|
|||
Re: Re: Billy, Billy, Billy
Quote:
Tee was quoting a reference by Brad Rumble, not citing a personal belief. He is correct in his reference. Rumble did say what Tee wrote. Before you argue further you should check with your editor at officiating.com.
__________________
GB |
|
|||
Re: bama:
Quote:
Perhaps you recall the screaming about my play in the BRD concerning a lodged ball: "We ain't calling it in Illinois," someone posted. "Our interpreter told us...." Umpires from other states chimed in. They were all wrong, of course. When the interpreters met in January, the FED administrators put a stop to all that nonsense. You pointed out that FED umpires are always complaining about the rules rather than doing what their "bosses" (the NFHS) require. As Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, You are "balls on accurate." |
|
|||
Re: Re: bama:
Quote:
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: bama:
Quote:
|
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: Re: bama:
Quote:
Carl, I'm sure that you read the whole post here with my analogy on the original pause in the windup. I brought this to my superiors, but I won't see the rules interperter until next week. Can you give me your opinion? I promise I will not argue with your opinion but I will print it out for my rules interperter to read. Tim C never got back to me on it. Thanks
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bama:
Quote:
Now there is the FED wind-up rule. Please tell me how bringing your hands together, is the start of the delivery! I contend that once the hands are together, you have no choice but to deliver or step off. The delivery movement is the next movement after the hands are together. Again, I refer you to simple physics; you have to come to a pause once the hands are together. I'll go one step further on this. If you try to bring your hands together and go right into your pitching motion (remember, no pause of any kind) you will balk! PLEASE - try it before you respond (not just Tim I mean everyone)! First of all, the pitcher may as he steps onto the rubber move both hands and bring them together to address the batter. That's legal. Bringing both hands together after being on the rubber is the start of a delivery because the FED defines it that way. Consult the casebook plays at 6.1.2. I respectfully disagree that bringing the hands together and going straight to the pitching motion will create a balk. The pitcher has both hands at his side. He brings them together above his head as his non-pivot foot is stepping back from the rubber. That's a perfectly ordinary delivery in the windup, right? And that's the basis for the FED rule that movement by both hands, followed by a stop, is a balk. They argue that since an ordinary delivery in the windup begins with movement of both hands, the runner (at third, we presume) may begin his steal of home at that moment. If the pitcher may then legally stop, he may then legally step off after the stop and throw out the runner. Fact is, the FED rule is excellent. (It's "offense friendly," but so are most of baseball's rules.) |
|
|||
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bama:
Thanks Carl and Tim C. I see the raising of the hands over the head with no problem (the old pump). My problem was the hands coming together at say chest level. Well, I printed out the whole thread and when I see our Rules guy next week I'll get the "here's how we will do it". Thanks again guys.
Oh by the way Carl, we discussed something several years ago - 1918? The new chant at Yankee Stadium is 2090! I really enjoyed 2004, now I can die happy!!!
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
|||
Ozzy:
As things become more clear in your state it looks seriously as if Ray Faustich's interpretation is the root of the problem.
Ray was the chairman of the FED rules committe for several years. He is a BIG "big dog" . . . but set that aside for a moment. Ray WAS NOT AT THE SUMMER MEETINGS when this rule was developed and agreed upon. I have contacted two members of the committe that wrote the rule and BOTH (independent of each other) said the rule was written, the case book play written and the web interpretation EXACTLY as they wanted it called. Now Mr. Hopkins left "weasal room" as always that the rule can be tweaked. I am sorry that you live in a state with a bad interpretation looking you right in the face . . . I would hope that you will get a correction from the State Rules Guru. |
|
|||
Re: Re: Peruvian:
Quote:
I tried the move we've been discussing, and there was no (discernable) pause. That said, my 50mph "heater" was hit pretty hard. |
|
|||
I am enjoying the discussion of this issue and based on the discussion it seems clear that the rule is not only poorly written, but it's a classic example of rulebook minutia that makes a game more difficult to officiate. I think the reasons why this rule exist have been well explained, but really the only situation in practice where a violation of this rule can be considered deceptive is the hands over head move with a runner on third. The point of the balk rule is to prevent deception. I don't understand why, though, other clear attempts to deceive, such as the "3-1" move are legal and the minor movement of 2 hands to a stop in front of the body is considered deceptive enough to call a balk. Lefties practice moves to deceive runners at first. I agree that they are part of the game, but I don't see the sense from a rules perspective in allowing blatant attempts to deceive and to punish largely unnoticed movements by the pitcher. Rather than wording the rule in general language, the rule should be clear. If the rules committee wants to stop a pitcher from doing something specifically deceptive, they should ban that specific action, not speak in generalities.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|