Bad partner

[LDUB]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Coach - you are not reading this wrong.

It's stupid, absurd, any number of similar adjectives...

But this is Fed's interp this year. "Foul Ball!!!" equals DEAD ball, even if subsequently caught.

No it is not a stupid rule, it is a great rule. The Federation does not want officials to have to decide what would have happned had the ball not been called foul.

If you are competent, this rule means nothing to you. It will never come up. But if someone is stupid enough to call foul, while the ball is in the air, about to be caught, do you think he is smart enough to determine if any runners would be able to advance after the catch?

[mcrowder]

Smart people do stupid things.

If an umpire, regardless of ability, yells FOUL BALL on a ball that is still in flight - why take away the defense's opportunity to make the catch? Why take away offense's opportunity to run after the catch is made?

It's just stupid. And this is the first time all season I've heard ANYONE defend this rule.

[mick]

Originally posted by CoachJM

Mick,

Have you seen the following "enhanced" FED Official Interpretation, brand new for 2005?

"SITUATION 3: With one out and a 1-1 count, the batter hits a high fly ball in left field near the foul line. The umpire declares “Foul Ball” as the fly ball is subsequently caught by the left fielder. RULING: Once the umpire verbally declares “Foul Ball,” the ball is dead and treated as foul ball. The batter will return to bat with a 1-2 count and still one out. (5-1-1h)"

No, I most certainly did NOT make this up!!! Go to the FED website and see for yourself.

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...Footer=BB_FOOT

I believe this ruling clearly supports LDUB's assertion. So, under FED, we have R3's run nullified, R2 back at 2B and the batter back at the plate with a strike possibly added to his count.

Or am I misreading this interpretation? (God, I sure hope so!!!)

JM

Thanks Coach.

2004 SITUATION 10: With 1 out and R1 on first and a count of 2-1, B2 hits a bouncing ball along the first base foul line. U1 mistakenly declares “Foul!” as F1 picks up the ball in fair territory. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 returns to first. B2 continues at bat with a count of 2-2. (5-1-1h) Fine! During unrelaxed action BR and R1 heard "foul" and didn't run.

2005 SITUATION 3: With one out and a 1-1 count, the batter hits a high fly ball in left field near the foul line. The umpire declares “Foul Ball” as the fly ball is subsequently caught by the left fielder. RULING: Once the umpire verbally declares “Foul Ball,” the ball is dead and treated as foul ball. The batter will return to bat with a 1-2 count and still one out. (5-1-1h) There has to be words missing!!! ...Oh! the sun wasn't in the umps eyes

2005 SITUATION 4: With the bases empty, the batter hits a long fly ball down the left-field line that easily goes over the outfield fence. With the sun in his eyes, the plate umpire initially declares “Foul Ball,” but then realizes he made a mistake, that the ball did indeed go over the fence in flight in fair territory. RULING: The umpire may reverse his call and declare a home run. The ball is dead because it left the field by going over the fence in flight, not because the umpire declared, “Foul Ball.” (10-2-1l, 5-1-1f-4, 8-3-3a) Did the ump make the call before or after he didn't see the ball go over?

mick

These situations do not make enough sense to administer.
It is noted that the Fed Baseball Rules Book does not have the introducing section "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES" as is found in the Fed Softball and the Fed Basketball rules books.
Thus, it is clear that both "Intent and Purpose" is missing in that sport.

[mick]

Originally posted by LDUB

No it is not a stupid rule, it is a great rule. The Federation does not want officials to have to decide what would have happned had the ball not been called foul.

LDUB,

2005 SITUATION 3: With one out and a 1-1 count, the batter hits a high fly ball in left field near the foul line. The umpire declares “Foul Ball” as the fly ball is subsequently caught by the left fielder. RULING: Once the umpire verbally declares “Foul Ball,” the ball is dead and treated as foul ball. The batter will return to bat with a 1-2 count and still one out. (5-1-1h) We would need bigger crews, a committee perhaps to decide if this should be an out or a strike ???

2005 SITUATION 4: With the bases empty, the batter hits a long fly ball down the left-field line that easily goes over the outfield fence. With the sun in his eyes, the plate umpire initially declares “Foul Ball,” but then realizes he made a mistake, that the ball did indeed go over the fence in flight in fair territory. RULING: The umpire may reverse his call and declare a home run. The ball is dead because it left the field by going over the fence in flight, not because the umpire declared, “Foul Ball.” (10-2-1l, 5-1-1f-4, 8-3-3a) Fed cannot even come up with situations or cases to make the rule even loosely resemble competence !!!

mick

[gsf23]

Originally posted by LDUB

No it is not a stupid rule, it is a great rule. The Federation does not want officials to have to decide what would have happned had the ball not been called foul.

If you are competent, this rule means nothing to you. It will never come up. But if someone is stupid enough to call foul, while the ball is in the air, about to be caught, do you think he is smart enough to determine if any runners would be able to advance after the catch?

Please explain to me what decisions an umpire would have to make on a CAUGHT foul fly ball that he declared foul before it was caught.

So..if I didn't call that ball foul, what would have happened? Well..the ball would have been caught, just like it was and the runners could tag a run at their own risk. I don't see what big decision I would have to make.

[UmpJM]

Mick,

Ahh. Then I take it you had not yet come across these "pearls" to be found in the latest FED interpretations.

If that is the case, may I offer my most sincere and profound apologies for calling your attention to them. I myself have experienced the rapidly fluctuating sensations of disbelief, outrage, and vertigo that reading them can cause, and I know how unpleasant that can be. It was most inconsiderate of me to be party to your having to suffer the same thing, and I should have known better. I will do my best to refrain from such cold and callous behavior in the future.

I must say, I can't remember the last time I laughed as hard as I did while reading your thoughts on the subject. Thank you.

I have two hypotheses of my own regarding the origin of these new interpretations:

1. It's an insidious plot to get more coaches ejected from games. I mean, how could a defensive manager not go ballistic if "Situation 3" actually occurred as described in a game - say during the bottom of the 7th while his team is holding a 1 run lead with two outs and a runner on 3rd - in a game he needed to win to make the state playoffs? I mean, could you blame him?

2. The person responsible for these radically creative new "insights" into the proper application of the rules of the great game of baseball has never actually seen a baseball game!!!!.

Of course, I must admit, I never considered LDUB's theory before.

Anyway, again my most sincere apologies.

BTW, did you get as far as Situations 6 & 7?? (Oops....did it again!)

JM

[Edited by CoachJM on May 18th, 2005 at 05:48 PM]

[TBBlue]

On numerous occasions and websites, Tee has posted his unofficial (or maybe official since he has quite a few contacts) reasons for Federation Rules. There are only 4 or 5, and incompetent umpires is on the list. I personally agree with his list of reasons, especially after DG's "running lane infraction" post.

[chris s]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Coach - you are not reading this wrong.

It's stupid, absurd, any number of similar adjectives...

But this is Fed's interp this year. "Foul Ball!!!" equals DEAD ball, even if subsequently caught.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

One of the major reasons to just call "TIME", or better yet....read and understand the meanings in section 2.00 of the rule book. I broke ankle and had surgury last year, no sports for a while, but the feds now say if you call foul, it stands??? Crap, 3 years ago they had the big stance of "correct what you can"..............crap...........

[jicecone]

One of the pluses (there may be more?), I have found about this rule and rulings, is that it reinforces why, the yelling of "Foul Ball" so much during a game is not necessary. Eg. Ball fouled behind catcher. A lot of newer officials, habitually call "foul ball". I tell them, "now, if you do that and the catchers turns around to catch the ball, your going to have to also explain why you just took and out away from his defense."

But I doubt very much, that the Federation Committee intended to establish a method for training new officials on this.

Having said this, last week during a HS game, a pitch came in high and inside. The ball hit the bat just above the hands and I wanted to make sure to let everyone know that I was able to see the ball hit the bat, rather than the hands. "Foul Ball".

Wellllllll, I convinced everyone except, the defensive coach and catcher. They couldn't understand that the ball sitting on the foul line was NOT, a fair ball.

Guess who had to explain why I just took an out away from the defense? Batter hit next pitch, fly ball down 3b line, that was caught. LUCKY ME.

[ozzy6900]

I just love when people who do not understand FED argue that FED is no good. It comes from those who try to do FED while corrolating everything to OBR. It's like trying to speak German while thinking in English - it just is not possible to do it correctly.

I had the same trouble years ago when I first learned FED. I cursed it up and down until I remembered the rule of language that I stated above.

Please, keep complaining, I am enjoying this!

[mick]

Originally posted by CoachJM
Mick,

Ahh. Then I take it you had not yet come across these "pearls" to be found in the latest FED interpretations.

If that is the case, may I offer my most sincere and profound apologies for calling your attention to them. I myself have experienced the rapidly fluctuating sensations of disbelief, outrage, and vertigo that reading them can cause, and I know how unpleasant that can be. It was most inconsiderate of me to be party to your having to suffer the same thing, and I should have known better. I will do my best to refrain from such cold and callous behavior in the future.

I must say, I can't remember the last time I laughed as hard as I did while reading your thoughts on the subject. Thank you.

I have two hypotheses of my own regarding the origin of these new interpretations:

1. It's an insidious plot to get more coaches ejected from games. I mean, how could a defensive manager not go ballistic if "Situation 3" actually occurred as described in a game - say during the bottom of the 7th while his team is holding a 1 run lead with two outs and a runner on 3rd - in a game he needed to win to make the state playoffs? I mean, could you blame him?

2. The person responsible for these radically creative new "insights" into the proper application of the rules of the great game of baseball has never actually seen a baseball game!!!!.

Of course, I must admit, I never considered LDUB's theory before.

Anyway, again my most sincere apologies.

BTW, did you get as far as Situations 6 & 7?? (Oops....did it again!)

JM

Coach,
It is correct to assume that I do not regularly read Fed Baseball Rule changes and interps.

I am a registered Michigan NFHS ump, but I have never worked a fed game. There are, perhaps, a handful of teams on the outside of a 110 mile radius from Houghton.
I registered purely out of interest and the desire to understand. Having the books puts me into a "within two days if needed" position. 90% my hardball games are worked on the "if needed" basis, and I work with "other" rule books.

Indeed, the fact that you willed me to that interpretive dance on the NFHS Baseball site causes me to ponder how I may have injured your feelings in the past.

Too, I take exception to your hypotheses due to your implication that the writers of the interps had a plan or had an actual guess, or thought.

Yet, somehow, Coach, I accept your apologies for sending me to that amusement park.
mick

[UmpJM]

Mick,

As a wise man once said "To err is human, to forgive divine".

I am confident that your compassion in this matter will not go unrewarded; I, on the other hand, have undoubtedly created some "bad karma" for which I will someday pay.

I am fairly new to FED and am having difficulty understanding some of the rules and interpretations. As Ozzy astutely points out, in some ways having learned under OBR can be an impediment to learning the FED rules.

One of the leagues I am currently coaching in says in one place in its rules that its games are played under FED. In another place it says they are played under OBR. In yet another section it says that the section specifying OBR takes precedence over the section specifying FED. Their umpire qualification test is based on FED. I don't think anybody actually know what rules we are playing under. Yet, we usually manage to play the games.

Such is life.

JM

[mick]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
I just love when people who do not understand FED argue that FED is no good. It comes from those who try to do FED while corrolating everything to OBR. It's like trying to speak German while thinking in English - it just is not possible to do it correctly.

I had the same trouble years ago when I first learned FED. I cursed it up and down until I remembered the rule of language that I stated above.

Please, keep complaining, I am enjoying this!

ozzy6900,
I fail to understand why you would enjoy listening to the shortcomings of Fed Baseball.

It appears to me, an admitted Fed Baseball outsider, that a sub-average product has been developed and that rather than making it right (by offering better interps, better explained editorial changes), Fed lays back with the confidence of a king that believes he has a new suit.

If I worked Feb ball and I did not have an answer, I would not laze back and enjoy. I would find out the reasoning and either defend the practice... or call it what it is.

Apathy will not make Fed ball better.
Smugness will not defend ineptitude.
Failing to defend the indefensible is not a strength.

Help fix this thing you enjoy, so others may enjoy it more.
If you have questioned stuff and been appeased, share it.
If you haven't questioned stuff, then shame on your enjoment.

mick

[mick]

Originally posted by CoachJM
I am fairly new to FED and am having difficulty understanding some of the rules and interpretations. As Ozzy astutely points out, in some ways having learned under OBR can be an impediment to learning the FED rules.

One of the leagues I am currently coaching in says in one place in its rules that its games are played under FED. In another place it says they are played under OBR.

Coach,
Nuthin' wrong with your aura or karma. (I am sure most cats will come to you.)

I assume you have Carl Childress BRD? My main partner does.
I have difficulty understanding the differences, but I have no need.

Regarding that league with the varying rules we have a Legion League that may shift from Fed to NL with Legion notes, because one of those teams plays more than a few Fed games a year. Since there are not many Fed rule books U.P. here, the NL/Legion stuff is the default.
mick

[DG]

Originally posted by CoachJM
Mick,

As a wise man once said "To err is human, to forgive divine".

I am confident that your compassion in this matter will not go unrewarded; I, on the other hand, have undoubtedly created some "bad karma" for which I will someday pay.

I am fairly new to FED and am having difficulty understanding some of the rules and interpretations. As Ozzy astutely points out, in some ways having learned under OBR can be an impediment to learning the FED rules.

One of the leagues I am currently coaching in says in one place in its rules that its games are played under FED. In another place it says they are played under OBR. In yet another section it says that the section specifying OBR takes precedence over the section specifying FED. Their umpire qualification test is based on FED. I don't think anybody actually know what rules we are playing under. Yet, we usually manage to play the games.

Such is life.

JM

Until this week, I worked a league where they said they operated under Babe Ruth rules, and Fed rules, except where Babe Ruth superceded Fed, and, they had another list that were league rules that either superceded a Babe Ruth rule or a Fed rule. And in any rules discussion, as I was explaining what I thought the Babe Ruth/FED/League rule was on the situaion I would hear "that's not what was discussed in the coach's meeting", which of course, no umpires were invited to attend. And yes, we still managed to play the game, but they finally decided they did not like me enforcing their rules so I don't work there anymore.