College Protest

[Tim C]

I am with Garth and Rich on this . . .

FEDlandia is a vast nation that is impacted by things that you (and I) may never experience.

Trust me, I have gone from thoughts much like yours to understand more-and-more "why" FED does what it does.

Let me, in a non-judgmental way, explain a few FED ideals:

1) All children that play FED sports have parents . . . these parents have attorneys.

2) We live in a society where when people cannot perform that take legal actions to insure that their child can have fewer obstructions to fullfill that parent's dream.

3) FED has a huge challenge in keeping up with all the physical, societal and attitude changes.

Are FED rules cumbersome?

At times.

Do the "just make stuff up"? Nope.

Again FED has priorities.

Rules are made generally for the following reasons:

1) Safety. #1 issue with FED is keeping sport alive at the high school level. Injuries could be the one force that ends interscholatic play. FED understands this.

2) Participation. You also agree that it is FED's job to make openings for more children to learn the spirit of sport by participation. They have taken the time to understand and build rules that allow children to play.

3) Speed-up. This surprises me since we sledom see a 7 inning high school game much over 2 hours in this area. HOWEVER when I did research on this issue for an article I found that there are areas of the US that REGULARLY see 4 (four) hour high school seven inning games. FED found that several small issues added to this time and did a fair job (since tweaked several times) to try to let a game be played as intended (without a game clock) by kept moving.

4) Inconsistently trained umpires. By far the largest issue that FED deals with each new high school season. I have been a member of seven different associations. I have found a common denominator at each one.

There are seldom enough umpires to work all scheduled games. Even in a well trained association you have umpires that are no more than "warm bodies" to fill slots.

Training is so widely variant at different geographical areas FED has tried hard to eliinate many judgment type calls and made them more simpler, non-judgmental, rules.

This is why we have the "automatic foul ball" on an incorect call of "foul", speed not an issue in the turning of shoulders to check a runner at first base, and a clear definition of the start of a wind up as in an associated thread on this page.

I was taught long ago:

"If you really want to understand something, try to change it!"

When I reached my upper limit of dissatisfaction with FED I began to look for ways to influence a change. What I found is that FED is not "a group of people that meet each summer and to justify their positions so they change rules,", to a fine understanding of "how" rules are changed.

In closing, the preponderence of rules changes are instigated by COACHES -- it is this group that wants the limits established for the game they teach. Umpires simply are reporters of what happens on the field of play.

Again, I intone the following:

"If you do not like the rules your client supplies YOU have the choice to not work those games."

FED umpires complain more about Federation rules than all other FED sports officials combined.

[GarthB]

[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)

But it was neither a statment not my last retort. It was an inference based on your own criteria, and rather "Parker-esque", I thought. I congratulate you on undertanding it.

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.

1. You're right. 2. You're wrong. 3. Nothing subtle there, just an incorrect assumption.

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

Actually, reviewing your previous posts I found a couple that I didn't see orginally, buried underneath your repetivitve vague claims of "rules du jour" and "change for the sake of change."

FED's ruking the lodged ball incident was based on safety. They did not the possibility that the ball would become dis-lodged when the glove was thrown, thus having two projectiles in the air at the same time. I was also opposed to their ruling, however, whether I agree or disagree with it or it's reasoning, I recognized that considerable time was spent discussing and considering it and it was done for a reason, not for the sake of change.

The balk rules in FED are primarily there becuase FED, unlike pro ball, has no guarantee of uniformity of umpiring training or quality and in such areas has decided to reduce as much as possible the opportunities for differing interpretations and enforcement.

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.

1. Only one of your four reasons for rule differences is correct.

2. You have explained nothing.

3. You have offered nothing in the form of an intelligent disagreement, instead preferring to repeat your mantra of "change for the sake of change."

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

Most everyone has offered you the same good reasons. You have decided to ignore them. If my inference that you are proof of your own theory offends you, I apologize. And since you used a French phrase in your post initially, I decided to use a few in mine. Again, if that offends you, pardonnez moi.

Huuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

I can name that tume in one note......



[Edited by GarthB on Apr 9th, 2005 at 12:10 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Kaliix
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 disagreeing 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.

[/B][/QUOTE] Estoy simpatico con su queja cerca de francés. Pienso que francés no vale verga.

But let me ask a few questions:

1. Do you approve of the ball being dead immediately on a balk?
That's the way it was for years in the OBR.
--------

2. Do you like all obstruction to be Type b?
Evans says distinguishing between Type a and Type b obstruction is one of the most difficult judgments an umpire must make.
--------

3. Do you like to have a rule you can use to keep batters in the box?
I bet you every major league umpire would support that as a rule change.
--------

4. Do you approve of a dead ball appeal?
It certainly saves time and is easy for amateurs to remember.
--------

5. Do you like the FED designated hitter rule?
It's by far the easiest of the four DH rules. That is, it's the most umpire friendly.

Let me say that each of those rules is a significant advance for baseball.

What do you think?

[DG]

1. I suppose there has been more than one hit that scored runs after after a balk, thus the change, in OBR. The players want the stats, and accepting the result of the play for a hit ball is often a worse penalty than the dead ball balk penalty.

2. It makes little sense to me to advance a runner who was obstructed, but not being played upon.

3. Keeping one foot in the box is the best game time management rule ever invented.

4. Another good time management rule is the dead ball appeal. Really, why should the ball need to be alive to appeal a runner missing a base?

5. FED DH rules seems as easy as OBR, only in FED you can DH for anyone in the lineup.

I like the following FED rules.

1. Malicious contact.

2. FPSR.

3. Only one offensive conference per inning.

I don't like the following FED rules.

1. Courtesy run for the catcher or pitcher at any time, catcher with two outs. It often takes more time to get a courtesy runner on the field than it does for the catcher to hustle in, get his gear on, and relieve whomever was warming up the pitcher.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Estoy simpatico con su queja cerca de francés. Pienso que francés no vale verga.

Oh yeah?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DG
1. I suppose there has been more than one hit that scored runs after after a balk, thus the change, in OBR. The players want the stats, and accepting the result of the play for a hit ball is often a worse penalty than the dead ball balk penalty.

2. It makes little sense to me to advance a runner who was obstructed, but not being played upon.

3. Keeping one foot in the box is the best game time management rule ever invented.

4. Another good time management rule is the dead ball appeal. Really, why should the ball need to be alive to appeal a runner missing a base?

5. FED DH rules seems as easy as OBR, only in FED you can DH for anyone in the lineup.

I like the following FED rules.

1. Malicious contact.

2. FPSR.

3. Only one offensive conference per inning.

I don't like the following FED rules.

1. Courtesy run for the catcher or pitcher at any time, catcher with two outs. It often takes more time to get a courtesy runner on the field than it does for the catcher to hustle in, get his gear on, and relieve whomever was warming up the pitcher.

It's a thoughtful reply, but I don't understand this:

2. It makes little sense to me to advance a runner who was obstructed, but not being played upon.

Runners in the OBR are advanced under 7.06b, obstruction when the defense is not playing on the runner. The great thing about FED is that every obstruction is Type b, so you don't have to struggle with that decision. (Evans)

Also I think you'll find the FED designated hitter rule is far simpler than OBR. When the DH may hit only for the pitcher, that brings up a real can of worms: When is the DH role lost? (four times in OBR] What if the DH doesn't bat once? What if the pitcher hits for someone other than the DH? Etc., etc. In FED, you lose the DH if he plays defense or if someone he batted for hits for him.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

Oh yeah? [/B]

I'm laughing out loud.

(That's a great post, Mr. Benham.)