LL Rules - appealing an out at home plate

[gsf23]

Originally posted by LDUB
What makes you think the BU didn't see R1 retouch first legally?

In JM's situation from page one he states the base umpire first denied the appeal. JM came out to question and was stopped. The PU then called over the base umpire, they taked and the BU reversed the call. So the BU obviously didn't see something or he would have had no reason to reverse the call.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CoachJM
[B]Garth,

I see you were unable to find a kitten.

No...I found one.

While I can see how a person who has a certain predisposition might misinterpret my comments in such a way as to characterize them as suggesting arguing balls and strikes with a specious "rules" argument, I certainly didn't say that. Nor would I condone it. Not "step balks" either, in case you're wondering.

Excuse me for extrapolating on your comment: "All rulings made on plays during baseball games involve both an element of judgement and an element of rules application."

Since you've decided to contribute your insight, experience, and knowledge to the question being discussed (oops, my bad - your comments didn't even touch on the question being discussed. Anyway,...)

ACtually I did address that part of your post that I found interesting. I do believe I have the right to do that. The rest, to me, was so much blah, blah, blah that I've heard so many times. Enough others were willing to discuss it, I didn't feed the need.


I'm curious as to how you would characterize an umpire, who has just blown a call because he misapplied the rules, who facetiously responds to a coach's reasonable and proper appeal with: "Sorry Skip, I didn't see it." ?

I'm not sure, coach. I am not familiar with umpires who act facetiously when they make mistakes. I suppose, if I were ever to find myself in a sucn a situation as a coach, God forbid, I would hope that I would act as I do know when a coach exaggerates his case to me or outright lies to me, ("Garth, he couldn't have balked he wasn't even in the stretch, he was in wind-up", the coach yelled from the dugout while his pitcher, who froze after the balk call, remained, for all to see, in the set position.)

I do my best to keep the game going, keep my professionalism, recognize that no one is perfect and not whine endlessly about it.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by gsf23

In JM's situation from page one he states the base umpire first denied the appeal. JM came out to question and was stopped. The PU then called over the base umpire, they taked and the BU reversed the call. So the BU obviously didn't see something or he would have had no reason to reverse the call.

He was going to protest as soon as the BU denied the appeal. He assumed that a rule was misapplied, but it very well could not have.

Obviously the PU told the BU something which made him change the call. On a fly ball to F8 with R1 and R3, who is watching R1 tag up? The BU probally didn't see anything, and therfore called him safe. The PU saw that R1 never got close to first.

So R1 and R3. Fly ball to F9 in foul ground. PU does not get a good angle to see the catch and R3 retouch. R3 leaves early and scores. Defense appeals and PU denies it.

JM then comes out of the dugout and yells "I protest." What is there to protest?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

I disagree. The OBR Approved Ruling, together with example Play 1 makes it clear that the runner cannot advance to a succeeding base after the ball goes dead.

---

7.10(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.
APPROVED RULING: (2) When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base. PLAY. (a) Batter hits ball out of
park or ground rule double and misses first base (ball is dead)_he may return to first base to correct his mistake before he touches second but if he touches second he may not return to first and if defensive team appeals he is declared out at first.

---

It certainly appears you are right, and I quote that rule citation in Section 419 of the BRD. (So I must have thought that was correct before.)

The problem I have is that both PBUC and MLBUM have issued official interpretations that say the same thing.

What may have happened, and I'll research it, is that there was an official interpretation that overturned 7.10b AR 2, and the "new" interpretation reverted to the original language.

At any rate, you're now a footnote in the 2006 BRD.

Thanks, Dallas Dave.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally posted by LDUB
JM's protest is the same thing. He saw something, and he assumed the umpire saw the same thing. [/B]

I feel confident, if JM actually acts anything like he posts, that he usually goes out onto the field with two goals:

1. Convince the umpire to change the call.
2. Bait the umpire into a winnable protest.

His SOP, it appears, is to discuss first what the umpire judged to have (or have not) seen, then to ask the umpire to indicate which rules he was enforcing. JM seeks to find a discrepancy between the judgment and the rules. If he finds one, and he can't convince the umpire to reverse the call, he now has ammunition for a convincing protest.

Pete Booth certainly gets this, though I find I'm interested (along with JM) to know if Pete was advocating that umpires lie to avoid the trap that JM sets.

In JM's sitch, the umpire did not grant him the request to discuss. (It actually appears that the ball was already dead.) While an umpire can refuse to discuss a call with a manager, I think that a manager always has the right to protest the game.

I am curious, though, how JM would have worded the protest without first having trapped the umpire.

-LL

[GarthB]

Originally posted by LilLeaguer

I feel confident, if JM actually acts anything like he posts, that he usually goes out onto the field with two goals:

1. Convince the umpire to change the call.
2. Bait the umpire into a winnable protest.

-LL [/B]

Seems correct to me. Coaches, all coaches, are lobbyists. They do not say "boo" to an umpire without having a desired result in mind. Experienced umpires understand this and limit their conversations accordingly. Unfortunately, some newer umpires are not aware of this and, on occasion, in an effort to help a coach, say something in a manner that really didn't reflect their actions or understanding only to have it used against them. (again, there is a reason they are called Rats)

One of the good Texas umpires I know has, for years, advocated responses of five words or less to all questions from coaches. I adopted that a couple of years ago and it works extremely well.

[LMan]

..this is why people who say, "I'm a coach and also an umpire" are at heart...really coaches. *ducks*

An umpire's goal is to apply the rules to the game. A coach's goal is to win - nothing more, nothing less.

[gsf23]

Originally posted by LDUB
[B]

He was going to protest as soon as the BU denied the appeal. He assumed that a rule was misapplied, but it very well could not have.

All right, but how is a coach supposed to know if the rule was misapplied unless he goes out to ask the umpire what happend? If the umpire says no coach, I saw him retouch first before the ball went dead, then fine protest over, rule wasn't misapplied. If umpire says no coach he can go back to retouch during the dead ball, now we might have something, but how is the coach to know which it is unless he asks?

In this situation, we will never know why the appeal was denied because the BU never gave coach a chance to ask.




[Edited by gsf23 on Jul 27th, 2005 at 03:41 PM]

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by LilLeaguer


Pete Booth certainly gets this, though I find I'm interested (along with JM) to know if Pete was advocating that umpires lie to avoid the trap that JM sets.

My disagreement with Coach JM is that the INITIAL call of OBS/INTERFERENCE is a Judgement call first and foremost. Once, called then the rules governing those rules take effect.

IMO, it's NO different then if F1 threw a pitch right down Broadway and the PU called it a ball. Rule 9.02a also supports my position.

As far as "lying" goes it's simply a way to get the coach off our backs PERIOD. I agree with Garth in that the less said to a coach the better.


JM was allowed to do what he did because the UMPIRES allowed him to, but if he had veteran officials, the call would not be changed or REVERSED.

As rule 9.02a states, judgement calls which the calling of OBS/Interference are, are NOT protestable and for a very good reason, otherwise the game would result in chaos.


Pete Booth

[LilLeaguer]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by LilLeaguer


Pete Booth certainly gets this, though I find I'm interested (along with JM) to know if Pete was advocating that umpires lie to avoid the trap that JM sets.

My disagreement with Coach JM is that the INITIAL call of OBS/INTERFERENCE is a Judgement call first and foremost. Once, called then the rules governing those rules take effect.

IMO, it's NO different then if F1 threw a pitch right down Broadway and the PU called it a ball. Rule 9.02a also supports my position.

As far as "lying" goes it's simply a way to get the coach off our backs PERIOD. I agree with Garth in that the less said to a coach the better.


JM was allowed to do what he did because the UMPIRES allowed him to, but if he had veteran officials, the call would not be changed or REVERSED.

As rule 9.02a states, judgement calls which the calling of OBS/Interference are, are NOT protestable and for a very good reason, otherwise the game would result in chaos.


Pete Booth

We're discussing two situations. The OBS call didn't involve JM, so he wasn't allowed to do anything; he just says what he'd try to do. In the leaving early appeal sitch, JM stepped out of the dugout during a dead ball, stood there, and then returned. I'm not a veteran Real Umpire(tm), but I think I would have allowed that.

On an OBS/INT call, I'll answer these questions truthfully, in five words or less:
* What did my fielder/runner do?
* Why wasn't it INT/OBS?
* Why did you make that award?

Are any of them improper questions for an umpire to answer? And yes, I'm aware that the Rat might be trying to bait me into admitting evidence that I screwed up a ruling. My attitude on that is:
* I'm pretty confident that, in most cases, I get the ruling correct.
* If I didn't, I'd prefer to correct it on the field rather than have a protest committee try to find excuses for me later.

Currently, I try to avoid being overturned in a protest, and I don't lie on the field, even to Rats. I'm not sure that either goal is consistent with becoming a Real Umpire(tm), but that isn't a goal of mine right now.

-LL

[Hunter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB
[
Coaches, all coaches, are lobbyists. They do not say "boo" to an umpire without having a desired result in mind. Experienced umpires understand this and limit their conversations accordingly. Unfortunately, some newer umpires are not aware of this and, on occasion, in an effort to help a coach, say something in a manner that really didn't reflect their actions or understanding only to have it used against them. (again, there is a reason they are called Rats)


Garth, I enjoy reading your posts, as well as many others on this board. I am not an umpire. I am a coach. I coach because my son loves the game as much as I do. As a coach, I feel that one of my biggest priorities is to teach and instill in my players (12 year olds) a love and respect for the game. If I do that, then teaching them fundamentals, rules, etc will be an easier task. It will also raise the odds that each one of my players will want to play next year. Your statement that "all coaches are lobbyists" may apply to the large population of coaches, but not "all". I understand your dislike for coaches(rats), and have seen 1,001 things that coaches do to give umpires reasons to hate them. But remember, there are still some coaches who do it for the pure love of the game. I don't gauge the success of my team's season by wins and losses. I gauge it by how much did my team learn. That is one reason why I faithfully read this board. To learn more about the rules so that I can dutifully teach the players. Again, I truly do enjoy reading what is posted here, and typically try to keep quiet and learn. But please don't group all coaches as liars, rats, lance, etc. Remember, be gentle.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hunter

Originally posted by GarthB
[
Coaches, all coaches, are lobbyists. They do not say "boo" to an umpire without having a desired result in mind. Experienced umpires understand this and limit their conversations accordingly. Unfortunately, some newer umpires are not aware of this and, on occasion, in an effort to help a coach, say something in a manner that really didn't reflect their actions or understanding only to have it used against them. (again, there is a reason they are called Rats)


Garth, I enjoy reading your posts, as well as many others on this board. I am not an umpire. I am a coach. I coach because my son loves the game as much as I do. As a coach, I feel that one of my biggest priorities is to teach and instill in my players (12 year olds) a love and respect for the game. If I do that, then teaching them fundamentals, rules, etc will be an easier task. It will also raise the odds that each one of my players will want to play next year. Your statement that "all coaches are lobbyists" may apply to the large population of coaches, but not "all". I understand your dislike for coaches(rats), and have seen 1,001 things that coaches do to give umpires reasons to hate them. But remember, there are still some coaches who do it for the pure love of the game. I don't gauge the success of my team's season by wins and losses. I gauge it by how much did my team learn. That is one reason why I faithfully read this board. To learn more about the rules so that I can dutifully teach the players. Again, I truly do enjoy reading what is posted here, and typically try to keep quiet and learn. But please don't group all coaches as liars, rats, lance, etc. Remember, be gentle.

Hunter, when I say that all coaches are lobbyists, I do not do so dispargingly. I am recognizing reality. It is a coaches job to do everything he can to give his team the best possible opportunity to win. He would be derelict if he didn't.

I also recognize that since both coaches are trying to get every advantage then can, and since it is the umpires job to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by rule, we are at times placed in adversrial positions. None of this makes a coach a "rat", rather it is how he decides to go about this job that determines his rodent status.

I wish you well in your endeavors. I value nothing more than I do the ability to teach.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 27th, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

[Hunter]

Originally posted by GarthB

Hunter, when I say that all coaches are lobbyists, I do not do so dispargingly. I am recognizing reality. It is a coaches job to do everything he can to give his team the best possible opportunity to win. He would be derelict if he didn't.

I also recognize that since both coaches are trying to get every advantage then can, and since it is the umpires job to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by rule, we are at times placed in adversrial positions. None of this makes a coach a "rat", rather it is how he decides to go about this job that determines his rodent status.

I wish you well in your endeavors. I value nothing more than I do the ability to teach.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 27th, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

Point well taken. I will continue to visit here regularly to read your posts as well as those of Pete, T, etc. I agree with you on the value of teaching, and for me to become a better teacher, I will continue to learn more regarding the rules and their application. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[Frank Drebin]

Jane: I've heard police work is dangerous.
Frank Drebin: It is. That's why I carry a big gun.
Jane: Aren't you afraid it might go off accidentally?
Frank Drebin: I used to have that problem.
Jane: What did you do about it?
Frank Drebin: I just think about baseball.

Look for my Seminar: "Umpiring Mechanics Is My Middle Name" coming soon. Surely, you won't want to miss it.

Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective Lieutenant, Police Squad.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by Frank Drebin
Jane: I've heard police work is dangerous.
Frank Drebin: It is. That's why I carry a big gun.
Jane: Aren't you afraid it might go off accidentally?
Frank Drebin: I used to have that problem.
Jane: What did you do about it?
Frank Drebin: I just think about baseball.

Look for my Seminar: "Umpiring Mechanics Is My Middle Name" coming soon. Surely, you won't want to miss it.

Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective Lieutenant, Police Squad.

I don't want to miss it and please, don't call me Shirley.

A little Airplane reference.