Last week I was having dinner with some umpires from my association. I had a disagreement about the following play. We were talking baseball but last night he brought a publication from 1983 titled "Illustrated Softball Rules" endorsed by the Amateur Softball Association to support his side.

Here is the play from the book: A runner is sliding into third. The third baseman loses possession of the ball and the ball goes out of play. A quote directed toward players: "When a fielder loses possession of the ball, such as on an attempted tag, and it goes out of play, each runner is awarded one base beyond the last base touched at the time the ball entered the out-of-play area. The runner sliding into third would have reached this base before the ball went out of play, and would therefore be awarded home plate." Another quote directed toward umpires: "It is not considered a throw when the fielder loses possession of the ball. Awards are judged by the positions of the runners at the time the ball leaves the playing field. Signal and call "Time" and award one base to each runner."

I would like to know if what he is quoting from that softball book applies to baseball. I argued that it should be a two base award.

What's weird about that award is that it's judged from the time the ball leaves the field. In baseball, awards for an overthrow are 2 base and judged as either TOT or TOP. The latter if the play is the first by an infielder, otherwise the former.

OK,
 

"We were talking baseball but last night he brought a publication from 1983 titled "Illustrated Softball Rules" . . ."

So,

Why would anyone think that a softball rules book would pretain to a baseball ruling?

<i>"Why would anyone think that a softball rules book would pertain to a baseball ruling?"</i>


Because they think it's the same game.

When we added the softbal program under our umbrella, I told our UIC he needed to get his crew softball training because it's a different game. He disagreed. He found out the hard way.

Re: OK,
 

A little background: I'm in my mid 30's and everybody else at these dinners are at least 50. This particular gentleman is in his upper 70's and he is a joy to be around due to his continued enthusiasm for the game. I usually feel very comfortable and confident in my rules knowledge. I am constantly in disagreement with my elder, more experienced colleagues but I am always afraid to disagree with them. I rarely contribute to this kind of forum (discussion boards) because I am afraid of the flame wars here. I usually just ask questions. I frankly could use some advice on how to approach the issue of how to disagree in a way that doesn't offend sensitive, veteran umpires who are very set in their ways. Last night, after I read the passage, I said in a very humble tone that I didn't think it applied to baseball. The gentleman turned to another umpire who does more baseball, and he agreed with the one base award. I said I would post the question on this forum (these guys are not internet savvy). Even the tone (if a "tone" can be inferred from writing) of your question Tim, could be construed as on the offensive. Why didn't you just answer the question? I really try to avoid this when I disagree with these older fellas. I wouldn't know how to verbally ask your question in a way that doesn't put the other guy on the defensive. I am starting to ramble so I'll stop here.

Try this approach (example fitted to the original question).

"I read rule 7.05(g) I think I remember it saying the award is two bases from the runner's position at the time of the throw. Do I remember it incorrectly?"

You thus demonstrate a base of knowledge without telling them they're wrong.

If they disagree, get out the book and say "Gee, I guess I'd better re-read it."

Read it (to yourself).

Then, put on a puzzled look, hand one of them the book, and ask him to help you understand how you are not getting it.

uh huh
 

What Rich said.
Sounds perfect.

I didn't quote the rule by the specific reference but I paraphrased it accurately. His biggest contention was that once the fielder has possession of the ball, it no longer was a thrown ball but rather a "fielding play." He accused me of nit-picking when I asked if the fielder merely had to touch the thrown ball with his glove in order to get the one base award.

Golly
 

Aren't we just in a "can't we just get along" world!

Sheesh, even when I was younger I told people when they were flat out wrong.

I answered your question.

Softball has nothing to do with baseball. You know the rule, it is your local Smitty's that don't.

Just give'em a group hug and hum Kumbaya!

Love & Kisses,

Tee

I would think that 7.05 (f) would be more applicable in this situation. The rule deals strictly with a fair ball that bounces or is deflected. Notice that the rule doesn't say the ball has to be batted, just fair. In your case, it would be a deflected ball. It is still a two base award.

I wish I had my J/R manual here to verify the rule, but I believe it to be correct.

7.05 (f) Two bases, if a fair ball bounces or is deflected into the stands outside the first or third base foul lines; or if it goes through or under a field fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence; or if it sticks in such fence, scoreboard, shrubbery or vines;

I would have thought that "fair" implied a batted ball.

That's about a BATTED ball.

Gee Tee, I got brought up to respect one's elders and that wasn't in the touchy-feely generation (look at my photo - the gray is not pre-mature).

[Edited by Rich Ives on Aug 11th, 2005 at 11:19 AM]

NFHS softball rule
 

NFHS Softball has a specific ruling for a ball that has been caught and is then fumbled or deflected into dead-ball territory (Other adult softball codes probably have similar rules)...

NFHS 8-4-3g
A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:
g. the ball is in play and is overthrown (beyond the boundary lines) or is blocked...
EXCEPTIONS
1) When a fielder loses possession of the ball, such as on an attempted tag, and the ball enters the dead-ball area or becomes blocked, each runner is awarded one base from the last base touched at the time the ball entered the dead-ball area or became blocked.

Neither NFHS baseball or MLB has such a specific ruling that I can find for a caught ball that is fumbled into dead-ball territory.

The closest I can find for this scenario, is in Rule 7.

7.05 g and h
(g) Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench (whether or not the ball rebounds into the field), or over or under or through a field fence, or on a slanting part of the screen above the backstop, or remains in the meshes of a wire screen protecting spectators. The ball is dead.

(h) One base, if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher from his position on the pitcher's plate to a base to catch a runner, goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or backstop. The ball is dead; APPROVED RULING: When a wild pitch or passed ball goes through or by the catcher, or deflects off the catcher, and goes directly into the dugout, stands, above the break, or any area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be one base. One base shall also be awarded if the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, throws to a base, and the throw goes directly into the stands or into any area where the ball is dead. If, however, the pitched or thrown ball goes through or by the catcher or through the fielder, and remains on the playing field, and is subsequently kicked or deflected into the dugout, stands or other area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be two bases from position of runners at the time of the pitch or throw.

So the proper answer is one base in softball and two in baseball. (We expect more of baseball players;))

In your discussion you may want to refer to the deadball tables (Rule 5) in the NFHS rulebooks. Softball #15 (8-4-3g) and Baseball #15 (8-3-3c and 8-3-4). Also notice that there are 37 dead-ball situations in NFHS softball and only 26 in NFHS baseball. There are obviously some rules differences between the games... As noted by others here, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME GAMES.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Aug 11th, 2005 at 12:45 PM]

Hmmm,
 

Rich wrote:

"I got brought up to respect one's elders . . . "

And Rich, therein lies a fundemental difference between us.

I was taught to respect those who EARN IT!

Re: Hmmm,
 

Do you then, by default, disrespect those who have not yet earned your respect?

Hey Rich, I said I couldn't check the rule. You don't have to yell! ;)

Yes, that is the ground rule double rule...

In checking with J/R, it seems that the key point is that the fielder has possession of the ball. If the fielder has possession and then the ball propelled into DBT, TOT is then determined to be when the player propelled the ball into DBT after he gained possession. He, in effect, threw the ball into DBT, unintentionally of course.

In any event, it is a two base award from TOT.

Great technique, still used today...with children. Often it translates into "speak not, unless spoken to."
Now that you are an adult, albeit a rat, you should be able to to differentiate between those that earn respect and those that don't. If not, I have lost any sort of respect I had for you.

Lapopez, it is obvious that you respect these guys. No problem, it seems that you understand your role in the pecking order. You might want to pull out a rule book and ask the question instead of paraphrasing it.

Geezsh, next thing I will hear is how we should hold hands with Al-Qeada and tell them we are sorry. In the words of Papa C, "Lah me!"

<i>I was taught to respect those who EARN IT!</i>


That makes for some questions.

Do you assume they deserve it until proven otherwise?

If not, until you've decided they earned it can you treat them like dirt?

How do you decide they've earned it?

What do you do if you later find that they were right and you were wrong?

How do you earn the respect of others?

Hmmm,
 

Intersting questions, but simple (too me):

Everyone in my book starts out at chapter One, paragraph one, sentence one and word one.

They are all equal and have a clean slate.

As I said no one "deserves" respect (example: some people would accord the sitting President respect because of the position -- others would disrespect the individual by perfomance or ideals) -- I would respect the postion but have to gain respect for the man.

I would hope that I would not treat people like "dirt" but I do have a certain "disdain" for all people on first blush.

People can earn respect in so many ways how the fuk could it be defined. I have learned to respect several internet umpires . . . I don't necessarily like them (only know their cyber role they play) but I respect them by performance.

I even respect a few coaches (managers).

As my mother taught me long ago:

"I'm not always right but I am never wrong!"

Respect has to do more with other items than right and wrong . . . while I can respect an umpire that misunderstands a rule or simply ignores a rule that is a different respect than I would give Pablo Picasso if I had met him.

I do not wory about gaining respect.

As an umpire I prepare well, practice hard, work dilligently to correct my weaknesses and hustle on every play (I never take a play off.). If that gains respect that is fine -- if it does not that is also fine.

Remember that I only umpire for power and money . . . this means I have only one person to satisfy and that is myself.

<i>Now that you are an adult, albeit a rat, you should be able to to differentiate between those that earn respect and those that don't. If not, I have lost any sort of respect I had for you.</i>


I can differentiate. The question/issue is

1) how you interact prior to the decision point and
2) how you treat people that don't earn it.

Also, lack of knowledge in one area doesn't necessarily translate into other areas, so respect for the same person can vary based on the subject at hand. You have to keep things in perspective and not place a blanket judgement on people based on one subject.

Being a rat doesn't mean I don't have a reasonably good grip on the rules. Several people here have a superior knowledge of the rules, which I respect and learn from, but it doesn't mean I'd invite them to a party.

I can't even spell calculus but I can put together a pretty good cost proposal.

I can respect Ricky Williams' ability as a running back or Randy Moss' ability as a receiver while, at the same time, thinking they're "just a bit" nutty.

I'm surprised even an old curmudgeon tried to use a softball book to support a baseball interp...

But even worse - a softball book written in NINETEEN FRIGGIN EIGHTY THREE likely has as little to do with SOFTball as it does to baseball.

In 83, softball rules had to be written to fit EXTREMELY inexperienced players. The game is much more "baseballish" today than it was then, although they have definitely evolved separately and rules differ in many significant ways.

I am missing your point here. Do you mean here on this forum or when I am out with the guys? Out with the guys I feel like I am immediately putting them on the defensive when I bring out the rule book.

Hmmm,
 

So does that mean you can't make the tough call during a game?

Re: Hmmm,
 

I don't see the correlation between not wanting to make my fellow umpires feel uncomfortable and making a "tough" (?) call during a game.

Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

Let's review. Some quotes from your posts in this thread:



Sorry to be blunt, but you come across as very wishy-washy. You're so afraid of conflict that it does seem rather incongruous that you would be a baseball umpire. I suspect the reaction I have had to your posts in this thread is similar to Tee's, prompting him to ask if you can make a tough, controversial call in a game situation.

It's a fair observation.

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

Fair enough. You spent all that time to cut and paste all those quotes and I wish you would have just said "buck up" and don't be afraid to say what's right. That's what I'll try to take away from this thread. I'm actually not afraid of confrontations with coaches and as a coach I'm usually pretty confrontational with umpires who blow rule stuff..."The lady doth protest too much"...

Buck up.

Suggested technique: "After our discussion the other day I went to my rule book and I still think it says..." Pulling out your book and turning to the page, "the rule reads...doesn't that mean..." If your buds turn their back on you and aren't willing to engage, then it is time to find a new group of pals.

If one of the FNG that I talk ball with pulls this stunt on me it shows me three things:
1) he is in the rule book studying
2) he has the balls to get the rule right
3) he wants to learn

I will work with a guy like that any day of the week.

Hahahaha,
 

The original poster wrote:

"Do you then, by default, disrespect those who have not yet earned your respect?"

Golly, why should I fall for a Rush Limbaugh type question?

Rush often says: "You're either a conservative or a liberal, there is no middle ground!"

And you have tried to make me sit in the situation.

I would guess that even dumb people would recognize that there could be three easily identified levels:

"Disrespect",

"Neutral or open minded"

"Respect" . . .

You have already proven to be wishy-washy I think you have made that quite clear.

<i>Rush often says: "You're either a conservative or a liberal, there is no middle ground!"</i>


Typical conservative thought - black and white - no room for discussion.

OTOH, liberals keep putting off a decision because there's still more options to discuss.

Does that mean you can't have a liberal sports official?

Hehehehe,
 

POTW.

Re: Hahahaha,
 

If "wishy-washy" means "neutral or open minded," I'm guilty.

Well,
 

I think the term "wishy-washy" is clear.

WOBW.

Re: Well,
 

I knew you couldn't just leave it alone. This whole thread could have ended after my post in reply to Dave Hensley. What is your motivation to even participate in this type of forum? (A rhetorical question). You are not here to help. Look at your first post in this thread. You did not answer the question--what with a sarcastic question in response? You are just here to feed your ego by trying to make yourself appear superior to those who do not know the rules as well as you do. That is my opinion--based on countless sarcastic, arrogant posts you have made. I can live with being "wishy-washy." Although I respect your knowledge of baseball rules, I know you can live without having my respect as a person.

Paul Lopez

Ouch!
 

Now you've wounded me.

Dear Smitty:

It is NOT about knowing rules.

It is about standing up for those rules you do know.

You had a chance to repair an idiot using a softball rule to prove a baseball point. You slected to hide behind a fear of making him look bad.

How about all the other umpires that believed the crap he was spreading.

Grow up and learn to deal with myth makers and you'll do the game and umpires a favor.

WOBW

[Edited by Tim C on Aug 12th, 2005 at 10:58 AM]

Tim, this has been a WOBw for quite a while now, approximately starting with the initial post, which said (and I blatantly paraphrase)...

Hi. I'm a sheep who likes to play wolf, but when confronted with wolves, even weak ones, I become a sheep again. Can you help me.

My advice - instead of getting on the wolves' website and trying unconvincingly to hide your sheepiness, go back to watching The View, and send your note to Dr. Phil instead.

A further suggestion. When the question first comes up, tell the Respected Elder Umpires that you will do the research before your next meeting. In my experience, they will welcome your effort before the fact as well.

-LL