never seen a pitcher attempt a pickoff move from the windup without stepping off first. It seemed common knowledge that as soon as the pitcher made a move with the free foot that he had to go to the plate. After reading this rule, we appear to be wrong.

Am I reading this correctly? A pitcher from the windup (both heals on the rubber, facing the catcher, hands together in front) can step directly to a base in a pickoff attempt? The one caveat I saw stipulated that the pitcher cannot start any movement associated with his normal delivery to the plate before attempting a pickoff. So, in the pitcher's normal delivery to the plate, his free foot must step backwards and not to the side. If his free foot steps to the side in a normal delivery to the plate, it would be a balk if he stepped to the side in a pickoff attempt, correct?

If I'm interpreting this correctly, I can see how a right handed pitcher could attempt a pickoff to 1B from the windup, or a lefty to 3B. Basically just step with the free foot directly to the base and throw. But what about a righty to 3B (or lefty to 1B)? Do you have to step with free foot first (step across your body and turn to throw) or can you step with the pivot foot first (and do a kinda snap throw)? What about a hop move to 2B or 3B (for righty, 1B for lefty)?

This opens up a whole realm of possiblities for picking off or holding baserunners close.

Any thoughts?

My first thought coach is to direct you to the rulebook:

<b>OBR 8.01</b>

There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time. Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber.

(a)<b>The Windup Position.</b>

The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher’s plate, and the other foot free. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.
When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching but not off the end of the pitcher’s plate, and his other foot free, he will be considered in the Windup Position. [edit]

<b>From this position he may:
(1)deliver the ball to the batter, or
(2)step and throw to a base in an attempt to pick-off a runner, or
(3)disengage the rubber(if he does he must drop his hands to his sides).</b>

My second thought is to ask why is it that many coaches who most likely wouldn't play Scrabble without knowing the rules will take on the responsibility of teaching kids baseball without knowing the rules?

If you can't find a rule book nearby, email me privately and I'll send you one, free of charge.

1. As an umpire, you should know that most coaches, especially at this level, don't know all the rules. I admit that I don't know all the rules, that's why I was reading them - at eteamz and at MLB.com. I also read this forum often to gain insight into baseball rules. This is our first full season in USSSA using OBR. Previously we played Cal Ripkin, which doesn't take leads.

2. The reason I'm asking this is because I've never seen a pickoff attempt from the windup. I can assure you that if our pitcher did this, most opposing coaches would go postal. I would hope the umpire would know the rules, but based on most of the umps I've seen around here, I'm not so sure. But, if this is a no-brainer to even the most rookie ump, I'll feel a whole lot better teaching our players this.

"Common knowledge" is often wrong, as it is here. This is one of the top-40 myths.

Quote:

Am I reading this correctly? A pitcher from the windup (both heals on the rubber, facing the catcher, hands together in front) can step directly to a base in a pickoff attempt?

Yes and Yes.

Quote:

The one caveat I saw stipulated that the pitcher cannot start any movement associated with his normal delivery to the plate before attempting a pickoff. So, in the pitcher's normal delivery to the plate, his free foot must step backwards and not to the side. If his free foot steps to the side in a normal delivery to the plate, it would be a balk if he stepped to the side in a pickoff attempt, correct?

Not necessarily. Don't just focus on the foot. If the whole of the movement indicated a pitch (foot back, arms up, body doesn't turn), then it's a pitch. If the whole of the movement indicates a throw to first (foot back, arm cocks, body turns), then it's a pick-off attempt.

Quote:

If I'm interpreting this correctly, I can see how a right handed pitcher could attempt a pickoff to 1B from the windup, or a lefty to 3B. Basically just step with the free foot directly to the base and throw. But what about a righty to 3B (or lefty to 1B)? Do you have to step with free foot first (step across your body and turn to throw) or can you step with the pivot foot first (and do a kinda snap throw)? What about a hop move to 2B or 3B (for righty, 1B for lefty)?

Yes, the pitcher needs to step with the free foot.

So a hop move is legal?

Coach, fist let me say that I am honestly not trying to be antagonistic or insulting. I do undersand that most coaches, and not just at your level, do not know the rules. I know I sound cranky, but I am just sincerely curious as to why that is the case.

I am a substitute teacher. I am not the type, however, who babysits. I do not show videos or supervise study halls. I work only for those teachers who know that I will work continue the education of their students. I am endorsed to teach music, social studies and English. Additionally I am qualified to teach math through geometry and French. I take teaching seriously. I prepare every day for my next assignment. I brush up on my weaknesses (Algebra II and French veber conjugation in the future tenses) often. I show up for my assignemnts more than an hour early and review the lesson plans, previous work and the day's goals. When I am called upon to cover a subject with which my only connection is 30 years in the past, I really cram. A good example....I taught sex ed to high school juniors a couple of weeks ago. (Holy cow. I've been married for 31 years....what do I know about sex?) ;)

Coaches are teachers. They are responsible for educating kids about a game. Games have rules. Isn't it logical to think that coaches would know the rules? Shouldn't coaches spend at least some time with the rule book? Shouldn't coaches want their players to know how to play the game in accordance with the rules?

Yet, I cover games with Varsity coaches who haven't openned the free rule book they get each year, for years, if ever.

Again, none of this is meant to be mean-spirited, rather a sincere, bewildered and disappointed observation.

Garth, I agree with everything you said. That's exactly why I spend the time I do reading the rules. Like you said, it's my job to teach my players correctly. I take this very seriously. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be asking you guys for input.

However, nothing ticks me off more than an ump not knowing the rules. Maybe it's just me, but it's bad enough for a head coach to not know the rules, but it's unexcuseable for an ump to be ignorant. And I'm not talking about rare situations such as a bouncing foul tip 3rd strike. I'm referring to basic interference / obstruction calls.

Anyway, we seem to be on the same page and I was just looking for some practical interpretations of the rulebook.

Welcome aboard coach. You are a breath of fresh air.

If it complies with the requirements in rule 8, yes.

I don't mean that answer to be obtuse. But, your definition of "hop move" might differ from mine, and from the umpire's at your game.

Also, recognize that many (most?) umpires at the youth level are either just learning or just "filling in". Even if they have as much experience as you do, they may also believe many of the 40 myths.

If you're really interested in learning the pitching rules, buy the Jim Evans Balk video. If you're really interested in helping out the umpires, donate it to the umpire association and make it required viewing before working any games in which lead-offs (and balks) are allowed.

Is this thread accurate for Fed rules, also?

Thanks!

I guess what confuses me is Mr. Jenkins writing:

"Don't just focus on the foot. If the whole of the movement indicated a pitch (foot back, arms up, body doesn't turn), then it's a pitch. If the whole of the movement indicates a throw to first (foot back, arm cocks, body turns), then it's a pick-off attempt"

While I understand his point (and I know he is correct...I'm just trying to understand this and file it away in my thick head...) in both cases, the first motion is "foot back"...

Isn't (free) 'foot back' a motion associated with a pitchers's normal delivery to the plate? Imagine a slight delay - ever so slight - between 'foot back' and "arm cocks, body turns" . Man, my players are stealing! And caught in a run down...

No. You can't pick from windup in FED.

Only OBR rules. In FED rules, F1 must disengage with his non-pivot to throw to the base from the windup.

This is actually not that good of a move if you think about it, that's why you don't see it in the pros.

If it worked, they would use it all the time.

Thanks
David

This does not apply to FED


FED 6-1-2...With his feet in the windup position, the pitcher may only deliver a pitch or step backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot first.

In FED, from the windup, the pitcher may not step and throw to a base.

It might not be good for the pros because they know the rules. But I promise you it will confuse the heck out of some 11 year olds and their coaches who don't know the rules. I'll wager that most youth coaches teach their baserunners to break for 2B as soon as the pitcher moves his free foot from the windup. In that case, they'll be picked clean every time.

Granted, once an opposing team sees this, the novelty will wear off. But, if we save it to a crucial point in the game, it's an easy out.

As you suggested earlier, there may be some umpires working your games that aren't up on this either.

My 13u travel team and also my middle school team both will use this type of move once a game. Since very few teams have ever seen us before, we can usually get a runner once with it. Very simply, the first time a runner gets on first, the pitcher will stand on the rubber in the windup. Then, he steps back with his left foot. Most runners will then take off assuming he is going to pitch. Our pitcher will then step completely off the mound and get the runner in a rundown.
Very effective at the middle school level when you still have inexperienced runners (and coaches).

Teaches them a lesson!

Just curious
 

Am I the only one who has a balk on that last post, If they step back with left foot off the rubber, they are pitching now. They can disengage generally with Right foot first (righty pitcher), dropping the hands, they can step directly toward the base, and if it is first must throw, and they can pitch. What you discribed to me sounds like a balk.

Remember must step directly at the base, back would be toward 2nd, someone better be there, and if you stepped back, I don't think I 'd by that as directly toward the bag even if someone was there. I need to know you are not pitching, so a step toward second would turn your body toward that bag. Otherwise, I got a balk. If you step directly toward first and pause, i got a balk. If you stepbackwards and pause (with left first) I got a balk. If you step back with left to disengage, i got a balk (unless your a lefty) This is not a simple move and there are way more ways to balk than do it right, this is why most people step off properly.

BALK!!!!!

(assuming a RHP)

Do these games have umpires?

Re: Just curious
 

No, you are just the first to pounce on this. If a right handed pitcher steps back with his left foot and does not complete the pitching motion with a pitch he has balked. If a right handed batter has his hands together in front and raises them (simulating pitch) while stepping back with his right foot he has balked. If a right handed pitcher standing on the rubber with both feet were to step directly to 1st and throw this would not be a balk in OBR. You don't see this move in higher levels because it would never work. At 11 year old level it might work, but coach should have rule book in hand to discuss with the umpires who may not know the rule, and you still may not win. Best to teach the players how to pitch from the set and forget about this.

And umpires, SHAME ON THEM. They let that go, you might as well try having them start their motion take a step back and throw to first.

I'm lefty and use my opposite foot to pick off. Do I have to breka my hands because I go in a motion and then throw over?

If you are talking about making a throw to 1b from the windup as a lefty, this would be a very difficult move to actually pick anyone off. Theoretically, you could step with your left foot toward 1b and then throw with your left and it would look like a weak throw. If you make any motion that makes it look like you are going to pitch you should pitch.

I meant third base. I set up in the windup step off with my opposite foot and go in a "pretend" motion. Then I would throw over to first base. I would do the same thing toward third.

Is it a balk?

Obviously we need more information, but if your "pretend" motion simulates your pitching motion, and you threw to a base...we'd have a balk.

Read OBR 8.01 and 8.05

Even though I step off with the opposite foot?

Re: Re: Just curious
 

They have been taught to pitch from the stretch with runners on. As has every other team around here that we've played or seen. That's kinda the point. We could run a set play from the windup in a crucial situation and get an easy out. Have the pitcher act like he forgot there was a runner on. Put him in the windup then call a pickoff play.

My guess is the umpire would probably call a balk. But, I plan on talking to a few umps in our tournament this weekend prior to the game. If we discuss it beforehand, hopefully we get the call if executed correctly.

If you were in the windup position, and you stepped with your right foot towards 3b and feinted a throw you could then turn to 1b and throw, assuming your left foot disengaged the rubber during the feint to 3b. If you made any motion with your hands that looked like you were starting your throwing motion, and then stepped towards 3b you balked.

Couple of thoughts:

1) The question "does this apply to FED" also reveals why a lot of youth ball coaches and players [and some umps] are shocked when they do see a properly-executed pick from the wind-up. Folk get used to the FED rule that F1 can't pick from the WU, and forget the BRD when they leave FEDlandia at the end of the school year.

2) And for those "you don't see this/ it won't work @ higher levels": uhh, I don't know about that. Did a Legion District Tourney last year and one pitcher picked two guys absolutely clean out of their sneakers in sucessive innings. Had to explain to the coach that in non-FED ball, a pick from the windup is perfectly legal: he'd never seen it done. Have to admit it was the first time I'd ever seen it attempted: fortunately my "HUH, what was that??!??" reaction forced/ permitted me to replay what I saw and to recall that this was not a HS game; and kept me silent long enough to make the correct non-call.

Here's a pickoff from the windup that my son executed from the windup position last season. This is a 13U team.

The situation was R2 and R3.

We had a comfortable lead late in the game and he was pitching from the windup position as we were mostly showing defensive indifference at this point.

But R2 was taking a ridiculously large lead. He was taking one of those "in your face" leadoffs.

So, we decided to make an example of this young man ... on principle.

If you watch the video closely, you can see our catcher signal the pickoff maneuver.

The BU called the R2 out, but the PU called it balk claiming, "He didn't step off, coach." This was a game played under OBR rules (USSSA). The PU called mostly high school games and was one of those umpires who only bothers learning ONE set of rule ... FED.

I informed him that the pitcher didn't need to step off. He finally agreed but I didn't feel the need to push the issue and embarrass him since it was pointless. He was wrong and apologetic.

Here's the maneuver: http://www.eteamz.com/HoustonHS/vide...up_pickoff.mov

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Whoever that guy is, way to take your mask off with your right hand.

Consider these two rules:

<i>OBR 8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when:

(a) The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such deliver;

(g)The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate;</i>

Really, do yourself a favor. Buy and read the rulebook.

You are correct ... my wording was "wrong". Replace "foot back" with "Foot to the side".

Further, in a step to the base, the foot will generally point at (toward) the base; in a step that's part of the pitching motion, the foot will generally point at the plate. (And, no, I'm not trying to start the old argument about whether the direction the toes point *requires* a throw in that direction.)

I'm sorry if I offended anyone about the right hand thing.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LDUB
[B]I've watched the video 10 times. Small back step with free foot AND disengaging with the pivot foot to the front of the rubber...I've still got a balk.

I also believe the pitcher has to break his hands apart as he's stepping off the rubber. I've had kids do half of this move correctly, stepping off with the correct foot. But they also bring both hands together over their heads, which is mimicing a windup. That's a balk.

The interpretation I've always used was for a right handed pitcher, step back with his RIGHT foot while breaking both hands apart, step back with the left foot (which effectively makes him a fielder), then he can make a throw to a base. Usually this is only effective when a runner is taking a ridiculous lead, or is being overly aggressive, thinking the pitcher hasn't remembered to pitch from the stretch.

[Edited by orioles35 on Mar 17th, 2005 at 03:34 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TwoBits
[B]Looks very similar to a jump turn. I don't see a balk.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TwoBits
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by LDUB
[B]I have watched this at least 10 times and there is absolutely NOTHING, wrong with this move under OBR.

The breaking of the hands is not required in the step off (OBR). A pitcher can step off the rubber and walk all over creation with his hands together. He must break his hands and let them go to his side before he re-engages the rubber!

Well we didn't get a chance to run any pickoff plays from the windup this weekend. We were going to save them for braket play on Sunday, but the whole day got washed out.

However, on Saturday I did ask two umpires about the rule and neither one of them knew about it. One ump was calling a high school tournament at LSU's Alex Box Stadium and the other called our USSSA 11AA pool play games. They both said illegal in high school and college, which I knew. Neither one of them was sure about USSSA, which uses OBR. Both said they'd probably call a balk. Great, not what I wanted to hear. Guess I better have my rule book in hand with specific citations highlighted whenever we do try it.

We'll work on it in practice and save it for later. I just love to beat other teams by being more prepared.

And . . .
 

. . . if you entered the field where I was umpiring with a rule book in hand you would not have a chance to show me any reference.

Squeak, squeak, squeak.

Re: And . . .
 

Yes, but since you already know the rule, we would never have the discussion.

So, in your opinion, what would be the proper way for me to handle the situation? (Assuming we run the play correctly and the ump calls a balk.)

Ask him for HIS balk reference?
Cite it for him (without the book)?
Accept the ruling and continue to play under protest (file official protest after the game)?

Re: Re: And . . .
 

None of the above. Be proactive, without the rulebook.

Re: Re: Re: And . . .
 

Speak to him on the side prior to the game? That's what we would like to do, if possible. Have a non-confrontational discussion to let him know what we plan on doing. Hash out the rules then.

Re: Re: And . . .
 

Coaching hat: ON

When you suspect an umpire has misapplied a rule on what would <i>normally</i> be a judgment call - you should try to get the umpire to explain <i>which</i> rule he applied and <i>how</i> he applied it. You have to do this in a very non-confrontational way, or he may choose to clam up and give you the "talk to the hand" routine.

In my experience, if you act puzzled about what happened, most umpires will get diarrhea of the mouth and try to impress and educate you with how much they know, never suspecting for one moment that you may know the rule <i>better</i> than he does and that you <i>already</i> know how he has just misapplied it.

You have to get him to articulate his misconception regarding the rule. Once he does, continue to act perplexed and get him to <i>repeat</i> it. It is best if the other umpire is also involved.

Once he has clearly misapplied the rule - you <i>got</i> him! He can hardly change his story now. He's locked in.

There's no point in getting out rulebooks or making threats. In a very dispassionate manner, you state what <i>you</i> understand the rule to be, ask them to reconsider that they may have misapplied the rule, and once they stick with their call ... protest the game, walk away and have a seat. They now <i>cannot</i> proceed with the game without jumping through all the hoops required of an umpire in a protest situation. This will usually involve getting the tournament director involved.

While in the dugout, get out your rulebook, find the pertinent citation, and have it ready. Don't be concerned if they see you doing this. But keep the rulebook in the dugout the whole time!

Some umpires may <i>ask</i> to see the rule. If they do ... show it to them.

If the tournament director misapplies the rule ... <b><i>THEN</i></b> you whip out your rulebook and put it in HIS face ... not the umpire's.

This isn't about being a butthead or a rat - it's about being a <i>COACH</i> and protecting your team against gross misapplications that do great harm to your team. If you're not going to be an advocate for your team then who is?

<b><u>WARNING</u></b>: Only fight the battles that are worth fighting. There's no point proving an umpire wrong in a situation where his misapplication is of no substance. Before taking this route, always ask yourself, "Is this a hill worth climbing?" Frequently, the answer is "No."

Coaching hat: OFF

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 12:19 PM]

Great advice David! Thanks.

Dear King Rat!
 

Dave:

I am just confused as to how your advice could be implimented.

Balks,as balls and strikes, are not an issue that can be argued.

As you could not enter the field to talk with me it seems impossible to use your trap in a game where real umpires umpire.

Seems like this should be a private e-mail between rats.

Andrew:

It seems you have come up with a choice. One alternative is honest and forthright, the other is dishonest, deceptive and rat-like. Your reputation, conscience, and the example that you set for your youthful players and parents are on the line; and I am not being melodramatic. The influence coaches have can be tremendous and their actions often have consequences, or rewards, that outlive them.

One alternative obviously may not always work. It relies on you being straightforward and on the experience and openness of others. The other alternative is sold much like how "Pleasure Island" was sold to Pinnochio.

I understand that it is tempting to take the sleazy way. At lower levels the honest alternative may be successful only half the time, and being deceptive may get you temporary gains more often than that. But sometimes <b>doing</b> the right thing is part of the reward of doing the right thing.

Your earlier posts did not show signs of a Rat mentality, but then when offered a small bit of cheese by a big Rat, you went for it pretty quickly. I hope my first impression of you was not mistaken.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 21st, 2005 at 01:31 PM]

Re: Dear King Rat!
 

It gets implemented in <i>exactly</i> the way I described it.

If the umpire is having "none of it." The case is closed and no argument can be made. In that regard, you're right. After all, it <i>is</i> a judgment call - as you said.

You're probably a darn good umpire, Tim. So, naturally, you have a difficult time relating to this. First of all, you probably wouldn't make a gross rule misapplication. Secondly, you probably have the game management skills to cover your mistakes - as all good umpires have.

So, in that regard, you're right. You would never be in this situation.

But, would you consider this: Not all umpires are nearly as good as you? And, not all umpires would be able to conceal their incompetence beneath a veneer of "game management" skills?

I know this is a particularly hard pill for you to swallow, but there <i>is</i> a little psychology involved when a person is trying to get "their way" with an individual who is predisposed to <i>not</i> allow them to have "their way." This is just the dynamics of athletic competition and does not need to be characterized as being "sleazy" or "cheating" or "rat like."

When I umpire, I'm frequently aware when there is an attempt to manipulate or intimidate me. I don't let it bother me. I just recognize it for what it is and defuse it.

In the situation we are discussing, YOU would defuse it by never having the discussion with the coach. That would work!

The fact of the matter is that judgment plays <i>can</i> be converted to rule issues if the umpire gets too chatty.

A example to highlight this fact:

Example: The batter hits a screaming shot that rings off the foul pole. The umpire rules it foul. Can there possibly be any call that is <i>more</i> of a judgment call than whether a ball is fair or foul? Yet, if the coach inquires and the umpire categorically states that the ball <i>did</i>, in fact, hit the foul pole, and it is <i>because of that</i> that he ruled it foul. The umpire tells you that, "The foul pole is in foul territory."

Do you know of any rules committee or tournament director in the world that would not give serious consideration to overruling such silliness?

I don't see how this is much different than an umpire who calls a balk on a pitcher who executes a pickoff from the windup <i>specifically</i> because the pitcher failed to <i>first</i> step off the rubber.

"Why is it a balk, Blue?"

"The pitcher <i>must</i> first step off the rubber before executing any pickoff move from the windup position?"

"And that's the only reason it was a balk?"

"Yes."

Bzzzzt!

Now, the tournament director would be free to say, "I can't overrule a judgment call." That's fine. But a team who would have such a gross injustice levied upon them would, at least, deserves to have it addressed. If nothing else, the umpire will never make that mistake again.

But, in answer to your inquiry as to how this could ever be implemented ... I <i>have</i> done exactly this on several occasions over the years.

An umpire once awarded an opposing batter first for being hit with a pitch that bounced on the ground, struck the batter, while the batter was chasing it in a bunt attempt. I got the umpire to state that the batter <i>did</i>, in fact attempt to bunt the pitch, but since he <i>missed</i> the pitch, and it hit him - he is awarded 1st.

The batter clearly attempted to bunt the ball. There was no question about it. I just wanted to know whether the umpire didn't notice the bunt attempt, or, whether he <i>did</i> see the bunt attempt and was misapplying the rule. I had to get him to say, one way or the other. As it turned out, he was of the misconception that a hit batsmen gets awarded a base, whether they attempt to strike the ball or not. That's what I figured.

"So, in your opinion, the batter <i>did</i> attempt to bunt the pitch?"

"Yes. But the ball still hit him."

Bzzzzt!

We protested. The tournament director showed up and when the umpire told <i>him</i> what he told <i>me</i> (What else could he do?), the runner was promptly returned to the plate with a strike added to the count.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 04:06 PM]

Tee, Tee, Tee......


Don't bother. Leopards don't change their spots and Rats don't grow a conscience and a respect for integrity.

Consider that a Rat posted this: <i>I know this is a particularly hard pill for you to swallow, but there is a little psychology involved when a person is trying to get "their way" with an individual who is predisposed to not allow them to have "their way." This is just the dynamics of athletic competition and does not need to be characterized as being "sleazy" or "cheating" or "rat like."</i>

Now think about this for a second. He is admitting that using psychology to get his own way is just part of athletic competition. Then he resents that this kind of manipulation and lobbying is considered sleazy or Rat-like.

Unfortunately, he is half-right, that behavior has become common in athletics. But he is also half-wrong; it IS sleazy and Rat-like.

The inablilty of Rats to understand what makes them Rats would be amusing if it weren't so sad. As an educator, it really is disheartening to see the effect this has on kids sometimes. They come to class with that same attitude learned from their coaches...."manipulate and get what I want" with little consideration to what they deserve or what is right.

Some schools foster this behavior in their better athletes by giving in to it. Many high school superstars aren't held to the consequences of their actions. This carries over to college and then the world can't figure out why pro athletes act spoiled. I can. It started with a Rat for a coach.

Since this is umpiring ...
 

Since this is an umpiring board, this is a good opportunity for young umpires to see how coaches think - always trying to get an edge.

And, a good lesson for young umpires - only offer rule book information. When a coach asks for information, use the rule book, don't tell him what you think happened.

Example - the play about the kid bunting. No coach he did not offer at the pitch, he was simply trying to get out of the way of the ball.

In other words, I'm not going to bail out the pitcher who threw a horrible pitch simply because the coach wants an explaination.

There are many many times during the season there will be plays that I can't explain exactly what happened - so I don't try.

Another example - Saturday game and kid is struggling with his pitching mechanics. But, he's still legal.
Suddenly coach says, he can't do that and calls time.

He told me he was on the mound and then changed to the set without stepping off. My comment, "coach I didn't see it." I asked PU, same comment. Game goes on no problem.

I didn't see the kid do anything wrong, but I'm not going to try and argue with the coach.

Thanks
David

Re: Since this is umpiring ...
 

Excellent!

Your observations and advice are dead on!

You, at least, are mature and wise enough to understand the dynamics - and learn from it without getting all offended and appalled by the interaction. You calmly deal with it - and life goes on.

You exercise people skills and purposely withhold information to serve a greater good. Completely understandable.

And, while coaching, when an umpire deals with me in this way - I respect him (although I may disagree with him) and understand <i>exactly</i> where he's coming from.

At least you realize there is a lesson in all this. You are absolutely correct in bringing this to the attention of the younger/inexperienced umpires. That is a much better (and more mature) approach than to just give out an top-of-the-lung cry of "Rat!" like some little kid who just had somebody steal his lollipop.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 04:08 PM]

Garth, I just want to be able to execute a legal pick-off manuever - from the windup. I'm not trying to get over on anyone. It's in the rulebook plain as day. However, based on my discussions with other coaches in the area and a few umps, it sure looks like I'm going to get a balk called.

If there is a good chance of that happening, I would like to find out the best way to handle the situation. One option is pro-active (talk to the ump before the game) and the other option is reactive. If I'm unable to talk to the ump prior to the game, then I have two choices - not run the play or deal with the ump if I get a balk call. David's advice seems like a good way to handle the situation in the latter case.

As someone said, pick your battles. We will pick a timely point in the game to attempt this. Either to set a tone for the rest of the game by keeping baserunners off balance or to get a crucial out. Therefore, it will be a battle I want to fight.

It's unfortunate that we're even having this dicussion. I should be able to have complete faith that the umps know the rules.

Unless an umpire is already familiar with a coach, keep in mind he is forming an impression of you during the game. Most umpires can anticipate and defuse as much trouble as possible during the game and know which coaches are a pain and which are easy to get along with.

I know I've been appreciative of a coach who will tip me off when they're trying the "hidden ball trick", just so it doesn't catch myself or my partner off guard. Same thing in this situation, asking prior to trying a pickoff play that is apparently within the rules for one classification, but a balk in another.

As long as you're respectful, I don't see how this would be a problem. Of course, there's always the chosen few who simply don't want to be bothered. Can't do much about those!

You have a very good outlook on this. You properly sensed that you were getting some undeserved heat from others. That's simply because you have revealed the fact that you coach. To many, that, by definition, makes you a "rat."

Allow me to give you some more advice on this. This advice is based on experience. Too much knowledge can be a very frustrating thing. That is often the case when you umpire AND coach - like yourself. Many times you are going to have umpires who are not nearly as accomplished as yourself. You are going to recognize that fact pretty quickly. But you have to learn to accept it and live with it. If you can't - then you shouldn't be coaching AND umpiring.

Specifically, with regard to balks, it has been my experience that if you do something <i>surprising</i> or <i>unusual</i> (like a pickoff from the windup position), an inexperienced (or a <i>bad</i>) umpire will call it a balk nearly every time. This will especially be true when he's faced with a chorus of "That's a balk!" from you opponents who will certainly make that comment when they are equally surprised. It's often a losing proposition.

The bottom line: Sometimes you can be too smart for your own good.

As already mentioned, your only choices are 1) communicate with the umpires ahead of time or, 2) prepare to go to war and <i>climb</i> that hill.

The third and, by far, the more remote possibility is that the umpire will be good enough to know <i>exactly</i> how to call the play - like many of the fine umpires in this forum.

In the area in which <i>our</i> team plays, my money is not on the third possibility.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

orioles35 wrote:

"Of course, there's always the chosen few who simply don't want to be bothered."

Does this statement mean that you allow coaches/managers to come onto the field of play and argue your call of balk?

What level do you coach again? MiLB, MLB? D-1 SuperRegionals? Great. Then your umpires should be able to have complete faith that you and your players will perform accordingly, eh?

As do players, umpires have to learn their craft and you have to expect you will get a lot of "learners" at your level. You are wrong to think "I should be able to have complete faith that the umps know the rules."

But acting appropriately and with integrity is never wrong, no matter what level of umpire you are dealing with.

And it is not unfortunate that we are having this discussion at all. It is very fortunate. You have the opportunity to learn to deal honestly with situations or choose to deal with them manipulatively.

A true Rat attempting to justify his sleazy actions reminds me of my Grandfather's explanation of advertisers and other "smooth talkers". While walking in our pasture he pointed at a pile of manure. "That, Garth, is a pile of sh!t", he said. "You can pour all the perfume in the world on top of it and it might smell better, but it's still a pile of sh!t."

Re: Dear King Rat!
 

Mr. C: I'd be interested in your citation to support your assertion that a coach/manager cannot "enter the field" to discuss a balk. According to the MLBUM, the only balk where he cannot leave his position is one having to do with the pitcher stepping toward a base. All other balks are fair game.

MLBUM 7.5(e) A manager, coach, or player may not come onto the field or leave his position to protest the call of a balk as defined in Official Baseball Rule 8.05(c) (failure to step directly towards a base before throwing there). If such protest is made, the manager, coach, or player shall be ejected from the game.

MLBUM 7.5(f) A manager may come out and question the reason for a balk call (other than a step balk) and shall not be ejected for his visit to learn why the balk was
called. He may be ejected if he argues the call after explanation.

I mention this because often on Message Boards umpires get urban myths masquerading as rules.

Re: Re: Dear King Rat!
 

I'll let Tee speak for himself, but in my view and experience, there is a world of difference between a manager "questioning" the reason for a balk and "arguing" the balk. I have no problem with the manager, or in my case, the skipper coming out and asking why I called a balk. If after receiving the answer he chooses to remain and argue, he does so at his own peril.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 21st, 2005 at 04:26 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Dear King Rat!
 

And I - and the MLBUM - agree with you. Reread Tee's post: He says the manager isn't going to come out at all. Just over-reaching on his part, I guess.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear King Rat!
 

I guess you and I just read what Tee wrote differently:

<i>Balks,as balls and strikes, are not an issue that can be argued.</i>

I read that as he will not allow the skipper to "argue" a balk call. Neither will I. And according to your agreement with my post, neither will you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear King Rat!
 

I'll type this slowly, so everyone can follow along. (grin) Tee said: "As you could not enter the field to talk with me it seems impossible to use your trap in a game where real umpires umpire."

Tee is not the only umpire who thinks that those who leave their position to "discuss" a balk are to be automatically ejected.

Wiggle how you will, that's what he said. And what he said is wrong.

With the exception of balls and strikes...and as long as the coach is being respectful, what's the harm in talking to him? I think we all can agree that we prefer talking face to face than having to listen to *****ing and whining from the dugout.

Carl/mcrowder
 

I do not work any non-Fed baseball.

I work high school baseball and American Legion (they call it that here but it is still played under FED rules).

Even with that . . .

When I call a balk I tell what it is for . . . (I give an idea what it was, "hey, he has to PAUSE somewhere"). . .

If a coach/manager then tries to enter the field to argue the call (matters not to me FED or OBR if I worked that book) I put up the standard "STOP" sign . . .

It would be a coach's/manager's choice to come out further. He knows there is a possible penalty.

No Alexander Pope here, CC. Coaches/Managers do not come out in the games where I umpire. Pretty simple from my view.



[Edited by bob jenkins on Mar 22nd, 2005 at 07:52 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear King Rat!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB I'll let Tee speak for himself, but in my view and experience, there is a world of difference between a manager "questioning" the reason for a balk and "arguing" the balk. I have no problem with the manager, or in my case, the skipper coming out and asking why I called a balk. If after receiving the answer he chooses to remain and argue, he do so at his own peril.

Quote:

And I - and the MLBUM - agree with you. Reread Tee's post: He says the manager isn't going to come out at all. Just over-reaching on his part, I guess.

Quote:

I guess you and I just read what Tee wrote differently: <i>Balks,as balls and strikes, are not an issue that can be argued.</i> I read that as he will not allow the skipper to "argue" a balk call. Neither will I. And according to your agreement with my post, neither will you.

Quote:

I'll type this slowly, so everyone can follow along. (grin) Tee said: "As you could not enter the field to talk with me it seems impossible to use your trap in a game where real umpires umpire." Tee is not the only umpire who thinks that those who leave their position to "discuss" a balk are to be automatically ejected. Wiggle how you will, that's what he said. And what he said is wrong.

Good Lord, Carl why are you trying to pick a fight with me? Grin all you'd like, it has no effect on reality. I stated <b>what I would do.</b> Amazingly, you agreed.

I said I was not speaking for Tim, and then I quoted an exact line from in his post. And you want to argue quote for quote?

I don't care. No wiggling here. Tee's a big boy and can speak for himself. If you want to argue about Tee's post, argue with Tee.

Please.

Here's the maneuver: http://www.eteamz.com/HoustonHS/vide...up_pickoff.mov


IMO

BALK!
BALK in FED! BALK in OBR! BALK in China! BALK on Mars!

"The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot free.
(Let's call this next sentence #1)
From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration.

He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot. "

The 1st move this pitcher made was a step back with his free foot. Once he did that...he's committed to a pitch. Reason, for a RHP in Windup position, the first step in his natural delivery is always a step back with the left foot.

Now, you'll argue what about (2) below:

"From this position he may: (1) deliver the ball to the batter, or (2) step and throw to a base in an attempt to pick off a runner, "

I'd argue right back..., but look at (3).
"or (3) disengage the rubber (if he does he must drop his hand to his sides). In disengaging the rubber the pitcher must step off with his pivot foot and not his free foot first."

Now, I don't think #3 is the reason for a BALK is this sitch, but it makes about as much sense to argue #3 as it does to ignore #1 while arguing #2.

If you look at the rules individually, you can find ways around them. We (umpires) can't do that. That a Rat's job....Notice I didn't say coach.

Yeah, OBR says you can step toward a base from WUP, but if that step breaks another rule....it's not legal.

Coaches, teach your kids proper mechanics and fundamentals....leave the cracks to the Rats. :)

Re: Re: Re: Dear King Rat!
 

I support this as well. I have no problem with the manager coming out and asking why the balk was called. I'll answer questions, be cordial, etc., but I will not allow a protracted argument on a balk.

I disagree with your impression of the move. I guess there's room to disagree since the video quality is somewhat lacking.

It's nothing more than a jump/spin move. All the pitcher is doing is a quick, and simultaneous, alignment of his feet to make a throw. I don't see any one thing happening before another.

The only thing "unnatural" about the move is that the pitcher doesn't immediately make the throw - he hesitates, apparently under the impression that the shortstop needed more time to get to the bag - and <i>then</i> he throws. Not throwing is not a violation since there is no requirement to throw the ball to second as there is to first.

Also, I can see you are similarly afflicted with coach phobia. Oh - sorry - RAT phobia. I didn't mean to use some foreign and unfamiliar lexicon.

Umpires who, at length, bash coaches speak volumes. It's like the unpopular kid at school who thinks everybody is a jerk because everybody hates him, never once considering that it might be HIM.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 10:07 PM]

Well, you CAN ignore 2 of these and pick one, since the connective in these parts of the sentence is "OR" (not "AND", which would mean that all 3 requirements would needed to be fufilled).

I think this is legal. He stepped to the base and didn't make any motion associated with his pitch while off the rubber.

sympathy for the Devil
 

Tee & Garth:
Not often I'd see myself defending a Rat; but on one hand, I feel some sympathy for Emerling's advice. How, exactly, is a coach to deal effectively with less-than-competent umpires? To deal with a gross misapplication of a rule in an otherwise judgment-based call? His method is effective and appropriate within the rules. As a coach, he needs the dummy to express and commit to the error, so it can be protested, and hopefully fixed. As someone committed to trying to call the game by the published and accepted Rules, rather than some made-up goulash, I neither resent nor fear protests.

Now: that said, I have had Rats [actually, usually youth-league wannabe mousies] try less-effective versions of this technique on me, based on: "so what you're saying ....", followed by an absurd MIS-statement of what I did, in fact say. Now, as y'all may recall, this routine usually causes me to go postal - not here, though. In fact, what they are doing is so transparently foolish, it is all I can do to stop myself laughing at them.

There is a place in the world for intelligent Rats.

Under OBR, if you concede that a pitcher <i>can</i> attempt a pickoff while in the windup position, then what would you accept as a legal "first move?"

If nothing else, you should accept that the free foot should go directly toward the base at which the pickoff is intended. What else could the pitcher do?

You are reading too much into the rule verbiage.

If the free foot executed what could be interpreted as a rocker step then <i>that</i> would require the pitcher to deliver to the batter. If he uses the appearance of doing a rocker movement as a prelude to a pickoff - that would be a balk because he is making a "pitching motion" and is failing to complete the motion by delivering to the batter.

No reasonable person would interpret what this pitcher is doing as executing a "rocker step." It is <i>clearly</i> a jump maneuver in an attempt to pickoff a runner.

BOTH his feet are aligning for the throw. The pivot foot happens to fall in the area directly in front of the rubber (not that it matters) and the free foot is clearly moving toward 2nd (<i>that</i> matters!). Perfectly legal.

I think any umpire that would balk this maneuver is simply booger picking.

Even the umpire that called it a balk gave, as his ONLY reason for it being a balk, that the pitcher simply failed to step off prior to executing the maneuver - applying the FED rule instead of the OBR rule. This was only after he hemmed and hawed about some other stuff as it slowly dawned on him the monumental mistake he had made.

The BU never made a comment other than the fact that he called the runner OUT at 2nd.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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.)

Re: sympathy for the Devil
 

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.

I don't believe I stated that all coaches are Rats, nor do I bash coaches. Your response leads me to believe you took my post as an attack on you, therefore indicating what category you feel you belong. I don't know if you’re a Rat...I don't care.

The only phobia apparent here is yours of umpires that don’t share your opinion. You’ve stated your case, some agree, others don’t. That’s life….everyone on the playground isn’t going to like you.

Then I apologize. I just noticed the liberal use of the word "Rat" in your post.

But, you're right. There really are rat-like coaches just like there are completely incompetent umpires. Neither has a corner on the market.

I've been coaching and umpiring too long for the term to phase me. The only people that have ever referred to me as a "rat" are the internet umpires. I get along with my players ... their parents ... and work harder at keeping peace in our games than 99% of the coaches out there. So I'm pretty much immune to it. I just find it fascinating how many umpires are spring-loaded to think the absolute WORSE of coaches knowing nothing more than that they <i>are</i> coaches.

I'm not afraid of the possibility that you don't share my opinion that the video of the pickoff play is not a balk. That's why I made the video available. I suspected that there would be some who would LOOK for a balk in what is basically a very common maneuver - although initiated from the windup position. Had the pitcher been in the set position and performed the <i>identical</i> maneuver, it probably wouldn't even have occurred to you to call a balk.

It's interesting how umpires put a much more strict criteria on the pitcher simply because he initiated the move from the windup position - as if there is some kind of higher burden the pitcher must meet.

If a pitcher simply steps (in the direction of the base), in one continuous motion - no balk.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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.

Re: Re: sympathy for the Devil
 

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

Hell, it's <i>easy</i> 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 <i>is</i> 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: <A HREF="http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3489">Manipulating the Umpire</A>.

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 <i>two</i> 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 <i>hate</i> 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 <i>adults</i> 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 <i>doesn't</i> 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 <i>stand</i> it. You're simply finding a way to be nice without creating conflict - <i>to your advantage</i>.

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 <i>am</i> 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 <i>that</i> 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 <i>coach</i>, 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]

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.

OBR vs FED vs College vs Common Sense
 

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!

Re: OBR vs FED vs College vs Common Sense
 

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.

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.

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

USSSA doesn't even have a <A HREF="http://www.usssabaseball.org/content/reports/2005%20rules-final.pdf">rulebook</A>, per se.

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

FED rules do <i>not</i> apply to games played under USSSA.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Re: OBR vs FED vs College vs Common Sense
 

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

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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**.

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.

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.

Re: OBR vs FED vs College vs Common Sense
 

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.

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

Re: Re: OBR vs FED vs College vs Common Sense
 

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 <i>sake</i> of being different. I think most umpires understand the points you mention above. Those <i>aren't</i> the frustrating rules.

In <i>this</i> thread we've been talking about a pitcher's ability to execute a pickoff from the windup position <i>without</i> 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 <i>exactly</i> what USSSA baseball has done. They adopt OBR rules and list the differences ... all of which involve logical things that address <i>only</i> 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 <i>most</i> 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 <i>verbally</i> - as allowed by FED? Why make an unnecessary throw? It's because even the <i>players</i> and <i>coaches</i> 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. <i>That's</i> 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 <i>much</i> 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 <i>not</i> out in FED ball, as long as the umpire considers it unintentional. Why have such a rule? It's different for <i>what</i> reason? He should be <i>out</i> just like the big leaguers. And don't tell me this rule makes it <i>easier</i> on the umpire as is often brought up with many of the rule differences. It would be <i>much</i> easier to simply call the BR out ... and much less ensuing conflict. My guess is that most high school players, coaches, and fans would <i>expect</i> 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 <i>not</i> calling the BR out in this circumstance. Invoke the FED ruling on this play then <i>duck</i>.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Re: Re: Re: OBR vs FED vs College vs Common Sense
 

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