http://www.uwsp.edu/athletics/baseball/2005/Stout.htm

I'm glad to see you weren't on this one Rich. This sounds like a mess!!

Interesting issue. I would assume abandonment would be the reason for calling the runner out. Guideline for a runner on 2B would be when he crosses a foul line, which this runner did not do. But let's suppose he did, but the runner from 3d crossed the plate before the abandonment call? Is this a timing play, ie abandonment came after the winning run scores? Does the runner from 2b have to touch 3b, or just not be called out for abandonment before the runner on 3b scores? Hmmm...

You are correct that this would be a timing play. If the runner from third scored before the abandonment of R2, then the run would count, absent an appeal from the defense. However, even if R3 scored before R2 abandoned, the defense would still have the opportunity to appeal that R2 did not touch third. And if they did, the run would not score because the appeal against R2 at third base would be a force out and no runs can score when the third out is a force play. However, I would not consider R2 to have abandoned until he had reached the dugout. In addition, without knowing the specifics of this situation, I think that in general by calling R2 out in this situation you are really taking the short end of the stick as an umpire. R2 is an idiot, but the team scored the winning run and absent a clear case of abandonment, I would let the run score and go home.

I was elsewhere on Saturday, B'Gosh.

The key thing to remember on this play is that a BB is an AWARD. The only runners required to advance in this situation are the BR and R3.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Apr 6th, 2005 at 10:32 AM]

According to J/R this is not a time play. As long as the BR touches 1st base and R3 touches home the run scores.

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

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...

Bob, what is the Fed Ruling and rule ref?

I'm not sure why having different rule sets is that big of a deal -- we deal with it in every other sport, too.

Nothing wrong with different sets of rules. Every age group here has a different set of rules.

There's nothing wrong with having different sets of rules. It is when FED makes changes for reasons other than
1)increased participation/substitution
2)force play slide
3)malicious contact
4)equipment specifications
that they are likely making changes for the sake of making changes.

OBR work fine the large majority of the time.

I hate to sound like a FED apologist, but what about when OBR changes the rules -- should the FED just go along with those changes? I mean, balks used to be immediately dead in the pro book.....maybe FED has it right.

Most of the time I hear these complaints, it's from umpires that really don't study ANY of the rules (this is not directed toward anyone here, just a general observation). We had a meeting of umpires last week where some guys that have been calling college ball for 25 years tried to apply the FED balk rule to games played under OBR (they argued that all balks are immediately dead). It's just sad.

Most of the rule differences are easy to remember if one just takes the time to learn the differences in the first place. Even so, before my first college game this season, I looked through the rules that I always seem to forget -- number of conferences allowed, for example. Once I'm on the field, I know exactly what I need to know. I hope.

It sounds like this protest situation doesn't have ANY specific language covering it for NCAA rules. Except in J/R, that is, and that has nothing to do with NCAA rules. Of course, I haven't had the time to actually research this....but when the HS rules specifically require the runners to advance to the next base and the other rulesets are pretty quiet about the whole thing, I can understand why the umpires ruled as they did.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Apr 7th, 2005 at 12:58 PM]

OK,
 

Rich, I was informed by Dave Yeast that when NCAA rules do not cover a specific situation that we are to "default" to OBR, does this begin to give you a direction to make assumptions about this specific play?

Re: OK,
 

Tee, I understand that. And I have all the direction I need to rule accordingly :)

But this ruling is only available in the J/R and (I'm guessing) the BRD. Again, I understand why this ruling could be made. That's all I was saying.

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

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?

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.

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?

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]

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.

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

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.

9-1 Note 2

What if R3, while taking <i>his</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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]

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. ;-)

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."

[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."

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

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."

[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?????

Quote:

Originally posted by 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."

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.

Kalix,
 

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.

[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......:D



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

[/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?

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

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

Oh yeah?

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

I'm laughing out loud.

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