There are two writers on the paid site worth renewing my subscription over -- Tee and Peter.

What happened to Peter and why are his planned articles not in the "On Deck" section?

--Rich

Mr. Osborne has been very busy of late -- with his day job.

He has no articles in the queue.

Perhaps an email from you might jog his creativity.

Nah, if there's one thing I know you only write when the feeling hits you. Oh, and I also know what it's like to be busy on the day job as well.

good article
 

Also Agree, I like the stuff Peter Osborne writes.......looking forward to his return. Until then there is a good article by Roper up today.........

Stan

Re: good article
 

Except I would never interpret "taking the rubber" as anything other than what is intended -- pitching to a batter.

The umpire in the story should've just ejected the manager. Too much effort, unwarranted, in keeping someone around who doesn't deserve it.

I think you have made a rare mistake Rich


MLBUM 3.4:

"A substitution is completed and the player is considered as having entered the game when the manager or his designee notifies the plate umpire of the substitution. If no such notification is given to the umpire or after notification no announcement is made, the player shall be considered as having entered the game when:

"(1) If a pitcher, he takes his place on the pitcher's plate prior to delivering a pitch (preparatory or
otherwise);"

Memoirs of several former professional umpires mention firestorms that occurred when they properly enforced the rule.

But note that Mr. Fronheiser made no claim that what he did was right. All he said was: "I would never interpret 'taking the rubber' as anything other than what is intended -- pitching to a batter."

Considering the points you make in your upcoming article, that shouldn't be hard for you to understand, if not approve of.

Approve? Well it helps prove the point.

Re: Re: good article
 

you miss the point...an ejection was the easy way out, and FWIW, considered by the 16 yr old umpire. The umpire decided to make a point.

This past Saturday, I worked a game with the young chap's father. Comment overheard in the dugout..."****, we got Roper and Marts. Roper is the head umpire up here and Marts is the dad of that kid that f****d the Deers. Marts taught his boy everything he knows. If his boy knows the rules...No pushin' these guys around..."

I just smiled and went about my business.

Oh, I have a copy of the MLBUM and know this citation. Sometimes it's nice to know that a citation is so obscure that even a protest committee wouldn't find it :)

Well, gosh: The protest committee may not have the MLBUM, but I'll bet a dollar to a penny they have the OBR:

3.08(a): "If no announcement of a substitution is made, the substitute shall be considerfed as having entered the game when - (1) If a pitcher, he take his place on the pitcher's plate."

FED is different - and better:

(3-1-1): "Should there be no announcement of substitutions, a substitute has entered the game <i>when the ball is alive</i> and: ... (b) a pitcher takes his place on the pitcher's plate."

Surely this statute doesn't come as a surprise to you.

I don't subscribe to the paid side as of yet, so I did not read the article you are discussing.

Are you discussing a player, other than the pitcher, throwing warm up pitches from the rubber being forced to face at least one batter?

Thanks,

Tim.

Yes.

No time like the present to subscribe. If you itemize, it's a deductible expense.

It's easy for me to take the FED citation and apply it in an OBR game. I can always say that "taking his place on the pitcher's plate" can't possibly happen until I make the ball live.

Why would an umpire want to stick it up a team's backside in this manner? Furthermore, if the guy who took a warmup pitch isn't a pitcher, why would I want to have him throw pitches at me?

Why would an umpire want to stick it up a team's backside in this manner?


It may not have been the case here, but we've probably all encountered a team at one time or another that did deserve it.

It's easy for me to take the FED citation and apply it in an OBR game. I can always say that "taking his place on the pitcher's plate" can't possibly happen until I make the ball live.

Why would an umpire want to stick it up a team's backside in this manner? Furthermore, if the guy who took a warmup pitch isn't a pitcher, why would I want to have him throw pitches at me? [/QUOTE]Your attitude here is symptomatic of one problem we have in amateur baseball, i.e., selective enforcement of rules.

You won't force a kid to become the pitcher because it's, as you colorfully put it, sticking up their backsides.

R3. Pitcher in the wind-up. His coach yells, "Curly, pitch from the stretch." So Curly slowly and deliberately steps off the rubber <i>with the wrong foot</i>. I argued in an article that since everybody knew the pitcher was simply changing positions, the umpire should not call a balk.

A gentleman named, uh, you, followed me around telling me how stupid that was. "That's a balk, and that's all there is to it."

Well, that guy is now the pitcher, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, the first baseman-now-pitcher isn't going to be throwing "pitches at you" unless you grab a mitt and squat behind the plate.

Here's what I think happened. You didn't know the rule, you despise Rich Ives (whom you've never met) because he's a coach (rat), so you chided him for having to quote the MLBUM. Now, after I pointed out the rule in the OBR and FED books, you're stuck having to defend the indefensible.

When that happens to me, I just say: "Hey, I screwed up." I say that on the internet, I say that on the ball field. Much less often on the ball field. (grin)

On the other hand, if you truly would not require the guy to pitch, in spite of the screams of the other mkanager, would it be fair for me to ask for a list of other rules you have no intention of "sticking up their backsides"?

Carl,

Can you expand on why this ruling was implemented?

Does it have anything to do with the defensive team gaining an advantage through deception?

Tim.

I suspect you're right. Also, it might have to do with delay of game by giving the pitcher extra time in the dugout.

Here's what Evans says:

<font color=black><b>As early as 1920, provisions were added to cover situations in which unannounced substitutes entered the gfame. In essence it ruled that when an unannounced substitute replaced a player, the substitute should be considered in the game even though the umpire was not properly notified. These provisions were essentially the same as those stipulated in 3.08a with only one exception. That exception is an amendment to 3.08a.3 that was enacted in 1980. This change in wording merely legitimized a custom that had been practiced since the earliest days of the game. Instead of an unannounced fielder being considered in the game when he reached his position, the rule was amended by specifying "... and play
commences."

[CC Note: But that doesn't apply to a pitcher, only to a fielder.] This officially legalized the custom of someone from the bench warming-up the pitcher or another player taking throws at first base between innings. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify the intent of the rule and at the same time expedite play.

At one time, managers or captains were subject to $5 fines for failure to notify the umpire of substitutions. By the 1940’s, the fme had escalated to $25. In addition, a "similar fine" was imposed on an umpire who failed to hve proper announcement made to the spectagtors.</font></b>

Good question.

Thanks for the kind words.

I was gone for a week. I guess that my tongue in cheek piece on perverts who watch LL was not well received because I no longer see it here and I did not delete it. :D

I have four emails from various folks wondering if I had been fired. I had to go through 150 or so emails in my box to discover that none was from Brad or Carl so that means that I am still a writer. (After reading the fourth email about being fired, I thought that I might have accidently deleted my firing notice among 140 pieces of spam. I was not sure I still worked here until I signed on and saw Carl's post.)

Peter

Didn't you just ignore a rule?

In Rich's stitch, everyone knows that the other guy isn't the pitcher. He is just fooling around. How is this any different than ignoring a balk because everyone knows the pitcher is just changing positions?

Well, you mean the skipper couldn't send a guy to the mound to warm up <i>before</i> he reported him?

31 goes to the mound and tosses a warm-up pitch to the catcher. How is "everyone" to know he's fooling around?

You know, I'm almost always amazed by your posts. You get the words generally, but you can't hear the tune.

My whole point is that "advanced" umpires <i>often</i> pick and choose the rules they will enforce. Rich has his list. I have my list. BTW: The balk rule I ignore never causes problems in my area because everybody knows what the pitcher is doing.

In the Texas State Umpires Meeting back in the mid 80s, Durwood Merrill was asked about my comment of "no balk" when the pitcher stepped back with his non-pibvot foot. Durwood said (and I have this on tape) that at his level he didn't worry about what gear the pitcher shifted out of as long as it was slow and there was no movement of the arms. So I'm happy ignoring that rule.

I asked Rich for some of the other rules he doesn't enforce.

To quote <i>Word Jazz</i>: How are things in your town?

What about that play which you ignored the balk? Shouldn't a properly coached baserunner steal when the pitcher pitches out of the windup? What if R1 broke for second when F1 started his motion to pitch? You ignored the rule even though you didn't know that "everyone" knew what was going on.

In Roper's article it was very obvious that F5 was not the pitcher. The PU didn't even say anything untill the real F1 was on the rubber with the ball.

If that was my game and the opposing manager questioned why I was allowing the real F1 to pitch, I would inform him that I was getting a drink while F5 threw his pitch.

I could say the same thing about your posts.

Yep, you could say it.

Several members of The Forum warned me not to reply to your posts. I see why now.

This leads to a political observation of a general nature. I let other people determine the rules that I do not enforce. Especially if you are a little dog, it is a good idea to watch what the big dogs in your area ignore and ignore the same stuff. If none of the big dogs call certain balks, ignore those balks. Same with any other of the non safety related rules. Bonafide safety rules, however, you cannot ignore. Call those rules for your own protection or find another association to work with.

Peter

Your attitude here is symptomatic of one problem we have in amateur baseball, i.e., selective enforcement of rules.

You won't force a kid to become the pitcher because it's, as you colorfully put it, sticking up their backsides.

R3. Pitcher in the wind-up. His coach yells, "Curly, pitch from the stretch." So Curly slowly and deliberately steps off the rubber <i>with the wrong foot</i>. I argued in an article that since everybody knew the pitcher was simply changing positions, the umpire should not call a balk.

A gentleman named, uh, you, followed me around telling me how stupid that was. "That's a balk, and that's all there is to it."

Well, that guy is now the pitcher, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, the first baseman-now-pitcher isn't going to be throwing "pitches at you" unless you grab a mitt and squat behind the plate.

Here's what I think happened. You didn't know the rule, you despise Rich Ives (whom you've never met) because he's a coach (rat), so you chided him for having to quote the MLBUM. Now, after I pointed out the rule in the OBR and FED books, you're stuck having to defend the indefensible.

When that happens to me, I just say: "Hey, I screwed up." I say that on the internet, I say that on the ball field. Much less often on the ball field. (grin)

On the other hand, if you truly would not require the guy to pitch, in spite of the screams of the other mkanager, would it be fair for me to ask for a list of other rules you have no intention of "sticking up their backsides"? [/QUOTE]

Carl, your attempt to discredit my rules knowledge aside, read the OBR citation again, this time slowly. This time, please read with comprehension, OK? Absent the MLBUM citation, you could easily interpret this citation in the same manner as the FED rule is written.

You are being inconsistent with your advancing age, Carl. If you are going to let a pitcher step off incorrectly during a live ball without calling a balk and at the same time force a kid goofing off to pitch when THERE'S A DEAD BALL, I may as well disappear from this thread right now, because you're just trying to make me look bad -- and not actually trying to make a point.

If and when I make a mistake, I'll let you and everyone else know. My name isn't Carl Childress, the infallible.

--Rich (read the signature again, Carl)

I will probably regret responding to this, but here goes.

You said:
"In Roper's article it was very obvious that F5 was not the pitcher. The PU didn't even say anything untill the real F1 was on the rubber with the ball."

When do you suggest that the PU say something? You could:

1) Stop the "new" pitcher from toeing the rubber. Search out the manager to ascertain whether this was a legitimate pitching change? I can hear it now, "hey blue, why can't my new pitcher warm up?"

2) Not being a clairvoyant, allow the "new" pitcher to warmup. Enforce any penalty once it occurs. Again I can hear it now, "hey blue, how could you let my 1st baseman warmup like that, are you not paying attention?"

My vote is Number 2. Unless any of the rule experts out there have another option.

Your attitude here is symptomatic of one problem we have in amateur baseball, i.e., selective enforcement of rules.

You won't force a kid to become the pitcher because it's, as you colorfully put it, sticking up their backsides.

R3. Pitcher in the wind-up. His coach yells, "Curly, pitch from the stretch." So Curly slowly and deliberately steps off the rubber <i>with the wrong foot</i>. I argued in an article that since everybody knew the pitcher was simply changing positions, the umpire should not call a balk.

A gentleman named, uh, you, followed me around telling me how stupid that was. "That's a balk, and that's all there is to it."

Well, that guy is now the pitcher, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, the first baseman-now-pitcher isn't going to be throwing "pitches at you" unless you grab a mitt and squat behind the plate.

Here's what I think happened. You didn't know the rule, you despise Rich Ives (whom you've never met) because he's a coach (rat), so you chided him for having to quote the MLBUM. Now, after I pointed out the rule in the OBR and FED books, you're stuck having to defend the indefensible.

When that happens to me, I just say: "Hey, I screwed up." I say that on the internet, I say that on the ball field. Much less often on the ball field. (grin)

On the other hand, if you truly would not require the guy to pitch, in spite of the screams of the other mkanager, would it be fair for me to ask for a list of other rules you have no intention of "sticking up their backsides"? [/QUOTE]

I selectively enforce a lot of rules. Would you like a list? I'll start with going to the mouth on the mound in an OBR game. It's not enforced here and why would I want to be the only one to do so?

I'll give you a list if you want, but I suppose you're just in the mood for a soapbox.

Actually, I do get it.

Not all rules are enforced, I know that.

Carl does not enforce a certain balk, because in his area it is commonly overlooked, and it does not decieve anyone. If it were called, it could very well lead to an ejection.

Rich does not enforce making F5 pitch if he throws one warmup pitch. F5 throwing a warmup pitch doesn't hurt anyone. If Rich were to enforce this, it could very well lead to an ejection.

I don't understand how one can enforce one of these but not the other. If an umpire enforces either of these rules, things may go down the drain quickly. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to that?

Carl, your attempt to discredit my rules knowledge aside, read the OBR citation again, this time slowly. This time, please read with comprehension, OK? Absent the MLBUM citation, you could easily interpret this citation in the same manner as the FED rule is written.

You are being inconsistent with your advancing age, Carl. If you are going to let a pitcher step off incorrectly during a live ball without calling a balk and at the same time force a kid goofing off to pitch when THERE'S A DEAD BALL, I may as well disappear from this thread right now, because you're just trying to make me look bad -- and not actually trying to make a point.

If and when I make a mistake, I'll let you and everyone else know. My name isn't Carl Childress, the infallible.

--Rich (read the signature again, Carl) [/QUOTE]Your childish signature (fork you, carl) aside, you belong in the same boat as LDUB. Read the words, didn't hear the....

Did you read Evans? He clearly says the exception applies to fielders. Not pitchers.

Not satisified? Black letter law says:

If no announcement of a substitution is made, the substitute shall be considered as having entered the game when -
(1) If a pitcher, he takes his place on the pitcher's plate;
(2) If a batter, he takes his place in the batter's box;
(3) If a fielder, he reaches the position usually occupied by the fielder he has replaced, <i>and play commences</i>.

I don't care how much you wiggle - or dissemble - the fact is you're just wrong.

Now, Richie: Go back and read my posts. Then quote where I said that Carl Childress would make the "fielder" pitch. All I said (the point I'm trying to make, which you've missed twice) is that <i>everyone</i> picks and chooses. I gained a reputation when Durwood agreed in a public meeting that I was right about not calling that particular, technical balk.

I don't mind your ignoring the substitute rule. I minded that you tried to defend it with the "law" instead of just your "feelings."

I'd hate to be a coach in any League you worked for. With your attitude and jump-the-gun responses, I wouldn't last three minutes into the pregame conference.

PFRF.

Bravo! That's the best post of yours I've ever read.

We can approach it scientifically: (grin)

1. An umpire can call both rules.
2. An umpire can call the balk but not the substitution.
3. An umpire can call the substitution but not the balk.
4. An umpire can ignore both rules.

Peter suggests that the proper course of action is to be politically correct. Do what the Big Dogs do.

Since I'm a big dog in my state, I help set the agenda for ignoring rules. So I say, Do what I do.

Consider two scenarios:

Scenario one: The pitcher in the windup is told to pitch from the stretch. Slowly, deliberately, without moving his arms, he steps off with the wrong foot. Think "disadvantage/advantage."

If the pitcher doesn't simulate a pitch, then he's gained no advantage. Would you agree?

Scenario two: The pitcher's team just went three and out on five pitches. Now, he has to trudge back to the mound in the Texas heat. So the third baseman goes out, grabs the ball, and throws three or four times to the catcher, whereupon out comes the pitcher of record.

Think "disadvantage/advantrage."

I argue that the potentional for one team gaining an advantage not intended by the rules is far greater in Scenario Two than in One.

How are things in your town?

"I don't understand how one can enforce one of these but not the other. If an umpire enforces either of these rules, things may go down the drain quickly. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to that? "

Didn't you just answer your own question?

I don't think I did.


Carl:

I think your scenario 2 is different than what happened in Roper's game. In yours, the defense is trying to game you to gain an advantage. You can't let them do that.

In Roper's, the PU was doing this as a FYC. It was a men's league game, F5 was fooling around and threw only one pitch doing an imitation someone, then the real F1 came out. Think disadvantage/advantage. It didn't hurt anyone. If you feel like it, take one pitch off of the real F1's warmup.

Your childish signature (fork you, carl) aside, you belong in the same boat as LDUB. Read the words, didn't hear the....

Did you read Evans? He clearly says the exception applies to fielders. Not pitchers.

Not satisified? Black letter law says:

If no announcement of a substitution is made, the substitute shall be considered as having entered the game when -
(1) If a pitcher, he takes his place on the pitcher's plate;
(2) If a batter, he takes his place in the batter's box;
(3) If a fielder, he reaches the position usually occupied by the fielder he has replaced, <i>and play commences</i>.

I don't care how much you wiggle - or dissemble - the fact is you're just wrong.

Now, Richie: Go back and read my posts. Then quote where I said that Carl Childress would make the "fielder" pitch. All I said (the point I'm trying to make, which you've missed twice) is that <i>everyone</i> picks and chooses. I gained a reputation when Durwood agreed in a public meeting that I was right about not calling that particular, technical balk.

I don't mind your ignoring the substitute rule. I minded that you tried to defend it with the "law" instead of just your "feelings."

I'd hate to be a coach in any League you worked for. With your attitude and jump-the-gun responses, I wouldn't last three minutes into the pregame conference.

PFRF. [/QUOTE]

Whatever that means. Regardless, I could still read Evans and come to the same conclusion -- he can't take his position on the plate for a warmup pitch in my world.

There may be a reason for this picky of an interpretation and if F5 took FOUR pitches, well, I'd likely think differently or shorten the warmup for the F1. But that's not what EVER happens -- F5 takes one pitch for sh1ts and giggles and then the defensive rat comes out of the dugout smelling cheese. It's that nonsense I won't even entertain. I wouldn't even acknowledge seeing that "pitch" being made.

Of course, we all selectively ignore things. Because I disagree with your balk scenario doesn't make me a letter-of-the-law guy -- it just means I honestly think that this has to be called a balk because that step is the start of the pitch and if I was the opposing coach, I'd send the runner on that step back with the wrong foot EVERY TIME.

We can disagree on one without issuing blanket statements.

On another note, if anyone here is from the part of the US that used to be the New Orleans metro area, my heartfelt sorrow goes out to you. I lived in Slidell for about a year and seeing the area destroyed and partially/mostly underwater wasn't an easy thing to see -- and I haven't lived there for 7 years.

Exactly. And a good FYC is subtle, yet clearly gets the message across. Roper's umpire just looks like an a$$hole.

Sorry, but Jeff doesn't look like the a$$holea in this scenario.

Imagine if your attitude was symptomatic of the way Big Dogs treat rookies.

[Nasty remark deleted]

[Edited by Carl Childress on Aug 31st, 2005 at 07:30 PM]

Re-read the article.

It sounded like the umpire showed them who was boss. With glee.

It's un-necessary and it's silly and it puts the umpire in a position to dramatically affect the game. And any FYC shouldn't do that although I haven't really bothered with an FYC in quite some time.

I missed the nasty remark. But thanks for letting me know that you put one in instead of deleting it altogether.

Thanks Rich its bad down here ...
 

We're about an hour north of Slidell and I know New Orleans is getting most of the press, but Missisippi Coast is simply no more.

My family stayed at the Holiday Inn last month that now has a casino sitting on top of it ... simply amazing.

And if you continue on up north of there, you see what the wind can do - whereas New Orleans, Slidell and the coast shows what the water can do.

I would imagine that at least half of the trees in our state have been uprooted, are leaning over, or have been snapped off - you probably could not imagine the depth of the disaster.

They are saying we might be three weeks with out power and I heard tonight on the radio, that ice and water are scarce and then gasoline is becoming even more scarce. Since the power outage is nearly 80 % of the state none of the gas companies can pump gas to the trucks etc.,


I know Red Cross and FEMA probably are doing great things, but none of its made its way to our towns yet. I heard tonight on the radio that people waited in line for three hours for ice today and the trucks never showed up. Sad and its 96 degress today.

The bad things is that you can't communicate, no phones (some coming on today), no TV (because of power), only a couple of radio stations in our part of the state that work, really grates on your patience.

Our phones came on tonight so I'm quickly checking messages etc., in case they go down again.

Anyway, we would appreciate your thoughts and prayers

Thanks
David