Is the play illegal

[Tim C]

So all the written FED resources say that "Back" shouted by an infielder is obstruction. Some of us have said that all the way along. Only ONE poster has said it is not.

Now a poster has said you can't call what you don't see:

Err, in my games the Plate umpire is facing the infield and has a perfect view of what is going on.

Don't tell me the PU can't HEAR they "back" statement.

We have whipped this dead horse for eight months. Only one umpire continues to attempt to clarify that FED does not want this called.

In an e-mail conversation with a member of the Rules Committee he stated that he was amazed that there is even a question about the play. It is obvious to him that FED wants the rule called.

Now, in closing, I don't think any of us LIKE the rule (I am in the Jenkins camp and think the rule is wrong) but I call "most" of the rules under any book I work.

This has been an interesting journey.

It has made me think and that is a good thing.

~Edited for typo~





[Edited by Tim C on Oct 28th, 2005 at 10:17 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C
So all the written FED resources say that "Back" shouted by an infielder is obstruction. Some of us have said that all the way along. Oly ONE poster has said it is not.

Now a poster has said you can't call what you don't see:

Err, in my games the Plate umpire is facing the infield and has a perfect view of what is going on.

Don't tell me the PU can't HEAR they "back" statement.

We have wiped this dead horse for eight months. Only one umpire continues to attempt to clarify that FED does not want this called.

In an e-mail conversation with a member of the Rules Committee he stated that he was amazed that there is even a question about the play. It is obvious to him that FED wants the rule called.

Now, in closing, I don't think any of us LIKE the rule (I am in the Jenkins camp and think the rule is wrong) but I call "most" of the rules under any book I work.

This has been an interesting journey.

It has made me think and that is a good thing.

And "No, he didn't go" and, pointing, "That man is forcefully out!": What about those? (grin)

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Tim,

Remedial math may be in order. Several hundred umpires were present when this matter was discussed at the IHSA baseball convention. Anthony Holman is a sitting Rules Committee member who also runs IHSA baseball. Bob Laufenberger made the rulng known when he was asked on another site. If you believe only one umpire is championing this cause, I would hate to see the indicator you use. Does it have numbers on it?

A plate umpire that calls obstruction at second base in a two or three man system...you may want to read 10-2-1 again. Check the last sentence of that rule. Do you really want me to start calling balls and strikes for you from "C"? I can see them just as easy as you can see second base!

Insisting that this action is obstruction is ludicrous. If the rule was meant to be called, they would have put it in the rule or case book, not a ten year old newsletter. Instead, the "expected call" camp has vanished. This is a terrific example of being an OOO. Verbal Obstruction indicates that his actions hinder or change the direction of play. If the runner ignores him, why can't you? OOO...pick me, I think I know.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Tim,

Remedial math may be in order. Several hundred umpires were present when this matter was discussed at the IHSA baseball convention. Anthony Holman is a sitting Rules Committee member who also runs IHSA baseball. Bob Laufenberger made the rulng known when he was asked on another site. If you believe only one umpire is championing this cause, I would hate to see the indicator you use. Does it have numbers on it?

A plate umpire that calls obstruction at second base in a two or three man system...you may want to read 10-2-1 again. Check the last sentence of that rule. Do you really want me to start calling balls and strikes for you from "C"? I can see them just as easy as you can see second base!

Insisting that this action is obstruction is ludicrous. If the rule was meant to be called, they would have put it in the rule or case book, not a ten year old newsletter. Instead, the "expected call" camp has vanished. This is a terrific example of being an OOO. Verbal Obstruction indicates that his actions hinder or change the direction of play. If the runner ignores him, why can't you? OOO...pick me, I think I know.

We all remember how accurate people at the IHSA are. Last year, they said ignore the ruling on a ball lodged in the glove. It would be changed in the: (1) interps for 2005; or (2) in the book for 2006.

Oops!

The FED position on verbal obstruction is clear - and has been since the 10-year-old ruling you disparaged. The most recent pronouncement appeared in the 2005 case book. (2.22.1a)

You are symptomatic of much that is bad - and wrong - with NFHS umpires. You ignore a rule, not because the offender failed to gain an advantage, but simply because you don't like the rule.

Shame on you.

Shame on the IHSA. Again!

BTW: You don't have the smarts or the experience to take on Tee Alan.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 28th, 2005 at 08:23 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Well at least I got my laugh for the day, (trying to imagine coaches who know the rules at any level)

Hey, might be a good reality TV show, have coaches who have to know the rules...

Thanks
David

And when the coach can't answer the rules question, Joe West, the emcee, says "you're gone!!!!"

[Tim C]

Windy, Windy, Windy . . .

I think you just did the equivalant of telling me "to umpire my half of the game" . . . a concept rooted firmly in the 60's. As a PU I would call anything to cover my partner's back.

In closing:

Windy you are the ONLY person in the thread that thinks you're right.

I'll say one thing for you . . . when you make a stand you stick with it.

Have a great Halloween Season.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

And you don't have the ability to argue logically.

But, then again you are the King of The Expected Call Millieu. (big grin)

You love to play fast and loose with the facts. No one ever said that the interp for the lodged ball would be changed. On the contrary, many argue how ridiculous the rule is and used their voices to effect change. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't - like the missed base that you see and ignore, some of us use our judgement differently. If you can't see the infraction, you don't make the call. Maybe they don't teach that in Texas anymore.

Once again, you couldn't help yourself. You took it personally and found that the only way you can argue is to defame an entire state. Why don't you email Anthony Holman directly and impugn Illinois high school baseball again? I'm sure that your reputation will remain unsullied when you've alienated an NFHS Baseball Committee member. I'm sure he knows no one with TASO.

I'm not worried about debating TAC, he seems to be able to stick to the facts and not resort to first grade histrionics. Confidence in our abilities is not misplaced ego. You keep living in the gutter but claim the palace as your home. The King seems to have forgotten his clothes. Once again, your true colors are there for everyone to see.

[David B]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Tim,

Remedial math may be in order. Several hundred umpires were present when this matter was discussed at the IHSA baseball convention. Anthony Holman is a sitting Rules Committee member who also runs IHSA baseball. Bob Laufenberger made the rulng known when he was asked on another site. If you believe only one umpire is championing this cause, I would hate to see the indicator you use. Does it have numbers on it?

A plate umpire that calls obstruction at second base in a two or three man system...you may want to read 10-2-1 again. Check the last sentence of that rule. Do you really want me to start calling balls and strikes for you from "C"? I can see them just as easy as you can see second base!

Insisting that this action is obstruction is ludicrous. If the rule was meant to be called, they would have put it in the rule or case book, not a ten year old newsletter. Instead, the "expected call" camp has vanished. This is a terrific example of being an OOO. Verbal Obstruction indicates that his actions hinder or change the direction of play. If the runner ignores him, why can't you? OOO...pick me, I think I know.

Tee is right on, call the game as it should be called, if it means making the call in a partner's area, then do it.
Having watched numerous games not only as an umpire, but in evaluating other umpires, I have seen obstruction missed numerous times by the BU who can't see what's going on since he has his back to the play.

Or course, in our association, we don't venture into C territory, but even in B, I've seen veteran umpires miss this call.

F6 cuts in front of the runner and physically obstructs, or the play that I've coached my players on, where F4 moves in as F6 shields the R2.

These are easily seen by the PU and should be called. Same with verbal, BU might hear it, but can't see what's happening with the runner.

Now if FED would just take out the appeals again and let us call the runner out who miss the bases, ...

Thanks
David

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
And you don't have the ability to argue logically.

But, then again you are the King of The Expected Call Millieu. (big grin)

You love to play fast and loose with the facts. No one ever said that the interp for the lodged ball would be changed. On the contrary, many argue how ridiculous the rule is and used their voices to effect change. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't - like the missed base that you see and ignore, some of us use our judgement differently. If you can't see the infraction, you don't make the call. Maybe they don't teach that in Texas anymore.

Once again, you couldn't help yourself. You took it personally and found that the only way you can argue is to defame an entire state. Why don't you email Anthony Holman directly and impugn Illinois high school baseball again? I'm sure that your reputation will remain unsullied when you've alienated an NFHS Baseball Committee member. I'm sure he knows no one with TASO.

I'm not worried about debating TAC, he seems to be able to stick to the facts and not resort to first grade histrionics. Confidence in our abilities is not misplaced ego. You keep living in the gutter but claim the palace as your home. The King seems to have forgotten his clothes. Once again, your true colors are there for everyone to see.

All right, perhaps I was wrong. Here's what you wrote last year in the "toss glove" thread. (Enlarged type indicates the words of WCB, a.k.a. WhatWuzThatBlue.)

9/1/2004

[Rich Fronhesier pointed out that the lead interpretation for 2005 would be a "lodged ball is dead." In response to WCB, Rich said he'd hate to be the umpire who refused to enforce the first iinterretation of the year.]

Sorry Rich,
I just got off the phone with one of the IHSA Rules Interpreters and he confirmed that NFSHS even had an overhead Point of Clarification on this exact play.

Any player that secures the ball in a glove or hand in order to effect the out has complied with the rules. There is no penalty for tossing, handing or kicking the mitt to the other player.

Further, If that ball gets hung up in the laces of the glove or between the fingers, who is in jeopardy? What advantage does the defense gain? What disadvantage does the batter or runner have? His/Her job is to beat the ball to the bag...they failed.

You can disagree with this all you want. Call it and see what happens. You will be wrong, two rules support it.

BTW, the state interpreter I spoke to, sits on the rules committee that advises the NFSHS about points of emphasis, clarification or rules updates/alterations.

[So WCB argued that the interpretation quoted would NOT be adopted: "The NFSHS even had an overhead Point of Claification on this exact play." The ball isn't dead.]

9/3/2004

A "National Interpretation" may be of no consequence for those of us that have logical rule interpreters in our state. Once again, check with your official rule interpreter or state association. We have already seen several states that will not permit the "national interp".

9/7/2004
[Arguing still that the NFHS rules committee was populated by people who know nothing about baseball.]

These are the same geniuses that tried to make it illegal to throw it around the horn after a strikeout. It figures that they would get this one wrong, as well. I'm proud to live in a state that has disagreed with illogical NFSHS rule interpretations. Our rule interpretors [sic] use common sense to govern the game. I feel sad for those of you that will HAVE TO call this according to the Fed interp.

-------

I think everyone who reads your words can understand why I believed the boys in Illinois had decided to step to the beat of a different drummer.

The FED believed the "lodged ball" play happened only once in California. You told us it happened in Illinois and Colorado though you offered no internet sites where we could verify that.

But, so be it: three times.

On the other hand, the action (verbal inferference) you plan to ignore this time happens once or twice a game - unless the FED umpire puts a stop to it by enforcing the rule.

Once again, I can explain the difference between our philosophies:

I have argued the umpire should ignore a technical balk: The pitcher, reacting to his coach, steps back slowly from the pitcher's plate with the wrong foot and moves to the set position. He did not gain any advantage, so I won't call that balk.

You argue that the umpire should ignore a defensive player pretending to be a coach. Everyone knows the defense can gain an advantage that way. But you won't enforce it because you don't like it.

Shame on you. Again!

By the end of Twelve Angry Men, Henry Fonda has convinced 10 other jurors that the defendant is not guilty. One, Lee J. Cobb, holds out. Fonda tells him: "You're all alone. How does it feel to be all alone?"

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David B
Now if FED would just take out the appeals again and let us call the runner out who miss the bases, ...

Thanks
David [/B]

At least there are two of us the US who agree on this point.

Of course, even though I don't like the rule, I wait for the appeal. (grin)

[BigUmp56]

Windy,

Please explain to me why you feel the need to dispute the credentials of Kyle McNeely? Whether you like it or not, he was the official rules interpreter for the NFHS baseball rules committee for 15 years. This is a position I highly doubt you could even begin to try to obtain.

Mr. McNeely is now the FED rules interpreter for the ABUA. An international organization with strong ties to the NFHS. You, on the other hand, are a mere speck on the Illinois umpiring screen. You now try to tell us all that Kyle is wrong, and we are all wrong along with him. Will you ever get over yourself and take a breath long enough to consider you're wrong.

You claim Tee can't argue logically, and you are the one who is not using any logic with your strong headed attitude.

In this thread alone, 7 members have said this is the right call. That doesn't include the response from Mr. McNeely.

Now I see why Carl booted your butt as WCB. It must feel real good to you knowing that even hiding under an assumed identity, you still can make a big enough spectacle out of yourself to annoy every single person on the forum.

You've been back for what, 2 weeks now under your new moniker? I'm certain you'll dig another hole deep enough to crawl into soon, so Carl can bar your butt again. Even under the new moniker, your slip is showing!

Tim.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Windy,

Please explain to me why you feel the need to dispute the credentials of Kyle McNeely? Whether you like it or not, he was the official rules interpreter for the NFHS baseball rules committee for 15 years. This is a position I highly doubt you could even begin to try to obtain.

Mr. McNeely is now the FED rules interpreter for the ABUA. An international organization with strong ties to the NFHS. You, on the other hand, are a mere speck on the Illinois umpiring screen. You now try to tell us all that Kyle is wrong, and we are all wrong along with him. Will you ever get over yourself and take a breath long enough to consider you're wrong.

You claim Tee can't argue logically, and you are the one who is not using any logic with your strong headed attitude.

In this thread alone, 7 members have said this is the right call. That doesn't include the response from Mr. McNeely.

Now I see why Carl booted your butt as WCB. It must feel real good to you knowing that even hiding under an assumed identity, you still can make a big enough spectacle out of yourself to annoy every single person on the forum.

You've been back for what, 2 weeks now under your new moniker? I'm certain you'll dig another hole deep enough to crawl into soon, so Carl can bar your butt again. Even under the new moniker, your slip is showing!

Tim.

Unfortunately in WCB's case (grin), I don't have any control over The Forum. There are two monitors (mick and bob). They can edit or delete posts — but not members. Only the head honchos can do that, and I ain't in that group.

Kyle McNeeley for years lived in Texas and spoke at our state umpires meeting each January. He wrote several articles for Officiating.com. He is a nationally recognized authority on the rules of the NFHS. I quote him several times in the BRD.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong. I have often despised his rulings. But I have always agreed that he spoke for the FED; therefore, his rulings were the law of the land.

In this thread his explanation of verbal interference is accurate, to the point, and crystal. Only those who are stubborn or obtuse could fail to "understand."

[GarthB]

I will check to verify this, but I do believe that Tim Stevens, the Washington State Head FED Clinician and rule interpreter received an email from Elliot Hopkins last year specifically instructing FED umpires to call verbal obstructino on any incident of the defense saying "back, back" to a runnner on base.

We can argue over whether or not Kyle still has a legitimate voice with FED, but Hopkins role is indisputable.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

But it's verbal obstruciton in FED only. There is no such animal in NCAA or OBR.

That is why in Colt, or Palomino, or Legion games here, I see all sorts of trickery, and dekes. Yelling "back", fake tags, etc. All sorts of shenanagins being pulled. But these very same players, in their high school games, never try these hijinks, because they know what verbal obstruction is, and they know the rules differences.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Just so I have the record correct, an Illinois state interpreter (not Holman BTW, thanks for reading) tells us to not call this play as verbal obstruction and you say he can't do it - Illinois is wrong.

Yet, a few days ago, you cried that umpires need to make the expected call (even though the rule book says differently) because the interpreter/assignor/coach demands it.

Okay...which side are you on here?

The rule book does not specifically mention this play. It was highlighted in a ten year old newsletter and that is your justification. We have very similar plays that permit this type of behavior. You choose to ignore the correlation.