FED Interp, please?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
As stated, if you even cared to read it, I felt Carl had made a highly practical post to the initial question posed to start the thread. IMO, it is WW who typically manages to write 1000 words with 10 worth reading---with the most appreciated among the group of 10 being "Cheers". Just my opinion (and that of others), Steve

I think everyone would be very happy if you really knew as much baseball as you pretend. Picking on Warren, huh?

Amazing!

It's like one the high school JV teams you umpire challenging the New York Yankess to a three-game series.

You are great at quoting rules, but you just don't understand what you quote, Steve.

FED 8-2-1 (you say) "requires runner to advance to base."

That's just another in a horrendously long line of your flat out wrong statements. All 8-2-1 says is that runners shall advance around the bases in order.

I've long since discovered you need to be taught like my 16-year-old Bronco umpires. That's OK; I've become a patient man since I started reading your uh, well, whatever they are.

Follow along now: one-word answers only.

1. R2, B1 singles. R2 must vacate second. Yes/No
2. R1, B1 singles. R1 must vacate first. Yes/No
3. If a runner is forced, he must advance. Yes/No
4. Sequential runners (look it up in the J/R) must advance when the batter becomes a batter-runner. Yes/No
5. A batter-runner is never forced. Yes/No

Hey, did you go 5 for 5?

If so, stop trying to prove that a FED umpire must call out a batter-runner for a fouth out at first when the batter did not miss the base.

BTW: I note you didn't comment on whether you were going to teach this "maneuver" to the Ft. Worth chapter.




[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 08:04 PM]

[umpyre007]

Another waste of bandwidth on such a stupid professional minor league interpretation. Let them have it!!!

If the batter hits the ball and then dies in the running lane before reaching first base does the defense tag his body or can his spirit still advance?

[JJ]

I'd like to thank everybody for picking up this ball and running with it - I was a bit disappointed at the initial response.
FYI, since I haven't been convinced by anyone's response (there are great arguments on both sides), I emailed the FED Baseball guru, Elliot Hopkins, at the NFHS offices in Indy. When I get his reply I will post it for all - hopefully before Christmas!

[Gre144]

According to 9.1-1-E page 54 the defense can choose the out that is to it's advantage. Count the batter-runner out, nullify and don't count the score. My opinion only.

Greg

[Gre144]

Fed rule:
---9-1-1-e provides beneficial "last" out to defense
I agree that the run should be negated because of the above rule.

[Gre144]

Originally posted by rex
What is all the fuss about? There ain't no difference in Fed or OBR on JJ's play. Now I don' know about the play talked about on McGruff's but this one sure won't be worth calling PBUC for.

With R2 and R3 only, the runners aren't forced. So with two outs it's a timing play. If R3 made it across the plate before R2 was put out then the run would score. If the BR didn't make it to first before R2 was out such is life. As R2 was put out for the third out, the half inningis over the B/R don't got to go there.

As I said the half inning is over in Fed or OBR.

You put runners on first, second and third with all the same things happening ---THAT--- would be a horse of a different color.

I disagree. According to FED 9-1-1-E page 54 the defense would benefit from the 4th out and thus the time play would be nullified. Don't count the score.

Greg


rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JJ
I'd like to thank everybody for picking up this ball and running with it - I was a bit disappointed at the initial response.
FYI, since I haven't been convinced by anyone's response (there are great arguments on both sides), I emailed the FED Baseball guru, Elliot Hopkins, at the NFHS offices in Indy. When I get his reply I will post it for all - hopefully before Christmas!

John:

You're obviously new to the world of the NFHS, and you clearly need a FED rulebook. From page 2:

Requests for baseball rule interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school baseball program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations [my emphasis] whenever called upon.

That statement has appeared in every FED rulebook since 1983.

I don't mean to throw cold water on your parade; I hope Elliot answers, but I'll bet a dollar to a penny he doesn't.

Your best bet is to email the director of high school athletics in your state. That may not be the head of the umpires' association, BTW.

BTW2: Someone wrote privately that you used your name in earlier posts. I'm sorry I missed that, but it's nice to have a real name to go with the keyboard. If you find that difficult to believe, spend 12 hours at McGriff's board.

BTW3: I just noticed, however, you don't have an email address.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 22nd, 2001 at 11:32 PM]

[Gre144]

Originally posted by umpyre007
Another waste of bandwidth on such a stupid professional minor league interpretation. Let them have it!!!

If the batter hits the ball and then dies in the running lane before reaching first base does the defense tag his body or can his spirit still advance?

I think in this situation, the runner scoring from home could legally carry the dead person to first base.

Greg

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Gre144
According to 9.1-1-E page 54 the defense can choose the out that is to it's advantage. Count the batter-runner out, nullify and don't count the score. My opinion only.

Greg

Members of the Board:

I received a similar comment from Greg in a private email. Here's a part of my response:

The FED rule you talk about has to do with a 4th out where a runner has committed a baserunning error. There are but two: missing a base or leaving a base too soon.

A batter-runner who does not proceed to first has committed neither.

Therefore, read FED 9-1-1 Exception a: "A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which THE THIRD OUT is made as follows: a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base.

In a play where another runner makes the third out and the batter-runner does not miss first base, how can there be an advantageous out?

[Patrick Szalapski]

The key to the FED ruling is exactly in the text quoted by BFair early in this thread. In OBR a fourth out by non-appeal is implied by the rules and made clear by the J/R and PBUC rulings. "Fourth" outs can be attained on both the BR at first or by a force out.

But lets look at the FED rule 9-1-1:

EXCEPTIONS: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home plate during action in which the third out is
made as follows:
a. by the batter-runner before he touches first base; or
d. when a third out is declared during a play in which an umpire observed a base-running infraction resulting in
a force-out (this out takes precedence if enforcement of it would negate a score); or

The FED rules allow for a "fourth" out in (d) but not (a). The batter runner can never be forced out, thus he can never be called for a fourth out.

Unless there is a separate, different rule considering "fourth" outs (or the rule above is just plain wrong), QED.

P-Sz

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, by reviewing the Fed rules provided you will find:
1) the runner is required to advance
2) if he doesn't, the umpire without defensive appeal will declare him out at the end of playing action
3) the defense can accept the most advantageous final out.

Even though I am unashamedly NOT a FED rules "expert", I think you'll find that the requirement to advance only applies when forced. It is a FALLACY (look that up if you have to) to suggest that the batter-runner is "forced" to advance to 1st base. The BR is NOT required to vacate a base that he has never held, and so can NEVER be "forced" in that sense. Furthermore, NO runner is required to advance AFTER the 3rd out has finally been made in the half inning either! That's just baseball basics. Don't take my word for it (of course I know you won't), look it up! Once the 3rd out has been finally made no bases may be acquired and no runs scored.

Warren, PBUC is not saying the defense can correct their error (as you may like to view it). The PBUC is standing by the tradition that no runs can score on a play where the final out is a force out or where BR fails to reach 1st base (6.05j). They are requiring the offense to advance at least to the next base if forced to do so. That has always been part of the game to the best of my knowledge.[/B]

So now YOU are in sync with the thought processes of the PBUC, in this case the entire Minor League staff in conference in Texas? Horse feathers! Under the rules there are ONLY 3 outs in any half inning. OBR 4.09 only applied to those 3 outs, UNTIL the recent PBUC decision which now allows an unprecedented 4 outs! And don't feed me any of your drivel about OBR 7.10 and the "apparent" 4th out. That is only an "apparent" 4th, but is actually a chronological 3rd, out. I know that concept will be beyond you, too!

NO RUNNER HAS EVER BEEN REQUIRED TO RUN BASES ONCE THE 3RD OUT OF THE HALF INNING HAS FINALLY BEEN MADE - UNTIL NOW!

I don't know where or when you became the Fed expert as I recall past posts where you excused yourself regarding Fed questions. It seemed no one in Oz played by Fed rules. Although not official, my discussions included a Fed interpreter who agreed rather than disagreed with my logic. I will take his opinion over yours.

I have NEVER claimed expert status in FED rules. To suggest otherwise, as you have here, is pure prevarication. The only statements I have made concerning FED rules have simply reiterated statements by others who truly ARE FED experts. I'll match your FED interpreter with MY FED interpreter and raise you a FED casebook and a BRD author!

Warren, you were the one who once pointed out the flaw in using ridiculous examples. The obvious flaw in your example is, in fact, that the Fed specifically states how many balls and strikes are required in their game. Again, as typical, you manage to muddy the page with your rhetorical nonesense.

Fact is, the Fed has not specifically ruled on this issue. Therefore, using logic previously explained by Carl, by analogy one should attempt to use the ruling from the other set of rules if, indeed, the other set of rules has specifically addressed the issue. That IS the case here. The logic should not be dismissed merely because you or someone else does not like the outcome of the decision. Perhaps we can use the logic only with your approval. Are you allowed to use it only when proving your point, and we are only allowed to accept it then?? I suspect the ruling of the PBUC is not popular amongst the majority of umpires. That may be where the problem originates.[/B]

Absolute drivel and nonsense that has totally missed the point being made, and so is not worth commenting upon. I won't waste my time on it, beyond that brief observation.

Warren, I am not jousting with Carl. You will find many posts by both of us here and elsewhere that do not address each other. However, I for one will not accept all that is said as Gospel---even if it means just to question why. That is my choice. You and others may do as you desire. That is your choice.[/B]

Outright LIE, Steve. You devoted an entire paragraph of your last post to the suggestion that Carl is duplicitious in his use of the very principle under discussion. Personally, neither of us cares WHAT you "accept .. as Gospel" or otherwise. My desire is to go back to ignoring your outright stupidity with its pretentions to "logic".

Here is the 1 word in 1000 I know you will appreciate from me..

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by HOLDTHE
Carl,

I believe JJ is a FED Illinois state rules clinician. As such I am sure he would have access to Mr Hopkins. I have had the pleasure of emailing John several times and he has been kind enough to reply to all of my emails. He was also kind enough to mail me some FED clinic info at my request.

You owe John a public and private apology. I actually am shocked you would post such a thing. You usually are not that sloppy.

Kevin Mayo

1. Until you mentioned it in this post, I'm sure neither Carl nor I was aware of JJ's status as a "state rules clinician". It certainly doesn't appear in his on-line biography, which simply states he is from Illinois. I have only just learned that his real name is John Johnston. Maybe Carl has too.

2. Absent that knowledge, Carl's advice to write to the state director for his interpretation was logical, sound and helpful - unlike your negative post.

3. No apology, whether public or private, should EVER be due for a legitimate attempt to assist a poster, unless of course that poster is a negative influence such as yourself.

Get a grip, HT.

Cheers,

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by HOLDTHE
Carl,

I believe JJ is a FED Illinois state rules clinician. As such I am sure he would have access to Mr Hopkins. I have had the pleasure of emailing John several times and he has been kind enough to reply to all of my emails. He was also kind enough to mail me some FED clinic info at my request.

You owe John a public and private apology. I actually am shocked you would post such a thing. You usually are not that sloppy.Kevin Mayo

Mr. Mayo:

JJ must be THE Illinois clinician, as Tim Stevens is for Washington, before he can be answered, according to the policy as it has been explained to me, both by Rumble and the former Texas "clinician," Dotson Lewis.

I stand by what I said. How could I have known that he was a FED umpire, let along a rules interpreter? His on-screen persona began as a PRO grad, spent time on OBR issues, and finally began asking FED questions, some of which might be called "routine."

There was no intent to embarrass him (how could I? He IS who he is), only to assuage his disappointment when the FED did not reply "by Christmas" -- or any other holiday.

If Hopkins replies, I'll push the bet that I'm right: I wager two dollars to a penny there is no 4th out, "non-appeal" (umpire declares an out) in FED play.

In JJ's original scenario, score the run.

I predict 100 out of 100 non-Internet umpirs would do the same everywhere in the world, regardless of the rulebook being used.

What's your take on that? Freix won't answer about any attempts he's made to convince the Ft. Worth chapter. How about your neck of the woods?

[JJ]

OK everyone, this discussion is deteriorating badly. All I wanted was an answer to a question so I could be enlightened and be able to enlighten. My life motto is "Consider the source", so I just take in all the answers and try to weed out the personal attacks. I'm closing this thread, and want to thank you all for your time and answers and references.