Luke, maybe you didn't understand what I said. I said that I don't care for Federation Rules, and the majority of umpires that I know feel the same way. Here, we call High School Baseball "High School", but we call all other levels of ball "baseball". That should give you an idea of our disdain of NF rules. We follow the rules, enforce the rules, but we sure don't care for them at all.

Yes I prefer the OBR, even though rules occasionally are changed, case in point, the ever changing strike zone definition. At least the Fed finally is allowing pitchers to turn their shoulders before coming set. That was one asinine rule, for example.

It isn't that the annual rule changes are hard to remember, it's just that they are usually petty, insignificant changes which are totally unnecessary.

By the way, here's another rule we don't much care for, in fact, it is a huge joke among veteran umps here:
The option of restricting the coach to the dugout instead of ejecting him. Nobody in our association (which, by the way, is one of the oldest, and most respected nationwide) would even consider restricting the coach. Please tell me you have never restricted a coach to the bench!

Steve

Understanding of the rules might help
 

Not to belabor a point, but there is always a reason FEd puts their rules in.

Example - restrict a coach because it might keep the team from a forfeit.

Maybe in your area there are so many coaches per team that if they lost the head coach they don't have to forfeit, but in our areaa, we have to have one coach per team or there is a forfeit. (problem is some teams only have one coach - so you have a choice to either restrict or forfeit)

So that's why the rule. I've never had to use it, but there's a reason why its there.

Actually in our areas, more or the teams play FED than OBR even down into the 14-15's select ball teams etc.,

Thanks
David

As David has already said, there is a good reason for this rule. As I have said before, if one underdsands why the NF makes its rules, they aren't weird.

One of the oldest, most respected associations nationwide? Now in my games when I hear the coaches say "I wish we had those good umpires from that associatin in San Diego", I know what they mean.

Okay David, point taken.

In San Diego, we do usually have at least 2, but usually 3 or more adult coaches per team, so they can spare one :D

Also, the coaches pretty much know the umpires here well enough to know that we don't do any restrictions, so they know when to quit usually. I only eject 1 or 2 a year usually, and sometimes get thorough the whole year without ejecting anybody. Now back in the beginning....:D

Yes, the coaches would be correct. No insult intended, but we are. More MLB umpires from us that any other single association in America. Facts are facts. One of our instructors (for the probationaries), is a MLB umpire.
By the way, there are many associations here, I was only refering to mine in particlular.

There is a reason for all the rules, whether or not the reason is a good one is debateable, which is what we are doing, isn't it. Let's not debate it any longer, as I am tired of it. I have already acknowledged that this rule has its place in some areas.

I've read it and am quite familiar with it. Sorry, Luke, but there IS something wrong with giving the defense a huge advantage in having a balk enforced rather than, say, a 3-run homer counting.

Not every Fed rule makes sense, and this is clearly one of them.

Is there something wrong with this: There is R1, F1 balks, and B2 hits to RF, R1 tries for third but is thrown out, the umpire then sends R1 back to second and enforces the balk?

The NF writes rules for "ease of administration", as they know not all of their officials are competent. It is much easier to enforce the balk when the ball is dead, than have to think about when to enforce the balk and when not to.

Yes, the coaches would be correct. No insult intended, but we are. More MLB umpires from us that any other single association in America. Facts are facts. One of our instructors (for the probationaries), is a MLB umpire.
By the way, there are many associations here, I was only refering to mine in particlular.[/QUOTE]

Don't pro umpires have to go to pro school before they get into MiLB? Therefore, you could have some rookie umpire in your association who really sucks. He goes to school, and get to MLB. Now when he was in your association, he was terrible, but now you go around bragging about how your association has another MLB umpire (That is assuming that this guy is no longer active in the association, as he has works enough games for MLB).

I'm not saying that your association is bad, or that you guys don't have good members, but you can't really gauge how good an association is by how many ex-members work pro ball.

Aside from all the discussion on Nelson, Fed, announcers, etc, does anyone who saw it live or on replay agree with the call, ie a no stop balk?

It didn't look like a balk to me, but I wasn't there, so who knows? After all, isn't there a two-second delay via television? :p

happens all the time
 

I saw it and I thought it was a good call.

I thought the announcers beat it to death because they didn't understand the rule.

So they made up something and went on for two innings with nothing but nonsense.


Now talking about a missed call, the call at first Sunday on the throw by Chipper where U1 said that Franco pulled his foot was absolutely wrong.

That's a LL call and he blew it, the ball was obviously in his glove before the foot came off. And that would have ended the inning I believe and two batters later grand slam and the game is 6-5.


Thanks
David

[Edited by David B on Oct 10th, 2005 at 10:49 PM]

Re: happens all the time
 

No: the announcers, at first, questioned the balk, not the fact that the batter was sent to first base.
Steve Lyons watched the replay of the pitching move by Oswalt and said "that's a stop right there!".

Re: Re: happens all the time
 

You must have been watching another game or something. The two announcers (don't know who they were) went all over the world with their interpretations and wondering how the pitch counted, but many times when the pitcher balks the umpire doesn't count the pitch etc.,

<b>All they needed to say was the rule: "if the batter runner and all runners advance at least one base, then the balk is ignored." </b>

They never mentioned that part of the rule, and went on for two innings still questioning how the interpretation was arrived upon by the PU.

It was absolutely horrible for kids and parents watching the game because nowhere was a correct ruling given for the play.

And the announcer said he stopped, (but that was in slo mo) and in fast motion it looked like a balk everytime, at least to me (and I guess to PU since he called it)

thansk
David

Ok, I report the words of the announcers:


Josh Lewin: "Let's go back to Chris Meyers"
Chris Meyers: "The official scorer here, Trey Wilkinson, wants to talk to the officials as well he's paging through the rulebook, it's a so-called balk for now. But Jim McKean, the officials supervisor, said that you called the balk you can't call the play to stop as well if the batter had homered, the HR would have counted and it would have been no balk. So, maybe it was a delayed call on the balk and Oswalt continued through the motion of that pitch for ball 4...."

Steve Lyons: "And that's why I have trouble with this, because if you're gonna call a balk as an umpire, you stop the play, you're very emphatic about it. If there's a 0-0 count on the hitter and you call a balk and the pitcher go ahead and throws the pitch anyway, the runner moves to 2nd base and it's a no pitch. So why it would be any different in that situation?"

Why would it be any different? Because the batter reaches base.

Now go pull your pants back up, dingbat....

At least this wasn't in a game McCarver was calling. That would have been HELL.

But all in all that crew did a good job. Hopefully the LCS will see the same.

Steve Lyons, and other ex-rat broadcasters, often have no clue of the rules and their interpretations. They should be better informed about the rules, perhaps attend an umpire rules clinic, before being allowed to open their pie holes. It would be great if an umpire could be on call for these bozos to get the correct ruling from.