Time to Eat My Cap?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Don't disbelieve you Carl; however the law in most states sees a difference between "careless" and "inadvertent" in determining an individual's culpability for his/her acts. I do, too.

Did you forget to read ALL of the last paragraph of my post? I was not kidding, nor being cute with language: I have never seen a "carelessly" thrown bat on the 90' field. If I saw it, I believe I would call it [as I posted].

I have seen INTENTIONALLY thrown bats [& other items]; and have imposed the prescribed sanction. I have seen ACCIDENTALLY released bats, for which the rules prescribe no penalty or warning. I have even seen what I would characterise as INADVERTENTLY thrown bats, which neither caused nor threatened harm to anyone.

Just lucky, I guess.

Let me try once more: If you have seen a batter release a bat that then hit the catcher, according to the FED that is a carelessly thrown bat.

Frankly, I don't believe that's never occurred if you've called as many as five games played under NFHS rules.

I take it you're an attorney. The Law may distinguish between "inadvertent" and "careless," but people sensitive to language do not. The FED does not.

You're simply quibbling over the definition. "Inadvertent" and "careless" both signify this statement: "I didn't mean to do it, but it was my fault." That's the difference between "careless" and "accidental."

A bat that hits someone on a FED field is either: (a) carelessly thrown; or (b) deliberately thrown. Those are the only two possibilities defined in their rules.

What is so hard about that?

I'll answer that question: You'd rather not stir the sleeping giant known as "the coach who gets the warning." If you get sued because you didn't enforce a safety rule, hire another attorney. You know the old saying....

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Let me try once more: If you have seen a batter release a bat that then hit the catcher, according to the FED that is a carelessly thrown bat.

Frankly, I don't believe that's never occurred if you've called as many as five games played under NFHS rules.

I take it you're an attorney. The Law may distinguish between "inadvertent" and "careless," but people sensitive to language do not. The FED does not.

You're simply quibbling over the definition. "Inadvertent" and "careless" both signify this statement: "I didn't mean to do it, but it was my fault." That's the difference between "careless" and "accidental."

A bat that hits someone on a FED field is either: (a) carelessly thrown; or (b) deliberately thrown. Those are the only two possibilities defined in their rules.

What is so hard about that?

I'll answer that question: You'd rather not stir the sleeping giant known as "the coach who gets the warning." If you get sued because you didn't enforce a safety rule, hire another attorney. You know the old saying....

Maybe kids in my area are better coached by the time they reach the big field ....?
Maybe your medication needs adjusting .....?

Let ME try this once more....

I have NEVER seen a big-kid catcher hit by a "carelessly" THROWN bat in one of my games. I am not kidding. Maybe my local kids are better coached?... or maybe: "Just lucky, I guess."

I have seen some where the B hit 'em on the backswing with the bat still in hand; according to you [in the quoted post - I'm not convinced you really meant that] this is either carelessly or intentionally thrown; but I just don't see that, as the bat never left the hand.

I have seen B release the bat, which rebounded from the ground and made incidental contact w/ F2 [or me], but since B has to let go of the bat somehow, and gravity being pretty much non-optional where I work, I did not judge that these bats were "thrown" either, much less carelessly.

You wrote:
"Inadvertent" and "careless" both signify this statement: "I didn't mean to do it, but it was my fault." That's the difference between "careless" and "accidental."

Now, honestly, I'm not altogether sure what you intended to express here, but I take it you recognise a distinction between "careless" and "accidental". Good, I do too. Does the FED, do you think? I think so, although they don't explicitly define or "sanction" accidental occurences. 'Course, as we know from other discussions, not everything permitted [or at least tolerated] under the rules is explicitly listed or described in the rules. In fact, the existence of the two kinds of illegal bat-throwing suggests that there is a third, unclassified category, namely that which is legal. O/W we would not bother to penalize "careless" acts: we'd just say that ANY throwing of the bat is illegal.

Let's try a couple not-so hypotheticals; I'm willing to be convinced. Maybe my judgment has been wrong: it's happened before.

1) B swings mightily & the bat accidentally slips from his hand, flying 20 feet into the infield toward the C position [& thus not coming close to hitting anyone]: is this a "carelessly" thrown bat?

2) On-deck batter picks up his predecessor's stick and tosses it toward the corner of fence and dugout, after making sure that there is no-one in the vicinity: is this "careless", or more likely, an "intentionally" thrown bat?

3) B walks, and on his way toward 1stB, releases his bat, not merely to the force of gravity, but with a slight lateral impetus, which causes it to "fly" 5 ft, and then roll 10 more, coming into the path of and incidental contact with [but causing no harm to] the next batter, advancing to the plate, who sees it and returns it to the dugout [we'll pass for the moment, on whether he uses the proceedure in 2, above]. As you understand the wishes of the FED folk, are we to issue a warning, or eject upon the second occurance, for that?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
[B][QUOTE]Maybe your medication needs adjusting .....?
Let's try a couple not-so hypotheticals; I'm willing to be convinced. Maybe my judgment has been wrong: it's happened before.

1) B swings mightily & the bat accidentally slips from his hand, flying 20 feet into the infield toward the C position [& thus not coming close to hitting anyone]: is this a "carelessly" thrown bat?

Yes. It's a thrown bat, and it wasn't deliberate.

2) On-deck batter picks up his predecessor's stick and tosses it toward the corner of fence and dugout, after making sure that there is no-one in the vicinity: is this "careless", or more likely, an "intentionally" thrown bat?

No. It's not a deliberately thrown piece of equipment unless it's to register disgust or disapproval of the umpire or himself. You need to familiarize yourself with the genesis of the rule and the FED explanation of it.

3) B walks, and on his way toward 1stB, releases his bat, not merely to the force of gravity, but with a slight lateral impetus, which causes it to "fly" 5 ft, and then roll 10 more, coming into the path of and incidental contact with [but causing no harm to] the next batter, advancing to the plate, who sees it and returns it to the dugout [we'll pass for the moment, on whether he uses the proceedure in 2, above]. As you understand the wishes of the FED folk, are we to issue a warning, or eject upon the second occurance, for that?

You can go on and on all you want. You cannot escape the simple language of 3-3-1.

You and I both know you understand the FED definition of "carelessly thrown."

BTW: Concerning the "medications" crack. Why would you feel the need to stoop to a personal attack? I'll simply ignore your posts in the future. That way, I know you won't get a chance to insult me rather than debate my argument.

[cbfoulds]

Well, Carl, the "meds" crack was 'cause you have seemed unusually eager to pick a fight recently; and cause your 6:46 [i think it was] post seemed rather disorganised, self-contradictory, and sputtering: not up to your usual [past] standard; esp. the "I don't believe ...", and the "difference between careless & accidental ..." part(s). I was making a smart-a$$ crack: maybe mine need adjusting first ....

And, I have to admit, that if you are right about my #1, and if #'s 2 & 3 are also prohibited by the rule, then I DON'T understand the FED rule about "careless" bat throwing.

I also noticed that you didn't really answer my questions about #'s 2 & 3: #2 is not intentional because not a form of protest - I buy that - is it therefore to be sanctioned as "careless"? And is #3 a "carelessly thrown" bat? I had not thought so, but I freely admit I may not understand what the FED honchos want.

My reading of the case plays has caused me to "understand" that what is being prohibited is where there is an actual risk of harm, "carelessly" ignored: not true accidents or incidental contacts; much less harmless, nay "careful" throwings, such as described in my #2. But I could be wrong. I will say that, before today, I have never heard of anyone enforcing the "careless bat throwing" prohibition in the circumstances I posited in my 3 examples.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Well, Carl, the "meds" crack was 'cause you have seemed unusually eager to pick a fight recently; and cause your 6:46 [i think it was] post seemed rather disorganised, self-contradictory, and sputtering: not up to your usual [past] standard; esp. the "I don't believe ...", and the "difference between careless & accidental ..." part(s). I was making a smart-a$$ crack: maybe mine need adjusting first ....

And, I have to admit, that if you are right about my #1, and if #'s 2 & 3 are also prohibited by the rule, then I DON'T understand the FED rule about "careless" bat throwing.

I also noticed that you didn't really answer my questions about #'s 2 & 3: #2 is not intentional because not a form of protest - I buy that - is it therefore to be sanctioned as "careless"? And is #3 a "carelessly thrown" bat? I had not thought so, but I freely admit I may not understand what the FED honchos want.

My reading of the case plays has caused me to "understand" that what is being prohibited is where there is an actual risk of harm, "carelessly" ignored: not true accidents or incidental contacts; much less harmless, nay "careful" throwings, such as described in my #2. But I could be wrong. I will say that, before today, I have never heard of anyone enforcing the "careless bat throwing" prohibition in the circumstances I posited in my 3 examples.

In general, I agree with Carl's answers in this thread.

IMO, the "careless" throwing rule carries an implication of not looking / not caring where the bat goes and releasing it in a manner that could cause harm had someone been in the way.

Also IMO, the "intentional" throwing rule carries an implication of "throwing in anger" .

There is, as you point out a third category -- an "intentional, but careful, tossing" of the bat. That's your second and third plays, and no penalty is needed.

You won't find any of those words in the rules, and I'm sure we could find plays where the words don't apply, but the rules do. Still, I've found it to be a useful way of interpreting the rule.

For the record, I've tossed one kid in my career for a second "careless" throw. I've tossed one kid for an "intentional" throw. And, I've warned teams less than a handful for a "careless" throw without a second such throw occurring. The last of these warnings happened about a week ago.

[officialtony]

Think about how many times bats end up three to five feet up the third base line that the catcher is always moving because of an impending play. Don't most batters drop a bat at or near home plate, or carry the bat a few steps while running to 1st and then drop the bat, or give the bat a casual flip as they run to 1st? Wouldn't all of that suggest careful attempts to rid the batter of his bat? If that is agreed, than couldn't one presume that a bat that landed 20 feet in the infield ( which any careful batter would not allow to happen )was carelessly allowed to arrive there? IMHO most batters are careful with where their bats end up. When a bat hits a catcher or ends up 20 feet into the infield - that is carelessness.
Just my humble opinion.

[Edited by officialtony on Apr 25th, 2005 at 08:21 AM]

[officialtony]

[/B][/QUOTE]



1) B swings mightily & the bat accidentally slips from his hand, flying 20 feet into the infield toward the C position [& thus not coming close to hitting anyone]: is this a "carelessly" thrown bat?

2) On-deck batter picks up his predecessor's stick and tosses it toward the corner of fence and dugout, after making sure that there is no-one in the vicinity: is this "careless", or more likely, an "intentionally" thrown bat?

3) B walks, and on his way toward 1stB, releases his bat, not merely to the force of gravity, but with a slight lateral impetus, which causes it to "fly" 5 ft, and then roll 10 more, coming into the path of and incidental contact with [but causing no harm to] the next batter, advancing to the plate, who sees it and returns it to the dugout [we'll pass for the moment, on whether he uses the proceedure in 2, above]. As you understand the wishes of the FED folk, are we to issue a warning, or eject upon the second occurance, for that?


[/B][/QUOTE]

Okay I covered 1. It's carelessly thrown. If he were being careful he would not have let it " accidentally " land 20 feet in the infield.

2. Since you said he tossed it towards the corner of the fence and the dugout, he must have carefully and with intent sent it there, thereby removing carelessnes as an option. You said it in your statemtnt - " he tossed it towards . . " - intent, with care IMHO.

3.Here again he allows the bat to go towards his own dugout, by his choice. He didn't carelessly toss it not being concerned with where it went. He was sure it went towards his dugout ( assuming the on-deck batter was near his own dugout )causing the belief that care was taken not to throw it " with a slight lateral impetus " towards his opponents dugout, or anywhere else other than his own dugout area.

What are you really looking for here?
Careless should be the easiest judgment call you would have to make and the easiset to enforce. Who will argue with a decision that the thrown bat was a jeopardy to the individual it hit or landed closest to? I don't understand your reluctance to make this call.

[GarthB]

"Let me try once more: If you have seen a batter release a bat that then hit the catcher, according to the FED that is a carelessly thrown bat.

Frankly, I don't believe that's never occurred if you've called as many as five games played under NFHS rules.
"

Wow. I've worked 28 FED games so far this season and haven't had this happen yet. It's hard to imagine it should happen in just five games.

[Tim C]

Common sense and fair play, “tradition and “past practice” are all buzz words that we see often when we discuss “how” rules are meant to be played.

Since we have more unofficial sources (JEA, J/R and the BRD) for OBR than official sources (NAPL Manual) it is sometimes quite complicated to explain to anyone the “whys” of how rules can (should) be called.

In FEDlandia we have the Rule Book, Case Book, Website Interpretations and the Spring update brochure that comes out each year.

But the issue still comes to the front that there will always be two types of umpires:

“Spirit of the Rules”, “Intent of the Rules”, “Advantage/Disadvantage”, “Tradition” and “Past Practice” umpires and,

"Letter of the Rule" guys.

See I have been, “found out” . . .

My friend Rich Fronheiser put together enough of my ramblings that he finally recognized that I had portrayed myself as being (all-of-the-sudden)a Letter of the Rules Guy. He called B/S.

He is correct,as is Carl who has now also discovered my act.

I have tried (adamantly) to support FEDlandia rules on this webpage and others.

I have almost acted like a “drink the koolaid” supporter of those rules.

Rich figured it out.

Not that I was faking but as a Rules Instructor in my FED Association it would be darned hard to teach one way and do another. I tried to make the switch.

It didn’t work . . .

So I asked myself an HHH type question:

When I work a game how do I REALLY call a game under Federation Rules?

OK, (placing all the my fingers on all the pads for the Lie Detector Machine):

Gorilla Arm? No, I try to preventive officiate it but if that fails would not call a balk under any sequence of events happening solely with that arm. I called it once this spring and it did not help the game at all.

Technical Balks (Illegal Pitches)? Nope. These would included, but not be limited to, stepping off the pitcher’s plate with the incorrect foot, start-stop of a wind-up with no one on, failing to pause when pitching from the set with no one on, moving the glove to ask for new signs with runners on base, and lifting both hands from the sides to the chest at the start of a wind-up and a few others. Again, as Cece Carlucci states, "I only call balks that everyone sees!"

Penalty Strike? Nope. If I cannot communicate well enough with a hitter to keep him in the box then I arm a poor umpire and don’t need false penalties.

Coaches in coaching boxes? You’re kidding , right?

Catchers setting up outside the lines of the catcher’s box? See answer directly above.

Calling the FEDlandia strike zone? As I have posted elsewhere, my strike zone represents an EGG that is restricted by a line under the letters of a normally worn uniform on top, by a line formed at the bottom of the knee, and the width established as 22” wide.

Coaches Uniforms? There seems to be enough leeway that unless the coach is in a Tutu I can probably answer this any way I want. We have ONE coach in our area that has been allowed to wear sweat pants.

And now we have the deadly “throwing the bat thingy.” Can’t remember the last time I was hit by a bat (I do remember somewhere back in the 80’s that the same hitter “flung” – I love that term – his bat in three straight at bats . . . I handled that with three straight FYCs during his last at bat as the catcher explained to the hitter that at least this time the hitter wouldn’t have a chance to kill anyone) but iffin’ it happens this season I will certainly remember this thread.

If you combine the "real" how to the way I umpire and include my sometimes over active ego you might begin to understand how I "think" games should be umpired.

Again, y'all have the same right to work games in your style that I demand . . . I just know what works for me.

I guess I have rambled on long enough.

++++++++++++++

As to definitions:

I believe that "careless" and "inadvertant" are rooted the same but have vastly different meanings.

It is similar to "fortunate" and "fortuitous" . . . while they both are rooted in "lucky" they have vastly different meanings.







[Edited by Tim C on Apr 25th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
"Let me try once more: If you have seen a batter release a bat that then hit the catcher, according to the FED that is a carelessly thrown bat.

Frankly, I don't believe that's never occurred if you've called as many as five games played under NFHS rules.
"

Wow. I've worked 28 FED games so far this season and haven't had this happen yet. It's hard to imagine it should happen in just five games.

And your point is?

Instead of this kind of reply, say something of substance for a change. What's your opinion of this rule? Have you seem a carelessly thrown bat on a 90-foot field? Do you agree that "inadvertent" and "careless" mean approximately the same thing?

I invite anyone to read your posts collectively. That person will agree that you're more interested in a smart remark than a sound exposition.

Why not emulate Bob Jenkins instead of Steve Freix?

[GarthB]

I guess my point is, Carl, that you seem to be exaggerating in an attempt to put CBFoulds down. If your argument is strong enough, that shouldn't be necessary.

This topic, as many others, has been beat to death. Do your really need a "me too" post for either side at this point? Okay...Me, Too.

I have no intention of getting into a p!ssing contest with you today, so, here: You win. I'm wrong.

I'll not post in this thread again. You may have the last word, completely response free. Go for it.

Edited to add: Oh, let me know if my post in the "timing play" thread isn't up to officialbore'm standards. I'll delete it immediately if it isn't.

Thanks.

[Edited by GarthB on Apr 25th, 2005 at 11:24 AM]

[scyguy]

tim,
that was a very honest reply. Most of us appreciate that type of honesty.

[cbfoulds]

Thanks, Bob & tony.

I'll be thinking more about my response to the circumstances in my #1: I'll let you know next time it happens what I saw & what I did. I really am not reluctant to make the call, IF I SEE a "careless" act. I wasn't kidding: except for [arguably] poor judgment about what I have previously considered accidental/ inadvertent releases, I have NEVER seen a 90' base instance of "careless" bat throwing [presuming that incidents similar to #'s 2 & 3 aren't "careless"].
"Just lucky, I guess."

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C

As to definitions:

I believe that "careless" and "inadvertant" are rooted the same but have vastly different meanings.[Edited by Tim C on Apr 25th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

Good job, Tee. As usual, you don't let the facts stand in your way. A dictionary definition is based on usage: The great majority of English-speaking people think of "inadvertent" and "careless" as meaning the same. Fancy people use inadvertent; common people, careless.

They are not rooted the same. They simply signify the same to speakers of English. Why not go googling on the words instead of speaking outside your area of expertise?

[David B]

Originally posted by Tim C
Common sense and fair play, “tradition and “past practice” are all buzz words that we see often when we discuss “how” rules are meant to be played.

Since we have more unofficial sources (JEA, J/R and the BRD) for OBR than official sources (NAPL Manual) it is sometimes quite complicated to explain to anyone the “whys” of how rules can (should) be called.

In FEDlandia we have the Rule Book, Case Book, Website Interpretations and the Spring update brochure that comes out each year.

But the issue still comes to the front that there will always be two types of umpires:

“Spirit of the Rules”, “Intent of the Rules”, “Advantage/Disadvantage”, “Tradition” and “Past Practice” umpires and,

"Letter of the Rule" guys.

See I have been, “found out” . . .

My friend Rich Fronheiser put together enough of my ramblings that he finally recognized that I had portrayed myself as being (all-of-the-sudden)a Letter of the Rules Guy. He called B/S.

He is correct,as is Carl who has now also discovered my act.

I have tried (adamantly) to support FEDlandia rules on this webpage and others.

I have almost acted like a “drink the koolaid” supporter of those rules.

Rich figured it out.

Not that I was faking but as a Rules Instructor in my FED Association it would be darned hard to teach one way and do another. I tried to make the switch.

It didn’t work . . .

So I asked myself an HHH type question:

When I work a game how do I REALLY call a game under Federation Rules?

OK, (placing all the my fingers on all the pads for the Lie Detector Machine):

Gorilla Arm? No, I try to preventive officiate it but if that fails would not call a balk under any sequence of events happening solely with that arm. I called it once this spring and it did not help the game at all.

Technical Balks (Illegal Pitches)? Nope. These would included, but not be limited to, stepping off the pitcher’s plate with the incorrect foot, start-stop of a wind-up with no one on, failing to pause when pitching from the set with no one on, moving the glove to ask for new signs with runners on base, and lifting both hands from the sides to the chest at the start of a wind-up and a few others. Again, as Cece Carlucci states, "I only call balks that everyone sees!"

Penalty Strike? Nope. If I cannot communicate well enough with a hitter to keep him in the box then I arm a poor umpire and don’t need false penalties.

Coaches in coaching boxes? You’re kidding , right?

Catchers setting up outside the lines of the catcher’s box? See answer directly above.

Calling the FEDlandia strike zone? As I have posted elsewhere, my strike zone represents an EGG that is restricted by a line under the letters of a normally worn uniform on top, by a line formed at the bottom of the knee, and the width established as 22” wide.

Coaches Uniforms? There seems to be enough leeway that unless the coach is in a Tutu I can probably answer this any way I want. We have ONE coach in our area that has been allowed to wear sweat pants.

And now we have the deadly “throwing the bat thingy.” Can’t remember the last time I was hit by a bat (I do remember somewhere back in the 80’s that the same hitter “flung” – I love that term – his bat in three straight at bats . . . I handled that with three straight FYCs during his last at bat as the catcher explained to the hitter that at least this time the hitter wouldn’t have a chance to kill anyone) but iffin’ it happens this season I will certainly remember this thread.

If you combine the "real" how to the way I umpire and include my sometimes over active ego you might begin to understand how I "think" games should be umpired.

Again, y'all have the same right to work games in your style that I demand . . . I just know what works for me.

I guess I have rambled on long enough.

++++++++++++++

As to definitions:

I believe that "careless" and "inadvertant" are rooted the same but have vastly different meanings.

It is similar to "fortunate" and "fortuitous" . . . while they both are rooted in "lucky" they have vastly different meanings.







[Edited by Tim C on Apr 25th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

Tim I figured that's what you were up to. I know from reading your posts for the last few years that you are a good umpire and from the level of games that you work you would have to be "common sense" or you wouldn't make it that far.

That's why guys like yourself get called to do the games where there might be a problem, or a big rivalry or etc.,

You know how to apply the rules, and you know how to do it without the coaches interfering.

Thrown bats, I had two of them in a playoff game Saturday.

One hit the catcher as he left the box, the other the batter hit the catcher in the helmet on a follow through swing.

F2 backed up as he was too close. Neither needed a warning IMO.

Thanks
David