F1 moving his glove to give the signals again

[Bob Lyle]

My first sport is football and the underlying philosophy there is "no harm, no foul." When you can explain to me how the pitcher gains an advantage by waving his arm, I'll reconsider my position.

Till then, my well being is more important than the rules, and my interests are best served by having the pitcher and catcher communicating. Why call a balk when a simple warning will do and frankly, I rarely see a hand wave in FED ball.

[officialtony]

Originally posted by Bob Lyle
My first sport is football and the underlying philosophy there is "no harm, no foul." When you can explain to me how the pitcher gains an advantage by waving his arm, I'll reconsider my position.

Till then, my well being is more important than the rules, and my interests are best served by having the pitcher and catcher communicating. Why call a balk when a simple warning will do and frankly, I rarely see a hand wave in FED ball.

My response to you would be that it is not up to me or anyone else to explain the reasoning behind FED rules. When you accept the responsibility of umpiring, you accept the responsibiity of upholding the rules. That would be ALL rules. Not just the ones you like or believe in. I have learned a lot in reading posts on this forum and one thing I have learned is that questioning the logic of a FED rule is useless, upholding the rule is vital. If nothing else it assures consistency among umpires so that when a pitcher does get called for that balk ( and he WILL eventually get called for it by a responsible umpire ), his excuse of " I did it last week and it didn't get called a balk " will sound just as silly as saying that because he stood on the rubber and puled the ball from his glove and threw it back in 3 or 4 times, that is not a balk either. You are not doing any pitcher a favor by not calling this a balk. You want to give a warning, that is your perogative. But if he persists, it's a balk. Certainly only my humble opinion.

[Kaliix]

So Tony, you call the rules like FED wants them. All the rules, right.

So tell me, and be completely honest, you call a pitch six inches above the belt a strike? Even if only a little tiny bottom portion of the ball were to pass through an imaginary line that is half way between the shoulders and the waistline, you call that a strike right? Because FED is just ever so happy to change any rules it sees fit and their definition of the strike zone says half way between the shoulders and the waistline?

Originally posted by officialtony

My response to you would be that it is not up to me or anyone else to explain the reasoning behind FED rules. When you accept the responsibility of umpiring, you accept the responsibiity of upholding the rules. That would be ALL rules. Not just the ones you like or believe in. I have learned a lot in reading posts on this forum and one thing I have learned is that questioning the logic of a FED rule is useless, upholding the rule is vital. If nothing else it assures consistency among umpires so that when a pitcher does get called for that balk ( and he WILL eventually get called for it by a responsible umpire ), his excuse of " I did it last week and it didn't get called a balk " will sound just as silly as saying that because he stood on the rubber and puled the ball from his glove and threw it back in 3 or 4 times, that is not a balk either. You are not doing any pitcher a favor by not calling this a balk. You want to give a warning, that is your perogative. But if he persists, it's a balk. Certainly only my humble opinion.

[officialtony]

Well . . . I try to be consistent with my strike zone. I cannot say that all those pitches are called strikes. But aren't those calls judgment calls? Is that what we are talking about when we discuss this glove movement thing? Or are we talking about a pretty clear act on which no judgment is applied other than yep he waved the glove to get a new sign? Is there any middle ground there that could be disputed as not really a wave of the glove? I'm not sure you are comparing apples with apples. I really don't want to switch gears on this post. Otherwise we could talk about coaches outside the box ( pretty clear there. No judgment - either he is in or out of the box ),Celebration after a home run, etc. I guess because there was a discussion about this and the gorilla arm in our association meeting, I feel the importance was placed on it and it needs to be called. As I said, in my humble opinion. I would add that I am also going to give a warning on this before I call it a balk. But the 2nd time in the same game - balk.
I will answer your question another way though. I do let some things slide, even though I know I shouldn't. However, on judgment issues like balls and strikes, interference and obstruction, etc. I try to be very consistent. Am I wrong? Entirely possible. I would admit that freely. But I strive to be better with each call in each game.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Kaliix
So Tony, you call the rules like FED wants them. All the rules, right.

So tell me, and be completely honest, you call a pitch six inches above the belt a strike? Even if only a little tiny bottom portion of the ball were to pass through an imaginary line that is half way between the shoulders and the waistline, you call that a strike right? Because FED is just ever so happy to change any rules it sees fit and their definition of the strike zone says half way between the shoulders and the waistline?

C'mon, you know the size of the strike zone isn't relevant. Throughout this thread, most posters have made it clear the rules they are discussing that must be enforced are those peculiar to FED.

For example, if you don't think the time of the pitch in your NFHS game should occur when a pitcher intentionally on the pitcher's plate moves both hands, that's your right.

But you shouldn't call FED ball. Knowing that proprietary rule and announcing you won't call it is dishonest, isn't it? What do you say when the other coach arrives in your face and asks: "Isn't that balk?"

Originally posted by Bob Lyle
Till then, my well being is more important than the rules, and my interests are best served by having the pitcher and catcher communicating. Why call a balk when a simple warning will do and frankly, I rarely see a hand wave in FED ball.

You may "rarely see a hand wave in FED ball" because other umpires in your area are enforcing the rules. Others from different parts of the country have had different experiences.

Like you, several posters have mentioned giving a warning for the hand wave. That's no big deal, depending on when the warning is given.

But the disturbing comment is: "My well being is more important than the rules." I trust that's simply hyperbole. I'm certain your association wouldn't want you officiating games where your safety was the paramount issue.

How strict are you about batters unintentionally throwing the bat? We all know that's an official team warning. But the umpire must judge whether the trajectory of the bat warrants the definition of "throw." I take it from your insistence that your well-being comes first means that a batter gets penalized whenever the bats leaves his hand other than in a straight drop.

[Kaliix]

I appreciate where you're coming from, but when you start talking about calling all the rules the way FED wants them, you open up a real can of worms.

If you are insisting on calling all of FED's rules, then do you call a pitch that is four inches above the belt a strike? I mean the whole ball is clearly just inside that midway point between the shoulders and the waist. It's a strike by FED rules. And don't give me the whole, it's a judgement thing. You and I both know that you can tell where that ball comes in with a good degree of accuracy.

So are you faithful to all the FED rules or do you just pick and choose which ones you gonna call because you might get some $#!t in your area if you tried?

I think given your stance on the rules that is a fair and legitimate question.

Originally posted by officialtony
Well . . . I try to be consistent with my strike zone. I cannot say that all those pitches are called strikes. But aren't those calls judgment calls? Is that what we are talking about when we discuss this glove movement thing? Or are we talking about a pretty clear act on which no judgment is applied other than yep he waved the glove to get a new sign? Is there any middle ground there that could be disputed as not really a wave of the glove? I'm not sure you are comparing apples with apples. I really don't want to switch gears on this post. Otherwise we could talk about coaches outside the box ( pretty clear there. No judgment - either he is in or out of the box ),Celebration after a home run, etc. I guess because there was a discussion about this and the gorilla arm in our association meeting, I feel the importance was placed on it and it needs to be called. As I said, in my humble opinion. I would add that I am also going to give a warning on this before I call it a balk. But the 2nd time in the same game - balk.
I will answer your question another way though. I do let some things slide, even though I know I shouldn't. However, on judgment issues like balls and strikes, interference and obstruction, etc. I try to be very consistent. Am I wrong? Entirely possible. I would admit that freely. But I strive to be better with each call in each game.

[Kaliix]

Carl, with all due respect, if Tony is insisting on calling all the FED rules then the size of the strike zone is a legitimate question.

If FED doesn't want the high strike called, why is it still on the books? They clearly have no trouble differentiating themselves from OBR. Why wouldn't they change the strike zone defintion if that's not how they wanted it called?

Originally posted by Carl Childress

C'mon, you know the size of the strike zone isn't relevant. Throughout this thread, most posters have made it clear the rules they are discussing that must be enforced are those peculiar to FED.

For example, if you don't think the time of the pitch in your NFHS game should occur when a pitcher intentionally on the pitcher's plate moves both hands, that's your right.

But you shouldn't call FED ball. Knowing that proprietary rule and announcing you won't call it is dishonest, isn't it? What do you say when the other coach arrives in your face and asks: "Isn't that balk?"

You may "rarely see a hand wave in FED ball" because other umpires in your area are enforcing the rules. Others from different parts of the country have had different experiences.

Like you, several posters have mentioned giving a warning for the hand wave. That's no big deal, depending on when the warning is given.

But the disturbing comment is: "My well being is more important than the rules." I trust that's simply hyperbole. I'm certain your association wouldn't want you officiating games where your safety was the paramount issue.

How strict are you about batters unintentionally throwing the bat? We all know that's an official team warning. But the umpire must judge whether the trajectory of the bat warrants the definition of "throw." I take it from your insistence that your well-being comes first means that a batter gets penalized whenever the bats leaves his hand other than in a straight drop.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Carl, with all due respect, if Tony is insisting on calling all the FED rules then the size of the strike zone is a legitimate question.

If FED doesn't want the high strike called, why is it still on the books? They clearly have no trouble differentiating themselves from OBR. Why wouldn't they change the strike zone defintion if that's not how they wanted it called?

Kaliix: Bringing up the strike zone is known as a "red herring." That has nothing to do with the rules. If an umpire gets a rule wrong, the game is subject to protest. We know that strike/ball, safe/out, fair/foul are judgment and thus not subject to protest. If you call a runner safe at first, does that mean you misinterpreted a rule when it can be shown he did not beat the throw?

Tony (and I and others) is arguing that "waving the glove" is, by rule, a balk in a game played under NFHS rules.

What do you think?

[officialtony]

I sat down and started thinking about my reply to Bob and realized I am being hypocritical. If I want others to call ALL the FED rules, I must first call all the FED rules. And as I said in a recent reply to Kaliix - I don't. SO I withdraw my earlier reply to Bob and respond with this concept.
I believe the Balk is important because FED and my association want it to be important. So for that reason, I will call it. As I said probably a warning and then the balk call.
If my association made an issue out of coaches staying in the coach's box, then I would enforce that. But it has never been a point of contention - even during evaluations.
On judgment issues, I repeat, that it is a different area completely and better debated in another post. But this issue is clearly NOT a judgment issue in terms of the act occuring.

Sidenote: been hit with a thrown bat as PU and I can tell you, I enforce that one EVERY time. Don't like it. Won't tolerate it. My pet peeve. I guess many of us look at some rules in a different light - possibly due to personal experience or instruction.

Again in my humble opinion.

[David B]

Originally posted by whatgameyouwatchinblue
Most agreed that they have called the "gorilla" arm movement, but they have warned about the glove movement (about the rollover of the signs). We have all called and will continue to that movement of both hands/arms is the beginning of the pitch.

We agreed that we will continue that practice next week in the playoffs since most of the teams coming in will be from out of our area and we really don't know what they've had called during the season.


And theres the problem with picking and choosing what balks your gonna call. What happens when one of the teams you service goes out of your cover area and gets balked for rolling his glove? Then that umpires gonna here from that coach that has never been called in his home area.

Sorry but it ain't gonna happen. If any thing gets called its going to be in our area. The rest of our state is much more lenient than our area.

That's why coaches like to have our group calling their games in the playoffs. They know what they are going to get year after year.

I guess the bottom line is that we call the things that matter to the game. Something as picky as a glove movement which is only called in FED "some of the time" is just not that big of a deal.

Someone made the analogy to football, well I also call basketball and its a LOT more that way in basketball. We call it advantage/disadvantage. How is the pitcher putting the defense at a disadvantage when everyone in the ballpark knows what he is doing.

I'll stop now with being the devil's advocate as far as this matter. Its just not that big a deal.

Now something that did matter - big game Friday night to decide who makes it to the 5A playoffs and F6 tells stealing R1 that the pitch was a foul ball. Stupid R1 starts back to first. I call time out (quickly)

F6 wants to know who called time, I said I did. Its a 1-0 game in the 6th inning, I'm not going to give R1 third with verbal interference, but by calling time we preserved the integrity of the game IMO. And no one ever knew what had happened except for F6 and myself.

Now would you send him to third? I think we did the right thing. And we didn't have to eject any coaches.

Thanks
David

[LMan]

did F6 *know* it wasnt a foul ball, or was it a mistake? If he deliberately said foul ball when he knew it wasnt, that runner is standing on 3d.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LMan
did F6 *know* it wasnt a foul ball, or was it a mistake? If he deliberately said foul ball when he knew it wasnt, that runner is standing on 3d.

That was the old rule. This is verbal obstruction, and the proper award is as it would be for any obstruction. Here the runner would get second, and the umpire would give a team warning.

[Tim C]

Let's see . . . almost 3,300 games in my books and,

I have NEVER considered implimenting the old "thrown bat rule."

I do NOT disregard it, I just have never seen a situation that has caused me to EVEN think about it.

I concentrate on more important things during my games.

[GarthB]

Sidenote: been hit with a thrown bat as PU and I can tell you, I enforce that one EVERY time. Don't like it. Won't tolerate it. My pet peeve. I guess many of us look at some rules in a different light - possibly due to personal experience or instruction.


Are you referring to FED 7-4-6, second sentence?

[officialtony]

Originally posted by GarthB
Sidenote: been hit with a thrown bat as PU and I can tell you, I enforce that one EVERY time. Don't like it. Won't tolerate it. My pet peeve. I guess many of us look at some rules in a different light - possibly due to personal experience or instruction.


Are you referring to FED 7-4-6, second sentence?

GarthB,
If you meant 7-3-6, that is not the rule I would reference for ejecting a player who throws his bat in the context to which I made reference. It does not happen very often ( obviously ), but I have had it happen twice in the last three years. It was lower level travel ball in the summer. This was a batter who let his bat fly after hitting the ball during an at bat. It was not a thrown bat in the sense there was a confrontation with someone and the bat was thrown AT somebody. The first time it was thrown, it rang the poles of the backstop about 10 feet away from the ondeck circle. I issued a warning to the batter and advised the coach. Next at bat, he let his bat go and it hit the inside of my right foot. After the play was over, I ejected the batter/runner.
It may be a stretch to some, but if I had to justify it, I would probably use 3-3-1m. Although that says " deliberately ", if I have warned a batter to hold on to his bat and he lets it fly anyway, I construe that as deliberate. This probably would not be the issue for me that it is, but personal experience has guided my thought on this. Remember, my humble opinion.