I ain't letting it go

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Buster: The batter-runner failing to go to first is not an infraction.

Buster, if you believe that the batter runner is not required to advance to first base, then how do you explain Fed Casebook Play 8.1.1b:

"F2 drops the third strike. B1 starts toward the dugout and F2 does not throw to first. B1 then makes a quick dash to first.
Ruling: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first within a reasonable time if he does not reach the base before the time of the next pitch, he reaches his bench, or a half inning is ended because the infielders have left the diamond. (8-4-1l)."

__________________________________________________ ________

Have Carl explain this one to you Buster. Do my eyes deceive me, or does it say "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first.
Now, read Carl's statement at the top of this page. I felt that umps declared people out for infractions. Maybe it's different in Edinburgh. Maybe they also declare them out for home runs down there. After all, they don't seem to want to make them run the bases.

Although Rule 8-1-1b uses the terminology "entitled" to run, it is obvious the interpretation as shown here in the casebook "requires" the BR to run or else he is declared out. I wonder why the Fed put in this casebook play.
Could it be to CLARIFY ?????

Now, that sure seems to me that the Fed is saying the BR must attempt to reach first base. Let's see what double talk we can get as an answer on this one. Perhaps Childress does not consider the casebook as authoritative as his personal opinions.

Steve
Member
EWS

aka:
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 30th, 2001 at 02:05 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
[B
Buster, if you believe that the batter runner is not required to advance to first base, then how do you explain Fed Casebook Play 8.1.1b:

"F2 drops the third strike. B1 starts toward the dugout and F2 does not throw to first. B1 then makes a quick dash to first.
Ruling: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first within a reasonable time if he does not reach the base before the time of the next pitch, he reaches his bench, or a half inning is ended because the infielders have left the diamond. (8-4-1l)."

__________________________________________________ ________

Have Carl explain this one to you Buster. Do my eyes deceive me, or does it say "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first.
[/B]

IF there are less than three outs -- BR must go to first or be declared out (or put out). That's the case play.

If there are three or more outs, BR doesn't need to (I'd say "can't legally") continue to advance. That's common sense.

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

"F2 drops the third strike. B1 starts toward the dugout and F2 does not throw to first. B1 then makes a quick dash to first.
Ruling: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first within a reasonable time if he does not reach the base before the time of the next pitch, he reaches his bench, or a half inning is ended because the infielders have left the diamond. (8-4-1l)."

__________________________________________________ ________

Have Carl explain this one to you Buster. Do my eyes deceive me, or does it say "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first.
Now, read Carl's statement at the top of this page. I felt that umps declared people out for infractions. Maybe it's different in Edinburgh. Maybe they also declare them out for home runs down there. After all, they don't seem to want to make them run the bases.

Although Rule 8-1-1b uses the terminology "entitled" to run, it is obvious the interpretation as shown here in the casebook "requires" the BR to run or else he is declared out. I wonder why the Fed put in this casebook play.
Could it be to CLARIFY ?????

[/B]

I think you're stretching it here, Steve. Here's the difference: your play involves the BR representing the potential third out; the play at issue involves the BR advancing after the third out. There's surely a logical reason why FED added this stipulation...

Nobody on, 2 outs, batter swings at a dropped third strike. Batter starts to walk away, catcher is holding the ball, and nobody is sure what to do. One thing we do know -- the play ain't over until either the third out is made (in this case it can only be on the BR), or until the BR advances to 1B safely. When it becomes obvious nothing's going to happen, it's only common sense we put an end to the madness and kill the play, but we really only have 2 possible outcomes:

- Call the BR out for failure to attempt to advance;
- Place the BR on first for the defense's failure to attempt to put out the BR

Now we've all seen this play before -- dropped third strike, BR hesitates a little before realizing he can advance. So while the defense is figuring out who's leading off the inning, the BR ends up on 2B. That's a pretty good advantage for the offense? So why give the BR first base even when he doesn't attempt to advance? To preserve that offense/defense balance, we call the BR out when we feel he's missed his "window of opportunity." It's not merely that the BR is required to run because he must, but just that something is required to happen, and we can't require the defense to attempt to put out runners, so the offense loses this battle by default.

With the play at issue, the defense chooses to play on another runner for the third out, so the BR is not "required" to advance to end the play, because the third out ends the play. (At least we thought so in OBR.) Again, it's not that only the advancement of a BR can end a play, but that something needs to happen to end the play, and the defense did that in this case. The BR is called out only when neither side attempts to do something.

Hope this makes sense,
Dennis

[David B]

Not quite the same play. In this play the BR is out if he doesn't advance because it is strike three on the batter. He's not required to advance. , it's his choice.

If he does advance (and it also adds that within a reasonable time) then he may be put out or he may be safe.

If he does not advance (within a reasonable time) it's simply a strike out.

This is not an appeal play.

Thanks
David



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Buster, if you believe that the batter runner is not required to advance to first base, then how do you explain Fed Casebook Play 8.1.1b:

"F2 drops the third strike. B1 starts toward the dugout and F2 does not throw to first. B1 then makes a quick dash to first.
Ruling: If F2 does not throw to first, he risks failure to put out B1. However, "B1 should be declared out for failure to attempt to reach first within a reasonable time if he does not reach the base before the time of the next pitch, he reaches his bench, or a half inning is ended because the infielders have left the diamond. (8-4-1l)."

__________________________________________________ ________


[Edited by Bfair on Mar 30th, 2001 at 02:05 AM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

IF there are less than three outs -- BR must go to first or be declared out (or put out). That's the case play.

If there are three or more outs, BR doesn't need to (I'd say "can't legally") continue to advance. That's common sense. [/B]

Thanks for being bold enough to at least address it, Bob. It is apparently something Childress has no answer for.

So, you now agree BR is required to go to first or be declared out if less than 3 are out. This requirement comes from Chapter 8---Baserunning. Being called out is due, therefore, to the infraction of not advancing when required to advance. This is a baserunning infraction---not batting, fielding, substituting, etc---rather , baserunning. It is penalized in accordance with Fed 8-2 Penalty (Art.1-5).

So why may I ask is he not required to go to first to complete a play that started with less than three outs? The PBUC has ruled (in agreement with J/R) that an advantageous 4th out can be obtained at first, and that the BR must complete the play, at least to first base, which he started when there were less than 3 outs or BR risks being put out at first. Therefore, since not going there would be a baserunning infraction he could be put out on appeal. How is that done in OBR---by tagging him or the base. (BTW, that is exactly the means by which the PBUC ruled---correct?). How is that done in Fed---same as OBR, or the official will declare it at end of playing action if not played upon.

Of course, all of this is predicated upon the fact that the PBUC ruled that the BR effectively is required to advance to first base on any play that started when there were less than 3 outs. This is the concept Childress and Willson refuse to accept---despite the PBUC ruling. They don't like the ruling because it differs from their opinion, and they wish not to accept it. Furthermore, appplying it to Fed, since Fed has not ruled, is consistent of past practice of Childress and others. Carl just doesn't want to do it here, because to do so would not support his position.

Let me quote Childress from a previous thread:
Carl Childress, eUmpire, thread "where do these interps come from":

Umpires have four ways to handle “points not covered”: (1) precedent; (2) analogy; (3) authoritative opinion; (4) official interpretation. An umpire who knows how a top dog in his association treated a given play can apply that ruling in his game and — consistency. If something happens in your fED game and you can’t find a rule, use one from another book (analogy). At least you have some written documentation somewhere to bring to your defense. Authoritative opinion and official interpretations speak for themselves. The BRD has official interpretations from Rumble, Thurston, Deary, Jones, Fitzpatrick, the PBUC minor league staff, and the Instructions to the National League umpries. It includes materials from the FED and OBR case books. You’ll find authoritative opinion from McNeely, Bremigan, Brinkman, Jaksa, Roder, Evans, Wendelstedt, and Winters. You’ll even find two references to the “General Instructions.”

Please note Childress says "consistency". That is the primary factor he lacks in trying to prove his points. He says what he wants to prove what he wants. He wishes not to use his "analogy" concept here because it does not support his cause. Real consistent, Carl. (sigh)

Now, we have no specific Fed interpretation except for a casebook play that says the runner must advance or be called out (running infraction), and a Fed rule acknowledging advantageous 4th out. Both of those, if accepted for this example, would differ from the eUmperors. We have J/R speaking of OBR which differs from the eUmperors. We have a PBUC ruling that could be applied to Fed, but the eUmperors say no (because it doesn't support the position of the eUmperors).

Does no one else see that the eUmperors are saying "just take my opinion and no one else's---even PBUC, even J/R, even past practice of analogy we, the eUmperors, have preached."

Childress keeps saying "Prove to me a runner is required to advance". I have cited the rule. Childress can only comprehend two words of that rule and those are "in order" but he cannot understand the other words of that rule "shall touch" also have meaning. He chooses to only see that which supports his view, and refuses to address that which does not. I have provided authoritative opinion---J/R, PBUC, and Childress himself (quoted regarding analogy)---yet he won't accept it. I have shown Fed casebook and scoring rules---and Childress won't accept it.

Well, Mr. eUmperor, why don't YOU PROVIDE something to this forum beyond your OPINION proving that the BR is not required to advance to first base. Everything else, including customary practice of the game itself (which you like to cite) says he is required to advance. Perhaps I am the bad boy because I am not a "snuffalopogus", but I need more than your opinion, and to date, you have provided nothing beyond that. It is always possible the Fed at sometime might rule in accordance with your position, but they may not. Until then, I consider the rulebook, casebook, PBUC, and J/R as higher authorities than eUmperors.

Steve
Member
EWS

aka:
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

Please note Childress says "consistency". That is the primary factor he lacks in trying to prove his points. He says what he wants to prove what he wants. He wishes not to use his "analogy" concept here because it does not support his cause. Real consistent, Carl. (sigh)

Geez, Steve, if it makes you happy go ahead and call it that way in FED. You may run across this play once every 15 years. I can't believe you've argued that the BR is required to advance solely to justify your ruling on a play that 99% of umpires will never see. Your arguments have become so complex that I'm not going to waste my time trying to disect them and point out the fallacies in your logic.

We all agree that the PBUC ruling is seemingly in direct conflict with the rules that the defense only gets 3 outs. What if the PBUC did a 180 and reversed its decision? Then your entire argument becomes irrelevant! Instead of attacking Carl, Warren, and all the other "eUmperors", maybe you should attack the PBUC; your efforts are being wasted here.

Dennis

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!" -- Booker T

Steve:

Instead of aurguing endlessly about a ruling that FED hasn't ruled on, why don't you have your assoc. contact your state interpretor to get a ruling.
I can assure you in a FED game I'm not opening a can of worms by calling a BR out when 99.9% of the participents would know there is even possibility of a play. That's too much of an advantage to the defense. The calling outs on leaving too early etc. At least every one knows what they are supposed to do. In this play I don't think anyone expects the BR to run it out. Even in a OBR game it would take a pretty savy manager to ask for that appeal.

I think you're beating a dead horse just to bolster your ego. If that is true I would hate to walk on a field with you.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Michael Taylor

I think you're beating a dead horse just to bolster your ego. If that is true I would hate to walk on a field with you.

I agree with you there is a point far beyond whether the runner is called out or not. The point is not to bolster my ego. The point is the inconsistency of eUmpires (Snufflers, et al) in grasping and acknowledging only that which they choose to when trying to prove their point, and their willingness to dismiss other points of view if it differs from theirs. Frequently other points of view are then insulted directly or by inuendo.

One preaches authoritative opinion, official interpretation, rulebook, analogy, etc. The PBUC ruling appears disliked and not well understood. One has stated in the thread he would not apply this ruling to Fed. Does that not contradict a previous teaching of analogy? Why not use the PBUC ruling as an analogical source? I suppose because doing so would not support a desired position. Is that not selectively applying the logic? Let's face it, that is really no different than selectively applying the rules. The eUmperors appear to be selectively choosing only that which supports their position. At least that is how it appears to me.

Well, the next time I read what is preached, I must ask myself am I reading what should be done, or am I reading only that which is presented in the manner the eUmperors choose? Am I really getting all the facts?

I don't understand the inconsistency. I am not wrong for questioning it.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

aka: (my eUmperor labels)
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

I don't understand the inconsistency. I am not wrong for questioning it.

Again, if you don't like inconsistency take it up with the PBUC!!!! They're the ones who made the ruling that appears to be consistent with the rulebook. Maybe someone should contact Jaska or Roder to clarify their intentions on their ruling, since it seems the PBUC based their ruling of J/R. Maybe the PBUC read into their opinion too much and misunderstood the intent of the situation; the original J/R play did involve an injured BR, and I tried to persuade some that the injury was the emphasis of the ruling, not the failure to advance. If the BR is injured on a play before he reaches 1B, we're going to call him out at the end of playing action, right? Could it be that J/R was implying that the BR's out would supercede any other out made during live action, thus becoming the apparent 3rd out?

Steve, you've put a lot of effort in trying to defend your position, so why not apply the same effort on getting the PBUC to rethink their interpretation?

Dennis

I repeat what I said earlier in this thread. I don't think the PBUC can be applied to a FED ruling because of the administrative methods for appeals. It's gives the defense an advantage that I don't think the FED intended.

I don't like the PBUC ruling although I would enforce it. I Believe it's a red herring because most coaches would never think to ask for it. I think the situation probably comes up often but is never ruled on because of lack of awareness by the defense. So using that assuption that's why I would never do it a FED game. As REFEREE said this month in an article about moving up, you have to know and call the rules according level that you are working. I don't think this is expected nor would be condoned. Unless FED makes a ruling to the contrary then you are just setting yourself up for no advancement. If such ruling is released then coaches would be aware then making that out call is acceptable.

Normally you can take rulings from other sources and apply them else where, but here the systems are too different. It would be nice to get an amswer from FED so Carl can add it to next year's BRD.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by DDonnelly19


Steve, you've put a lot of effort in trying to defend your position, so why not apply the same effort on getting the PBUC to rethink their interpretation?

I do not know if I am all that opposed to the PBUC ruling. There are two major issues here:

1) Does the third out end the inning

2) Should a BR be required to advance and touch the first required base before being put out

Both have merit.

The third out ending the inning already is not always true. Irrespective of the PBUC ruling, advantageous 4th outs have been recognized for baserunning infractions. So, the sanctity of 3 outs ending the inning is tarnished already.

The batter being required to attempt to advance at least one base is important. Advancing and scoring runs is, indeed, the goal of the game. First base is the "first" base that a BR can acquire. I believe he is and should be required to advance to it until such time as he is put out. He started in the play, make him be part of the play or finish the play. The PBUC, J/R , Fed casebook (IMO), and rulebook all require it (IMO). It can be a boring game without it. Let's face it, a prizefight is not very exciting when a fighter just stands there and gets beat up. Those who watched Jerry Quarry can attest to that. Unfortunately, Jerry did it moreso due to lack of talent vs. lack of effort.

Making the BR complete the play he started by attempting to acquire first or be put out is not an obtuse thought. Interpretations support it, and Childress opinion (with no support data) denies it. If not obtaining first without being put out is considered a running infraction, then it ties nicely into the current wording of the rules (including the scoring rules).

To think that PBUC allows you to physically obtain the 4th out there yet not appeal it is ludicrous. In OBR, the physical act to either put out the BR or to make the appeal are identical. No difference whatsoever. Yet Carl states PBUC allows the putout but not the appeal......what is the difference? The only difference is that Childress says it is not appealable, not the PBUC saying it is not the appealable. The physical act is the same, and the PBUC says the runner is out for the 4th advantageous out. Is Childress attempting to impose his own opinions now as a messenger with those of the ruling? That is not the job of the messenger. Did the PBUC tell you this was not appealable, Carl, or is that just your interpretation? Do you care to answer this? Likely not might the truth be known. No, I am not attacking the messenger. I am questioning the means in which the message is delivered and questioning whether some personal opinion of the messenger may be muddying the message.

With that single point accepted, that a BR must reach first base or run risk of being put out, it brings sense to all the other factors with loose ends. The loose ends Childress has no answer for.

Just my opinion,

Steve

[Thane Yennie]

Batter to first. Forced or not?? How about this view of things. Perhaps we should consider the fact that the UMPIRES ARE REQUIRED (FORCED) to determine SAFE or OUT on the batter whenever the batter is ENTITLED to advance to 1B.
In the previously posted situation (I believe Carl's sitch) where there are 2 out and bases loaded and the batter draws a walk, is he forced to go to first? No he could refuse, the PU is then REQUIRED (Forced) to call him out for refusing to advance, run does not score. If his acquiring first base validates R3 scoring the winning run - then the batter might choose to advance rather than face the ire of his teammates and coaches, (spectators, parents, media) So in essence the batter's expectations of long life and happiness might be the motivation that forces him to advance to first base, but the rule book certainly does not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
With that single point accepted, that a BR must reach first base or run risk of being put out, it brings sense to all the other factors with loose ends.

No one disagrees (I don't think). IF the BR is required to touch first, even after the third out is made, and the BR doesn't touch first, then the run doesn't count.

Where we disagree is in that assumption. I don't think the BR is required to touch first. IF that assumption is true, I think you'd agree that the BR can't be out, and the run counts, right?

Someone in this group (I forget who) mentioned he was trying to get a ruling from NFHS on this. Since we agree it's (a) an unlikely call and (b) we probably wouldn't call it anyway, absent an explicit FED ruling, and since (c) we've beaten this horse way past death, can't we just give it a rest?

Rex -- please,. please close this thread.

[rex]

Bob,

As I don’t know how to put the lock on a thread I can’t. And even if I did know how I don’t think I would.

There is still my basic question that I feel has never been answered.

What is PBUC basing this ruling on?


rex

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by rex
Bob,

As I don’t know how to put the lock on a thread I can’t. And even if I did know how I don’t think I would.

There is still my basic question that I feel has never been answered.

What is PBUC basing this ruling on? rex

I suppose this means you have given up on trying to use 4.09(b) as justification for calling out B1 when he doesn't run. (I say "suppose" since there's no public capitulation from you.)

I can answer your "basic" question just as easily as Jim Evans did your question about a game-ending play. You wrote:

What is PBUC basing this ruling on?

They didn't base it on anything. They don't have to have a reason. When you deal with anyone in power, if the question is "Why?" the correct answer is always "Because."

Note: To close the thread, go to any post. Look down in the lower, righthand corner and find "Admin Options: Open/Close thread." Click there. Since you originated the thread, you simply click (again) Open/Close thread and follow the bouncing ball.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 31st, 2001 at 12:25 AM]