Interesting observation

[David Emerling]

I was watching a district game between two local powerhouses this evening and a very interesting thing occurred.

With 1 out, R1 attempts to steal. The PU calls batter interference on the play (and it was) as the catcher's throw barely failed to retire the stealing runner.

The PU ruled the batter out and directed R1 to return to 1st.

A discussion then broke out which was initiated by the defensive manager.

I was trying mightily to listen in on their conversation. He wanted R1 to *also* be called out - claiming that the catcher *could* have thrown him out had there not been batter interference. Both the umpires were involved in the conversation which was actually at a very civil level. No screaming, just some strong opinions being bantered about.

This game came to a complete stall. The fans started to get restless. 20 minutes go by as the umpires actually went in search of a rule book. There they were ... all three of them ... the defensive manager and both umpires leafing through the rule book.

Ultimately, the umpires call R1 out.

The offensive manager hits the ceiling!

The umpires show him something in the rulebook and tones it down a bit - but he's still not happy.

I don't think I've ever seen a rule book so openly displayed and utilized in a baseball game.

It was amazing to observe.

Clearly, the umpires had applied the OBR application of the rule without considering the quirkiness of the FED version of the rule ... something, apparently, the defensive coach was keenly aware of ... and must have made a compelling case.

FED-wise, in my opinion, they ultimately got it right. But it wasn't very impressive.

It also made me realize that the FED rule is kind of stupid. There is no way the defense deserved to get TWO outs on that play.

The "punishment" didn't seem to fit the "crime."

You read the rule, you shrug your shoulders, and it seems to have a certain logic ... UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY APPLY IT A *REAL* BASEBALL GAME. Then it seems "wrong."

Apparently, this coach got the umpires to admit that the runner would probably have been thrown out had the interference not occurred. Once they conceded that issue, they really *had* to apply the rule.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN





[Edited by David Emerling on May 12th, 2005 at 02:43 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Clearly, the umpires had applied the OBR application of the rule without considering the quirkiness of the FED version of the rule ... something, apparently, the defensive coach was keenly aware of ... and must have made a compelling case.

FED-wise, in my opinion, they ultimately got it right. But it wasn't very impressive.

What FED rule is that, David? It's certainly not 7-3-5 nor any of the 7.3.5 cases

[jicecone]

To have even entertained such a detailed discussion about this was an indication of the officials lack of knowledge about this rule.

It CLEARLY DOES NOT talk about two outs unless the batter has already struck out. Also I am about 99% sure (book not here) that it is similar to OBR and NCAA.

I had this very same incident happen last week. The coach argued the same thing. He said he was going to look it up. I told him, "look at the end of chapter seven". He came back at the end of the inning and qouted the begining of the paragraph and I told him to read the entire paragraph. He read it, lokked up and stated, "thanks for being reasonable about it", and walked away.

[mick]

Originally posted by David Emerling

With 1 out, R1 attempts to steal. The PU calls batter interference on the play (and it was) as the catcher's throw barely failed to retire the stealing runner.

The PU ruled the batter out and directed R1 to return to 1st.

A discussion then broke out which was initiated by the defensive manager.

I was trying mightily to listen in on their conversation. He wanted R1 to *also* be called out - claiming that the catcher *could* have thrown him out had there not been batter interference. Both the umpires were involved in the conversation which was actually at a very civil level. No screaming, just some strong opinions being bantered about.

This game came to a complete stall. The fans started to get restless. 20 minutes go by as the umpires actually went in search of a rule book. There they were ... all three of them ... the defensive manager and both umpires leafing through the rule book.

Ultimately, the umpires call R1 out.

The offensive manager hits the ceiling!

The umpires show him something in the rulebook and tones it down a bit - but he's still not happy.

I don't think I've ever seen a rule book so openly displayed and utilized in a baseball game.

It was amazing to observe.

Clearly, the umpires had applied the OBR application of the rule without considering the quirkiness of the FED version of the rule ... something, apparently, the defensive coach was keenly aware of ... and must have made a compelling case.

FED-wise, in my opinion, they ultimately got it right. But it wasn't very impressive.

It also made me realize that the FED rule is kind of stupid. There is no way the defense deserved to get TWO outs on that play.

The "punishment" didn't seem to fit the "crime."

You read the rule, you shrug your shoulders, and it seems to have a certain logic ... UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY APPLY IT A *REAL* BASEBALL GAME. Then it seems "wrong."

Apparently, this coach got the umpires to admit that the runner would probably have been thrown out had the interference not occurred. Once they conceded that issue, they really *had* to apply the rule.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN





[Edited by David Emerling on May 12th, 2005 at 02:43 AM]

David,
7-3-5 says A batter shall not: "...When an attempt to put out a runner at any other base is unsuccessful, the batter is out and all runners must return to bases occupied at the time of pitch"

7.3.5 Sitch C says: With R1 on first base, one out and two strikes on B3, R1 attempts to steal second base. B3 swings and misses the pitch and interferes with F2's attempt to throw out R1. B3 is out for interference. If, in the umpire's judgment, F2 could have put out R1, the umpire can call him out also.

Are you saying the batter had two strikes?

If the batter had two strikes, we cannot just say the batter struck out and allow R1 second base. Batter must be out by interference so that we may properly place or remove the runner. The batter is actually treated as *another teammate* since he is no longer attempting to bat the pitch.

With less than two strikes, there is no reason R1 and Batter are out. Is there?

mick

[Tim C]

"FED-wise, in my opinion, they ultimately got it right."
-------------------
There is no FEDlandia ruling to support your position.

The ruling appears, at first blush, to be wrong.

[David Emerling]

I found out this morning (after talking with one of the parents of the players who was obviously watching the game closer than I was) that the batter did, in fact, have two strikes on the pitch ... and he swung and missed on the pitch prior to interfering.

I didn't realize that.

I was far too distracted by the sight of everybody paging through the rule book in the middle of the field. I just hadn't seen that before.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Rich]

Originally posted by David Emerling
I found out this morning (after talking with one of the parents of the players who was obviously watching the game closer than I was) that the batter did, in fact, have two strikes on the pitch ... and he swung and missed on the pitch prior to interfering.

I didn't realize that.

I was far too distracted by the sight of everybody paging through the rule book in the middle of the field. I just hadn't seen that before.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I know the TSSAA didn't entertain FED protests when I lived there. And a protest is the only reason to be pulling a rulebook out during a game.

[mick]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I know the TSSAA didn't entertain FED protests when I lived there. And a protest is the only reason to be pulling a rulebook out during a game.

Rich,
I figgered the "district" was a state tourney game similar to Little League state tourneys where all potential protest situations are dealt with immediately even if it means getting out rule books or calling Williamsport before the game is allowed to continue.
Tourneys aren't well designed to go backwards.
mick

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


I know the TSSAA didn't entertain FED protests when I lived there. And a protest is the only reason to be pulling a rulebook out during a game.

We don't allow protests either but if we get a rule wrong, the school does not have to pay for the game and neither umpire gets paid. Both umpires are also ineligible for playoffs that year. That's two good reasons to pull out a rulebook and get it right even though no protest is allowed.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by David Emerling

I was watching a district game between two local powerhouses this evening and a very interesting thing occurred.

With 1 out, R1 attempts to steal. The PU calls batter interference on the play (and it was) as the catcher's throw barely failed to retire the stealing runner.

The PU ruled the batter out and directed R1 to return to 1st.

A discussion then broke out which was initiated by the defensive manager.

This game came to a complete stall. The fans started to get restless. 20 minutes go by as the umpires actually went in search of a rule book. There they were ... all three of them ... the defensive manager and both umpires leafing through the rule book.

My observation is this. Normally, an associations TOP Officials get Distict Games. I have NEVER seen a Game come to a Halt to search for a rule-book except in LL. Also, even if the Umpires did go get one, it's not an "Open Book Test" to include the Coaches as well.

Also, you did not mention which state this was in. Most states use FED rules, but there are a few that do not.

As others mentioned there's a FED Case Play on this with 2 strikes. My concern is what Kind of Officials does one have here.

Pete Booth

[Tim C]

I don't even carry rule books in my car.

Asked my BU last night if he had his books . . . his answer: "they are at home on my desk."

I know of only one umpire that I work with that carries a rule book in the boot of his car.

[scyguy]

I know a guy who has a rule book that is in perfect condition since he never opens it. He also leaves it at home.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Bob Lyle

We don't allow protests either but if we get a rule wrong, the school does not have to pay for the game and neither umpire gets paid. Both umpires are also ineligible for playoffs that year. That's two good reasons to pull out a rulebook and get it right even though no protest is allowed.

It's not good enough for me. My rulebooks are way too far away for me to even think of them as a resource.

--Rich

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by David Emerling
I was watching a district game between two local powerhouses this evening and a very interesting thing occurred.

With 1 out, R1 attempts to steal. The PU calls batter interference on the play (and it was) as the catcher's throw barely failed to retire the stealing runner.

Why would there be any discussion?

Batter struck out and runner was thrown out.

Two outs. Move on.

[David Emerling]

No, the runner was *not* thrown out. It was close, but he was safe. The PU sent him back to 1st.

That's when the discussion broke out.

Although I didn't realize it at the time, the batter had struck out on the pitch.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN