College Protest

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Kaliix
This seems to be one of those, "There is no reason for FED to be different than OBR" rules.

Making changes for the sake of making changes...

1. Fed rule changes are "coach driven." They are not created by bureaucrats sitting around a table deciding what to do with the next two hours before quitting time. Just because you do not see a reason for a rule does not mean one did not exist. Reasons for changes must be submitted with the request for the change.

2. Which rules do the youth football and basketball teams use in your area? No doubt, unless you're in Texas, FED. We never hear this anti-FED mantra in those sports. Why all the whining in baseball?

[Kaliix]

Garth,
I really can't believe you wrote that. Your trying to sell me on the FED differences from OBR by telling me that they are COACH DRIVEN! ROTFLMAO!!!

Coaches are the last freakin people that should anything to do with making up rules. They don't seem to understand a good many of them, have another set just flat wrong and are totally unaware that some exist. No wonder why there are so many different FED rules.

And honestly, I don't care what other sports do. It's not relevant. Do their summer leagues use NBA rules? Has the NBA been around for a century? The summer leagues around here use OBR with the exception of substitution/reentry, FPSR and malicious contact. And it all works out fine.

FED comes out with the rules dujour every year. There is no reason to do that. The rules are, for the most part, fine. A slight tweak here or there but other than that, leave 'em alone and play ball.

Originally posted by GarthB

1. Fed rule changes are "coach driven." They are not created by bureaucrats sitting around a table deciding what to do with the next two hours before quitting time. Just because you do not see a reason for a rule does not mean one did not exist. Reasons for changes must be submitted with the request for the change.

2. Which rules do the youth football and basketball teams use in your area? No doubt, unless you're in Texas, FED. We never hear this anti-FED mantra in those sports. Why all the whining in baseball?

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Why is it a different issue? What makes the foul line special?

The NCAA Study Guide I have indicates that for R2 he should be called out for abandonment when he crosses the foul line. And as I asked earlier, would this not be a timing play, ie if R3 crossed home before R2 crossed foul line-ballgame?

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Garth,
I really can't believe you wrote that. Your trying to sell me on the FED differences from OBR by telling me that they are COACH DRIVEN! ROTFLMAO!!!

Coaches are the last freakin people that should anything to do with making up rules. They don't seem to understand a good many of them, have another set just flat wrong and are totally unaware that some exist. No wonder why there are so many different FED rules.

And honestly, I don't care what other sports do. It's not relevant. Do their summer leagues use NBA rules? Has the NBA been around for a century? The summer leagues around here use OBR with the exception of substitution/reentry, FPSR and malicious contact. And it all works out fine.

FED comes out with the rules dujour every year. There is no reason to do that. The rules are, for the most part, fine. A slight tweak here or there but other than that, leave 'em alone and play ball.

I'll type slowly in hopes that you can better follow this. Go ahead and move your lips while you read if you need to.

1. I never attempted to "sell" you anything. I merely explained how rules changes were proposed and stated that reasons for the change were submitted with the proposal.

2. Again, just because you may disagree with a rule does not mean it was accepted without reason.

3. Since you seem to understand French: Cessez d'être un bébé. Si vous n'aimez pas le FED, ne travaillez pas avec eux. Votre pleurnicherie est devenue fatiguante. Travaillez vous pour la Little League. Ils ne changeraient jamais des règles pour leur propre avantage.

4. It IS relevant that officials in other sports can work with FED without b!itching or getting their panties all knotted up. It is very revealing that baseball umpires for some reason cannot act as professionally and work within the structure their client asks them to work without constantly complaining.

When you change jobs, do you insist on working at the new company under the same policies that existed at the old company? I work for several employers at the same time. I would never think to complain that they each have different policies.





[Edited by GarthB on Apr 7th, 2005 at 11:11 PM]

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

The NCAA Study Guide I have indicates that for R2 he should be called out for abandonment when he crosses the foul line. And as I asked earlier, would this not be a timing play, ie if R3 crossed home before R2 crossed foul line-ballgame?

That's great. 8-5c says a runner heading for his dugout or defensive position is automatically charged with abandonment.

Carl, in the BRD, cites 8-1a as the reason why all runners must advance in the NCAA in this situation, but I don't see anything quite like this in 8-1a. To me, it's a stretch, and I simply would apply the OBR rule unless specifically told otherwise. Even Carl calls it an "appeal play" and not an abandonment issue, though.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

That's true for OBR, not true for FED -- and I don't know for NCAA (which this was).

Where NCAA is silent, it defers to OBR, which allows the run in this specific situation.

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

That's great. 8-5c says a runner heading for his dugout or defensive position is automatically charged with abandonment.

Carl, in the BRD, cites 8-1a as the reason why all runners must advance in the NCAA in this situation, but I don't see anything quite like this in 8-1a. To me, it's a stretch, and I simply would apply the OBR rule unless specifically told otherwise. Even Carl calls it an "appeal play" and not an abandonment issue, though.

8-5c also says "believing a put out was made" which does not apply in this case. If R3 touches home and BR touches 1B I would call ballgame on a bases loaded walk in the bottom of the last inning. Everybody in attendance would expect this to be the call.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

8-5c also says "believing a put out was made" which does not apply in this case. If R3 touches home and BR touches 1B I would call ballgame on a bases loaded walk in the bottom of the last inning. Everybody in attendance would expect this to be the call.

It's the closest thing that applies.

Hey, I agree with you. I don't consider what Carl posted to be convincing evidence of the intent of the NCAA rules editor. But he obviously posted what he did for a reason and he called this an appeal play in FED/NCAA.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by largeone59
Bob, what is the Fed Ruling and rule ref?

9-1 Note 2

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Why is it a different issue? What makes the foul line special?

What if R3, while taking his award, "crossed the foul line"?

I think you pretty much have to make them enter the dugout -or- by their action, they show the clear intent of not assuming their running responsibilities. (EXAMPLE: Runner slides into 2nd and is called safe but he thinks he was called out to end the inning. So, he trots out to right field (his position) and waits for one of his teammates to bring out his hat and glove.)

When a runner seemingly abandons his efforts to run the bases, you almost have to put a "clock" on him to see if he resumes his running responsibilities within a reasonable time.

If the runner is briefly under some kind of misconception that causes him to think he no longer needs to the run the bases, and he comes to his senses in a reasonable amount of time - I would not be quick to call him out for abandonment ... as long as he never entered the dugout.

In my mind, I'd be like a basketball referee making sure the offense gets the ball past half court within 10-seconds.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Apr 8th, 2005 at 01:36 PM]

[Kaliix]

Garth,
Fine, your trying to "explain" to me the coacher submit rule changes. That still doesn't change the fact that coaches are the last people anyone in FED should be listening to in regards to rule changes.

You just made my point for me. The constant, silly, changing rules for the sake of changing rules is done because coaches are behind it. That explains the new idiotic non-balk.

If they do have reasons for changes, unless they fall under the categories I listed earlier, the reasons are likely poor. Any idiot can give a reason, it doesn't make it a logical or good reason though does it.

And for the record, I call the FED rules the way the want them called, however stupid they may be. But that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't point out the stupidity of the 2 base lodged ball rule or the non-balk shoulder turn rule or the two tone pitchers glove rule. They are poorly thought out rules that shouldn't be there. They are so I call them, but they are still idiotic.

Officials in other sports may not have this problem because they may make fewer stupid rules that differ from pro rules. Or maybe other officials are not bright enough to recognize dumba$$ rules when they see them or just don't want to rock the boat. Whatever the reason, I don't care. What matters is that for baseball, FED has come up with some unnecessary and dare I say, nonsensical changes to OBR that seem to made for the sake of making changes. IMHO.

Oh, and I don't speak french, so I ignored that part. It was probably the opinion "of the day" anyways. ;-)

Originally posted by GarthB

I'll type slowly in hopes that you can better follow this. Go ahead and move your lips while you read if you need to.

1. I never attempted to "sell" you anything. I merely explained how rules changes were proposed and stated that reasons for the change were submitted with the proposal.

2. Again, just because you may disagree with a rule does not mean it was accepted without reason.

3. Since you seem to understand French: Cessez d'être un bébé. Si vous n'aimez pas le FED, ne travaillez pas avec eux. Votre pleurnicherie est devenue fatiguante. Travaillez vous pour la Little League. Ils ne changeraient jamais des règles pour leur propre avantage.

4. It IS relevant that officials in other sports can work with FED without b!itching or getting their panties all knotted up. It is very revealing that baseball umpires for some reason cannot act as professionally and work within the structure their client asks them to work without constantly complaining.

When you change jobs, do you insist on working at the new company under the same policies that existed at the old company? I work for several employers at the same time. I would never think to complain that they each have different policies.





[Edited by GarthB on Apr 7th, 2005 at 11:11 PM]

[DG]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
In September 2003 I sent this to MLB.com:

In the Aug. 26 Tigers/Indians game, the Tigers had R1, R2, R3 and one out when Higginson grounded to third. The Indians F5 Blake threw to F4 McDonald at second to force R1 Klassen (who was tagged before reaching the base). Meanwhile, R2 Sanchez retreated to second on the throw and was standing there when the tag was made on R1, removing the force. Sanchez left second base under the mistaken assumption that HE had been put out and headed for the dugout. U2 Marty Foster correctly ruled that Sanchez had abandoned his effort to run the bases and was out number three. Before that call, R3 Santiago touched home. Santiago's run was disallowed; newspaper reports said the umpires ruled that Sanchez left second base before Santiago crossed the plate, negating the run.

If a runner has abandoned his base, is the timing of the ruling retroactive to when he left his base, or does abandonment take place the moment when the umpire judges that the runner is no longer attempting to legally advance or retreat? That is, if R3 touches home before R2 leaves his base, clearly the run counts. If R3 touches the plate after the umpires call R2 out for abandonment, clearly the run does not count. If R3 touches the plate after R2 leaves his base, but before the U rules abandonment, what is the timing of the out?

Since R2 can obviously leave his base in an attempt to advance, it seems the umpire needs allow the runner at least a few steps before judging that he has abandoned his attempt to advance. Of course, if R2 retires toward the first base dugout, it makes the call easier than if he heads toward the third base dugout; that is, in the same direction as his advance base.

It appears that the ruling is that if a runner leaves his base, and that leaving is ultimately ruled abandonment, the abandonment is ruled to have occurred at the moment the runner left his base. Therefore, with two out R3 must cross the plate before the abandoning runner leaves his base in order for R3's run to count. Is this correct?


They replied:

Hi Jim,

Neither the rulebook nor the MLB Umpire Manual indicates whether the time of the out for abandonment is when the runner leaves the base or when he is actually called out. The crew ruled that the time of the out was when the
runner left the base. They felt it was unfair to the defense to give the runner enough leeway to let the run score. After all, the runner who abandoned the bases was the one at fault.

Thanks for your inquiry!

World Umpires Association

It appears the crew applied 9.01c since this situation was not covered by rules or by MLBUM. However, the crew made it a timing play. - "newspaper reports said the umpires ruled that Sanchez left second base before Santiago crossed the plate, negating the run." This was originally a college question and the collge guide I have says that abandonment should be called on R2, when he crosses the foul line, not when he left 2B. PBUC indicates otherwise, "Runner...leaves the baseline and heads toward dugout. He is declared out before the runner from third reaches home plate. - Ruling: No runs score; this is a time play."

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
Garth,


You just made my point for me. The constant, silly, changing rules for the sake of changing rules is done because coaches are behind it. That explains the new idiotic non-balk.

Okay, if you're going to keep repeating this myth, provide examples. List some constant changine rules that were changed for the sake of change.


Any idiot can give a reason

I'll have to concede this point. Your posts have been proof of that.


Officials in other sports may not have this problem because they may make fewer stupid rules that differ from.

There are as many, if not more, changes to the NFL rules in FED Football. Some are even more "game changing". FED has not communicated the reasons in any greater detail than they do in baseball. Football officials, for whatever reason, don't seem to enjoy whining and harping as much as baseball umpires.

Oh, and I don't speak french, so I ignored that part. It was probably the opinion "of the day" anyways. ;-)

C'est dommage. Comme Benjamin Franklin dit une fois, "toutes les personnes ont deux langues, leurs propres et le français."

[Kaliix]

Thanks for calling me an idiot Garth. That's the last bastion of someone who has obviously lost an argument and has no retort other than, "Your an ________" (insert derogatory phrase here)

Maybe you don't agree with the phrase, "changing rules for the sake of changing rules" and want to call this a myth. You may be right, I call it changing rules for the sake of changing rules when it really should be changing rules with no obvious legitimate purpose or pi$$ poor, illogical reasons. I thought you could grasp that subtlety. My bad.

I thought I listed some rules in my last post. Care to comment on those?

And I thought that someone who is so highly educated could tell the difference between intelligent discourse and "whining and harping". I gave clear reasons why I think that rules other than for
1)increased participation/substitution
2)force play slide
3)malicious contact
4)equipment specifications
are generally made for poor reasons. I explained why listening to coaches on rule changes is not advisable. I even explained in a clear manner why I am not "whining and harping" but intelligently disagree-ing with the certain FED rules.

You however have yet to really give me good reasons for anything. Instead you call me names, accuse me of whining and speak French.

Huuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Originally posted by Kaliix
Garth,


You just made my point for me. The constant, silly, changing rules for the sake of changing rules is done because coaches are behind it. That explains the new idiotic non-balk.

Okay, if you're going to keep repeating this myth, provide examples. List some constant changine rules that were changed for the sake of change.


Any idiot can give a reason

I'll have to concede this point. Your posts have been proof of that.


Officials in other sports may not have this problem because they may make fewer stupid rules that differ from.

There are as many, if not more, changes to the NFL rules in FED Football. Some are even more "game changing". FED has not communicated the reasons in any greater detail than they do in baseball. Football officials, for whatever reason, don't seem to enjoy whining and harping as much as baseball umpires.

Oh, and I don't speak french, so I ignored that part. It was probably the opinion "of the day" anyways. ;-)

C'est dommage. Comme Benjamin Franklin dit une fois, "toutes les personnes ont deux langues, leurs propres et le français."

[Rich]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
Thanks for calling me an idiot Garth. That's the last bastion of someone who has obviously lost an argument and has no retort other than, "Your an ________" (insert derogatory phrase here)

Maybe you don't agree with the phrase, "changing rules for the sake of changing rules" and want to call this a myth. You may be right, I call it changing rules for the sake of changing rules when it really should be changing rules with no obvious legitimate purpose or pi$$ poor, illogical reasons. I thought you could grasp that subtlety. My bad.

I thought I listed some rules in my last post. Care to comment on those?

And I thought that someone who is so highly educated could tell the difference between intelligent discourse and "whining and harping". I gave clear reasons why I think that rules other than for
1)increased participation/substitution
2)force play slide
3)malicious contact
4)equipment specifications
are generally made for poor reasons. I explained why listening to coaches on rule changes is not advisable. I even explained in a clear manner why I am not "whining and harping" but intelligently disagree-ing with the certain FED rules.

You however have yet to really give me good reasons for anything. Instead you call me names, accuse me of whining and speak French.

Huuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

Originally posted by GarthB

You forget one thing -- your role is that of an umpire. It's much easier to just learn the rules and not worry about why they are different.

I don't CARE that all obstruction is type B -- I just know when I call a HS or college game that's the way it is and in the summer playing OBR, that's NOT the way it is.