Just got back from my association meeting. There was a question on the test that lead to some very interesting discussion.

NFHS Rules Exam Part 1 Under the section "A balk will be declared when,"
Question # 88 "The pitcher in the set position, with his hands at this side, turns his shoulders in a quick move to look at the runner on first base."

Answer - True

FED Rule 6 Art 1 (in gray) "Turning the shoulder to check runners while in contact with the pitchers's plate in the set position is legal. Turning the shoulders after bringing the hands together is a balk."

Apparently there is a case book play which was read aloud to us at the meeting. It basically states that the pitcher with a runner on first, from the set, either a)turns his shoulders in a quick manner or b)turns his shoulders in a slow manner. Either is legal, no balk. (Sorry to paraphrase, but I don't have the casebook).

Our rules interpretor then goes on to tell us that he discussed this rule with some FED state official and was told that the case book (and apparently the rule book) are WRONG, and that a quick shoulder turn from the set is a balk.

Can I just say, WHAT THE F*&%, OVER!!! I can just see the S&#@HOUSE now.

Anyone got any input on this (besides that FED is $%&#@^!)? Has there been a definitive ruling? And how is it that we are just supposed to ignore the rule book and case book. Geez...

Well, to relieve the confusion.... the actual answer to #88 was False....

I would have to agree with you and not your interpreter. My buddy had a similar argument.

A shoulder turn before you come set, no matter how fast, is legal (as stated in the casebook).

I would side with the rulebook and the case book. Your Fed interpreter and "some state FED official" will not likely be available at your games to support you.

I also believe answer to 88 is "incorrect". In my state an appeal of test score is possible within 10 days of receiving your score. Armed with the rule book and case book play you should be able to successfully lobby for a change in your score if you answered "incorrect" and the answer key has "correct".

In my state #88 was false.

Peace

The "definitive" FED ruling is Situation 17 on the NFHS website [Rule/ Baseball page]. Even a "quick" turn is legal per NFHS before F1 joins his hands.

The official & national answer for # 88 is False. Perhaps your state's mileage varies.

And,
 

Again the answer to the question (taken directly from the FED answer sheet) is false.

Speed is of no matter when shoulders turn.

This is where OBR and FED >>>
 

This is the problem with FED trying to go with OBR rules but keeping them different.

If he makes a quick turn in OBR, its going to be a balk.

I don't agree with FED on their rulings but if I'm calling FED, I do call it the way they want. (sigh)

Thanks
David

Re: This is where OBR and FED >>>
 

You have to understand that a lot of people do not work under OBR rules. It makes no difference to me if the rules are different. I have to deal with the same issues when I work other sports when I work between levels or leagues. I do not understand why umpires have such a difficult time dealing with the differences.

Peace

We had our Interpretation meeting last night. According to the CT State Interpretor, the quick move is "illegal"..


Oh the fun of it all.

jicecone
 

How does the state interpretor cover the sample play given on the NFHS website? It is EXACTLY a quick turn.

I am not questioning you at all, just asking how a state honcho can make statements as he did.

Thanks for posting his opinion.

Re: jicecone
 

I agree, and we asked the same thing. It is a bit irritating when you discuss case studies and people look at you with strange expressions??? Then again, mabey my wife is correct about spending the other half of my life going over this stuff.

My reply was to, "ask the state interpretor for this ruling, in writing." Of course our own interpretor is much more diplomatic about it than I. He stated that he will ask for this to be reviewed and get back to us.

I will udate you later.

Re: jicecone
 

Sadly, out interpreter gave the same impression. He was quick to say he would check on it when I asked him about it.

The problem with our guy is that I don't think he's even read the interpretations at all.

Talk about being up on your stuff??? NOT!

Thanks
David

jicecone, you and I both live in CT. At least the same ridiculous interpretation is being passed to all the associations in CT.

We too questioned our rules interpreter and he basically told us the exact same thing.

I am still trying to figure out how the CT state interpreter can over-rule the FED rule and case book. FED explicitly states that only they make and change rules.

Hence the title of the thread.

This didn't happen in my assoc, but my buddy's assoc said this move was illegal also. They had a half hour argument about it in their meeting and the jury is still out. He even shoved it back in his interpreter's face:

Interpreter: "blah blah blah... this move is illegal."

My Buddy: *raises hand* "So we're changing the rule?"

Interpreter: "uh.. um... uh..." *followed by more stuttering and stammering*

Another umpire: "Exactly!"

I really wish interpreters would follow the rules.

Just a followup, this is the ruling we got from our State Interpreter:

"The 2005 Casebook page 42 Situation J a) allows the pitcher to make an "abrupt" and quick shoulder turn while on the rubber with hands separated. The case book ruling 6-1-1-SITUATION J is "partially" incorrect The RULING should read illegal in (a)and legal in (b). NFHS is aware of the incorrect ruling and will be changing it in next year's case book. This has been confirmed with the - State Interpreter. In the unlikely even that a "studious" coach refers to the ruling in the case book, the umpire should simply tell him that there was a mistake during printing of the case book."

Happy Easter.