Yesterday I had to do a modified level game. (7th, 8th, and 9th grade) Fed rules. I was partnered with someone who I never worked with before. Before the game started I went over everything we sould have and I asked him how many games he had done this year so far. He said 8 or 9, and he had umpired a number of years ago then moved away and decided this year to start up again. I thus assumed he was somewhat experienced and didn't forsee any rookie mistakes. Boy was I wrong. I asked him who he worked with and I didn't reccognize any of the names he said. He is considered a 1st year probationary umpire in our association. He had the plate. I knew I was in trouble in the first inning when the bases were loaded, 2 outs, 3rd strike was dropped by the catcher, batter starts to run to first and I hear him say "batter is out, 1st base is occupied." Both coaches said nothing. Couple innings later, batter hits a roller up the first base line. One of those rollers with lots of spin on it. As the ball is continuing to spin up the line, I hear him call "Foul Ball." The ball keeps spinning and ends up in fair territory. Again coaches say nothing. Someone in the stands does yell out that he can't call that foul if the ball is still rolling, everyone knows that! The topper happens a couple innings later. R2, R3, batter hits a slow roller up the third base line. The ball starts out foul but turns fair and hits smack dab in the middle of third base. R3 scores but about 5 seconds after the ball hits the base I hear my partner call "Foul Ball!" I was stunned. I couldn't believe he didn't see the ball hit the base. He was looking right at it and it was obvious. It was a slow roller that hit the middle of the base and bounced straight up and landed back on the base. The coach of the offensive team is coaching 3rd base and the play is right in front of him. He of course yells "What!? The ball hit the bag! You know it hit the bag!" Partner says nothing, coach looks at me in A and says you saw it hit the bag. I look at my partner he doesn't even look at me so I just stand there and say nothing. The coach then approaches my partner and askes him why he called that foul when the ball hit the bag. My partner tells him yes, it did hit the bag but the bag is in foul territory because the base is just a little to the left of the foul line. Coach says what are you talking about the base is fair!? My partner shook his head and said no, it is a foul ball. Fans go nuts, I want to run and hide. I am embarrased to be on the field with this guy. Should I have corrected these calls even though he never asked for any help from me? What do you guys do when you are partnered with someone who obviously has no business being an umpire?

You can correct a misapplication of a rule.

But there is also a rule that says if an umpire says FOUL BALL, the ball is dead. The bell can't be unrung.

The assignor needs to know that this guy needs more training and a test before he gets back on the field. The rules he's making up aren't even old rules that went away - they are simply wrong.

PS - why didn't coach protest (on any or all of the three).

I realize that once he called foul I couldn't do anything. The play when the ball hit the bag was so obvious to everyone that the play actually continued the way it was supposed to after he called foul. The batter ran to first and stayed there, R3 scored, R2 stayed at second and the third baseman fielded the ball, looked around and knew he had no play so tossed the ball back to the pitcher. I could have said wrong thats fair run counts batter/runner stays at first. This guy was required to pass a test this year before the season started. We also use evaluation cards that all probationary umpires are required to have filled out by their certified partners. This guy actually was stupid enough to give me one after the game. I am going to call our assigner about him and also tell him not to partner me up with him again. I guess the coaches didn't protest because it was just a modified game that really doesn't mean anything. I wanted to go up to both coaches after the game and tell them how sorry I was about the poor quality official we provided for them but I thought better of it and didn't. I give both coaches all the credit in the world. They could have been all over us but both acted like gentlemen all afternoon and I am thankful for that.

if its that bad, let him handle the heat. And make sure you never work with him again.

Speaking of bad umps, I saw a BU signal 'time' with the "T" motion (like in basketball) last week :D


[edited to add a sentence]

[Edited by LMan on May 18th, 2005 at 12:16 PM]

I've seen the bell unrung, I saw it in the majors at the beginning of last season.

Runner at second, batter hits a ball down the first base line that 1st base umpire calls foul. Manager comes out to argue, the crew gets together, change it to a fair ball, place the batter at second and score the runner.

So, in the majors at least, there is precedent to unring the bell.

Thats OBR, this is FED.

In FED, you can't unring that bell. Once its called FOUL, its foul.

The Federation specifically prohibits that.

LDUB,

I can see where a verbal "Foul Ball" make the ball dead immediately. [5-1-1h]

But R3 scored [5-2-2c], R2 is still at 2b (probably)
R1 is safe by [8-1-2b].

So now we have a "dead ball" misapplication of Rule.
By what rule may we not make it right?
It does not seem the "Foul!" call affected any part of the play during unrelaxed action.

mick

Sounds like a training issue.
 

I love it when people get on here and complain about there rookie partners. Then the replies come back to "make sure to never work with him again."

Im glad when i started some of the vets didnt take that aproach with me. I made some real dumb errors, instead of never working with me again, they made sure i was properly trained.

What you should do is maybe talk to your head training guy about your situation. Ask him if there is anything else you can do to help train some of the new guys. Get involved with the solution, dont disregard the poor guy for his lack of knowledge of the rules.

Here, here WGYWB!!

As a relative rookie myself, I couldn't agree with you more. Don't embarass me on the field (I can do that on my own, LOL) but certainly I'm open to constructive criticism. If things aren't explained to me, I won't learn!!

Thanx for your input, Blue.

Mick,

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

"<i><b>SITUATION 3</b>: 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)</i>"

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 <b>sure hope so!!!</b>)

JM

WGYWB??

Hey Large,

WGYWB = What Game You Watchin Blue

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.

I am not saying I don't help out rookies or umpires with less experiance than me. And I certainly did not embarass my partner but believe me I could have if I wanted to. In fact I went out of my way to NOT embarass my partner. What I was totaly upset about was the fact that my partner, after at least 8 games, didn't know basic things such as what is a foul ball and what is a fair ball, and at what time to call it. I went home and asked my 14 year old daughter what the proper call is on the three situations and she knew the right call on all three. If this guy is so ignorant to the basic rules of baseball that my 14 year old daughter knows more than him than he has no business being on the field until he gains the knowledge. He has to take some responsibility to be prepared to make the correct calls according to the rules. I can excuse judgement calls I don't agree with but basic stuff like foul balls I was embarrassed.

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?

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.

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: <B>The ball is dead immediately.</B> R1 returns to first. B2 continues at bat with a count of 2-2. (5-1-1h) <Font color = red>Fine! During unrelaxed action BR and R1 heard "foul" and didn't run. </Font>

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: <B>Once the umpire verbally declares “Foul Ball</B>,” 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) <Font color = red>There has to be words missing!!! ...Oh! the sun wasn't in the umps eyes :rolleyes: </Font>

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) <Font color = red>Did the ump make the call before or after he didn't see the ball go over? </Font>

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.

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: <B>Once the umpire verbally declares “Foul Ball</B>,” 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) <Font color = red> We would need bigger crews, a committee perhaps to decide if this should be an out or a strike ??? </Font>

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) <Font color = red>Fed cannot even come up with situations or cases to make the rule even loosely resemble competence !!! </Font>

mick

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.

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 <b>sincere and profound apologies</b> 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 <b>unpleasant</b> that can be. It was most <b>inconsiderate</b> 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 <b>not</b> 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 <b>radically creative</b> new "insights" into the proper application of the rules of the great game of baseball has <b>never actually seen a baseball game!!!!</b>.

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]

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.

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

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...........

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.

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!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

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

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 <b>some</b> 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 <b>anybody</b> actually know what rules we are playing under. Yet, we usually manage to play the games.

Such is life.

JM

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

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

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

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.

There is more to decide than out or foul. What if there were mutiple runners, with the possibility of one or more trying to advance after the catch?

I don't understand why you have any problem with this at all.

R2 and R3, foul fly to F7. You call foul, and F7 catches the ball.

1. Is R3 going to try to advance?
2. Is R2 going to try to advance?
3. If R3 only tries to advance will F7 throw home, or throw to F5 to keep R2 at second, and if he does throw home, will R3 be out or safe?
4. If both runners try to advance, which one will F7 play on, and will the runner be out or safe?

As you can see, there are an infinite number of things which could happen after the catch.

Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see the reasoning behind this rule on a CAUGHT fly ball.

I can see the reasoning on a ground ball, or a ball that falls uncaught. In one of those situations, as a runner if I see the ball on the ground and I hear "FOUL" then I an going to stop running or slow down.

But, EVERYONE knows that if a fly ball is caught, it is an out. I don't see how calling "foul" has any affect on the play. Are you, and FED, saying that saying "Foul" on a ball in the air is going to confuse baserunners?!?

It might.

R1 stealing on the pitch. Ball is hit in the air near the foul line. Umpire calls "foul". R1 never sees the ball, but slows down (as you said you'd do when you heard the call), and walks back to first only to find that F3 is holding the ball on the base.

If you don't kill the ball on the "foul" call, how many outs do you have?

bob,
Does Fed baseball offer any reasoning for changes like they do in other sports?
Why is spirit and intent omitted from those books?
mick