Is the play illegal

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes, that is what I say.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
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?

I take it my counterpunches have made you a little groggy. Down here in Texas we understand the difference between calling out a runner on the first half of a double play and ignoring verbal obstruction. A realist calls the out and penalizes the obstruction.

From my book On the Bases, Referee Enterprises, 1987, which was quoting my "Doing It" column of May 1984:

When I was growing up many years ago, I remember listening to Gordon MCLendon, the "Old Scotsman." He was sitting in a Dallas studio [KLIF] doing the play-by-play of major league baseball: "On the Liberty Broadcasting System, direct from Yankee Stadium by wire report...."

What we unsophisticated country boys didn't realize is that "wire report" meant Gordon was recreating the game from telegrams. I remember his discussing back then that major league umpires always called a "phantom" out at second. Most still do. [Most now - 2005 - don't, because of the relentless eye of the camera.]

Since both sides accept the "out" as the legitimate result of the play, what do I gain by insisting on a literal interpretation of the rule? Rather, baseball tradition makes that play one of the easier ones I have to call in any game.

My advice: When the throw beats the runner a long way, don't worry about whether the fielder kicked the base after he released the ball or before he got it; don't even worry if he skipped kicking it altogether. Just hunker down and get ready for the play at first, where you're going to earn your money. In other words, the key consideration is: Could the fielder have made the play? If your answer is "Yes," you've got an out.

Naturally, if the throw is wild and it pulls the pivot man away, you'll call, "Safe." And naturally, if that force play at second is not a part of a double play but the only chance the defense has for an out [That was the play Joe West called correctly in this year's ALDS. In an earlier thread, you incorrectly wrote that I disputed his call.], or if it's the third out to end a half-inning, then once again, what I see is what they get: If the fielder doesn't have the ball when he tags the bag, he doesn't get an out.

That's the kind of accepted call I'm talking about. And I'll bet a dollar to a penny most amateur umpires in Illinois would make the same call.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
The rule book does not specifically mention this play. It was highlighted in a ten year old newsletter and that is your justification.

The penalty for verbal obstruction is older than that. It's been a part of the FED philosophy since March 1988:

SITUATION #18: If a fielder yells "go," ... is this obstruction? RULING: Obstruction has occurred ... and the appropriate award is made. The player committing the act is warned. If he does it again, he is ejected. If another player on the team does the same thing, the umpire can issue a team warning.

That's seventeen unbroken years that the FED has penalized verbal obstruction. Now, as you did with the lodged ball ruling last year, you're telling me Illinois and right-thinking umpires everywhere should ignore completely verbal obstruction. Who is the conservative in this discussion?

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
We have very similar plays that permit this type of behavior. You choose to ignore the correlation.

(1) Explain who "we" are and list the "very similar plays that permit this type [which type?] of behavior."

(2) I fail to see the correlation. Explain it again, please.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 29th, 2005 at 08:23 PM]

[Tim C]

WCB wrote:

"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."

------------

The perfect defense when you are caught with your pants down . . .

Appropriate for the Halloween Season:

A bit of Léger Maine and misdirection huh WC . . . as a tribute to Harry Houdini --

"LOOK, look here . . . while I slip this rabbit into my hat . . . WA LA . . . a rabbit from my magic top hat."

WCB, the count against you got so heavy you went for the old misdirection play huh?

Sorry, try to change the subject doesn't work with the astute readers of officiating.com (well perhaps it would work with PWL),the evidence is too strong against ya man . . . but again,

Have a great Halloween Season.

T

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I'll write slowly, so that way you'll understand.

"We" would be you and I. Most people in Texas and Illinois learned this at early ages.

Throwing a pop up on a steal (to trick a runner) is acceptable, although many would argue unethical. Fed also makes coaches accountable for the fake pick off to 2nd. The defense can yell, "He's going, third!!! C'mon, cut three, get it in!" This is no less verbal obstruction, but we have an approved ruling that says it is legal. The hidden ball trick is acceptable (provided the pitcher is not on the dirt) even though deception is the name of that game. If you notice, I titled my first post regarding this mess, "I hate this call". Fed has made a mockery of permissible acts. I never claimed that the birth of this rule was 1995, I merely alluded to what a few of you regard as gospel. A newsletter is not a rule book. Try pulling that out when the ruling is protested. Once again, you ignored what I wrote for what suits your needs.

You indicted an entire state. You chose to act recklessly with your words. I'm sure some of them will find their way to Anthony's desk. He likes to peruse these sites. I'll predict that he'll not take your opinion about him too kindly.

You change topics midstream and chastise others for doing it. I believe the word for that is hypocritical. I don't want to read excerpts from your book, any more than I would welcome the Unibomber's manifesto. You justify your opinions with more of your opinions, that is utter depravity.

Don't flatter yourself with notions of boxing. You may imagine that you are a fighter. Your corner tells you how great you are, but the contenders dismissed you as hype and pufefry long ago. You resort to low blows and head butts because the sting has long left your hand.

When others disagree with you, you dismiss them as arrogant, uneducated or misinformed. You say that the majority of amateur officials in Illinois would act like you, yet you can't substantiate that. Is that akin to my insistence that Texas umpires know better than to allow a missed plate on a big play? Stop using smoke and mirrors, the act is getting old and people can see the strings. If you want to call verbal obstruction on that play, go ahead. You would get laughed off the field in most midwest states. Your coaches clearly know that your ego is more important than the good of the game. They're counting the minutes and you don't even know it.

[Tim C]

WCB wrote:

"A newsletter is not a rule book."

----

I'm sorry Windy. In FEDLANDIA they are. The Newsletters are just as offical as the MLB "Instruction to Umpires" that are received each spring. As you know, these books detail to umpire "accepted rulings on points not clear in OBR."

FED is very adamant about keeping both the Rules Book and Case Book at the current size.

ALL newsletters for ALL sports are official interpretations of the National Federation Rule Book.

Ya gotta get better than this mate.

Have a Great Halloween Season.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Oct 29th, 2005 at 10:40 AM]

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I'll write slowly, so that way you'll understand.


Throwing a pop up on a steal (to trick a runner) is acceptable, although many would argue unethical. Fed also makes coaches accountable for the fake pick off to 2nd. The defense can yell, "He's going, third!!! C'mon, cut three, get it in!" This is no less verbal obstruction, but we have an approved ruling that says it is legal.

Whose changing things around now? How do you equate instructions by a defensive coach to a defensive player to the same coaches yelling illegal instructions to their opponents runners? You're talking about proper coaching techniques, not obstruction of any kind with this masquerade.


The hidden ball trick is acceptable (provided the pitcher is not on the dirt) even though deception is the name of that game.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmmm... I though we were discussing a FED rule here Windy.

Here in Indiana, in a FED game, the pitcher can most definitely be on the dirt without the ball as long as he is not within 5 feet of the rubber. In an OBR game, he can be even closer as long as he does'nt stand on or astride the rubber. Are the rules of baseball different in Chicago?



If you want to call verbal obstruction on that play, go ahead. You would get laughed off the field in most midwest states. Your coaches clearly know that your ego is more important than the good of the game. They're counting the minutes and you don't even know it.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well Windy I can't speak for all of the midwest on this. I can only speak for the NFHS umpires I work with in the Hoosier State. I work games from Elkhart to the west side of Rolling Prairie just east of Michigan City in Northern Indiana. The guys I work with know how to call this, as it is supposed to be called. You'd be the one laughed off the field for your arrogance.

Please, come next spring, send me a private message letting me know when I can come to Chicago and see you work a game or two. It's only an hour and 45 minutes away from me, and I'd love to see you trip on your package in person!


Tim.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
You say that the majority of amateur officials in Illinois would act like you, yet you can't substantiate that. Is that akin to my insistence that Texas umpires know better than to allow a missed plate on a big play? Stop using smoke and mirrors, the act is getting old and people can see the strings. If you want to call verbal obstruction on that play, go ahead. You would get laughed off the field in most midwest states. Your coaches clearly know that your ego is more important than the good of the game. They're counting the minutes and you don't even know it.

You're a funny man. I made no assertion about what Illinois umpires would do. All I did was offer to make a bet I was right. Let me echo what Tee and BigUmp said!

Also: When I returned from a four-year retirement, the coaches "seemed" very happy to see me, neighborhood call and all. In Texas coaches pick the playoff umpires. I've been chosen for three years in row, verbal obstruction and all. Of course, you'll probably say that simply means we have a paucity of qualified umpires in this state.

We'll all about to get better. TASO begins a clinician's program this January. Chosen trainers will learn how to teach the Texas umpires' curriculum. I wrote the curriculum, and, as the chief Texas Clinician, I'll be teaching the class in San Antonio.

Added edit: You can bet that verbal obstruction will be one of the emphases, along with the lodged ball. (truthful grin)

Two other minor points:

(1) I'm sorry you thought I was saying you were wrong about the ruling being 10 years old. That's not what I meant. I merely wanted to point out the ruling was much older. That wasn't directed against you at all.

(2) You wrote: "I'm sure some of them will find their way to Anthony's desk. He likes to peruse these sites. I'll predict that he'll not take your opinion about him too kindly."

We're glad he drops in on The Forum. Anthony, thanks.

But in case he doesn't see this post, ask Anthony to email me ([email protected]) or phone me collect (956-383-0085). I'll be happy to discuss FED priorities and appropriate umpire behavior with him.

Guys/Gals: I'm taking collect calls only from Anthony. (grin)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 29th, 2005 at 11:22 AM]

[Diamondgal]

Guys/Gals: I'm taking collect calls only from Anthony. (grin)
Alright, I'll hang the phone up!

[Tim C]

In defense of WCB:

Windy's constant reminder that his "State Interpretor" has told them that "BACK!" is not obstruction is a real important question here.

For a second let's assume that what they are saying is wrong. This would not be the first time that a state interpretor passed incorrect information to the masses.

Just last season a state interpretor in a New England state told both groups of umpires that "the quick shoulder tune while in contact with the pitcher's plate was in error and that it would be changed this year."

The prep that told everyone that was the PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE FED RULES COMMITTEE -- when it was pointed out to Elliot Hopkins that a "board member" was passing this information he was very adamant about correcting that person's conception.

So in defense of Windy (I know he has taken it as a personal crusade to talk of "masterful coaches" and not liking the rule) members of his group "could" easily have been mislead.

So the "real" question becomes:

"Why can't National Board Members agree on the rules that they write?"

T

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Tim C
In defense of WCB:

Windy's constant reminder that his "State Interpretor" has told them that "BACK!" is not obstruction is a real important question here.

For a second let's assume that what they are saying is wrong. This would not be the first time that a state interpretor passed incorrect information to the masses.

Just last season a state interpretor in a New England state told both groups of umpires that "the quick shoulder tune while in contact with the pitcher's plate was in error and that it would be changed this year."

The prep that told everyone that was the PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE FED RULES COMMITTEE -- when it was pointed out to Elliot Hopkins that a "board member" was passing this information he was very adamant about correcting that person's conception.

So in defense of Windy (I know he has taken it as a personal crusade to talk of "masterful coaches" and not liking the rule) members of his group "could" easily have been mislead.

So the "real" question becomes:

"Why can't National Board Members agree on the rules that they write?"
T

Here in Memphis, our preseason/mandatory TSSAA meetings are atrocious! Not only are they boring and repetitive, but whenever any non-black&white issue comes up, the "big dogs" in the organization almost *always* pass on the WRONG interpretation to the membership.

I use to find it frustrating. Now, I just find it humorous and only attend the meetings because the state requires it. I get absolutely nothing out of it. I consider it anti-knowledge.

I'd learn twice as much simply perusing this forum.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[PWL]

Originally posted by Tim C
WCB wrote:

"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."

------------

The perfect defense when you are caught with your pants down . . .

Appropriate for the Halloween Season:

A bit of Léger Maine and misdirection huh WC . . . as a tribute to Harry Houdini --

"LOOK, look here . . . while I slip this rabbit into my hat . . . WA LA . . . a rabbit from my magic top hat."

WCB, the count against you got so heavy you went for the old misdirection play huh?

Sorry, try to change the subject doesn't work with the astute readers of officiating.com (well perhaps it would work with PWL),the evidence is too strong against ya man . . . but again,

Have a great Halloween Season.

T

I don't know what where I fit into all this. I've already found talking to you is like shoveling sand off the beach. You ain't getting anywhere. I understood everything you were saying last time. However, those were things I already knew. You went on to imply other things and you know it. I just waiting for you to display all this class you say have.

Now, to the best of my knowledge. The Miami Play took place in the College World Series. The pitcher stepped back off the rubber, and threw the ball to first. The runner dove back head first into the base. The F3 reacted as if the ball got past. Everybody down the 1b line in the bullpen started to scatter like the ball was rolling in their direction. The runner got up and headed to 2B. Needless to say he received a rude suprise.

Oh yeah, on the phantom play, with the safety rules in FED they better be pretty close in the area or they won't get the call with me.

[jicecone]

One, can tell that the season has ended.

The wind has picked up and the guys are ever so serene, as they sit back in their chairs next to their computer, with their boots on, waiting for winter. Longing, for those infamous words of spring.

"Play Ball, Play Ball"

We know that then and only then, can we remove the bandages from our finger tips, wipe the blood off our key boards and shout at the top of our lungs, "Your Out".

You just gotta "Love It Baby".

[Edited by jicecone on Oct 29th, 2005 at 01:52 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

SITUATION #18: If a runner yells "go," ... is this obstruction? RULING: Obstruction has occurred ... and the appropriate award is made. The player committing the act is warned. If he does it again, he is ejected. If another player on the team does the same thing, the umpire can issue a team warning.

[/B]

Carl, shouldn't this read, "If a fielder yells "go," ... is this obstruction?"

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by 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.

Maybe.

I had a discussion once with the Editor of the FED Basketball Rules book. We were discussing a somewhat controversial new basketball rule. I indicated that if I was on the committee, I would have voted against the change. She indicated that she didn't get a vote either.

So, I guess my questions are: Does Hopkins get a vote on proposed changes? Does he have the "power" to "interpret" (with the force of "law") questions that are forwarded to him?

I wouldn't be surprised if he does have this role, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Carl, shouldn't this read, "If a fielder yells "go," ... is this obstruction?"
[/B]

Yes. I'll fix it at the original post. Thanks.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Bob,
You should be very glad I'm back. At least now, people won't assume that you and I are one. (Charting your schedule bordered on stalking, eh?) You'll also notice that you don't have to edit or delete my posts. I'll try to keep it that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several of you are so hung up on what the player says rather than what happens. Carl, BigUmp, Davein SoCal and others play attention:

1) If F5 says "Back" or even "Get Back" to a runner it is not obstruction unless the play is altered in some way. Why is that a puzzle to you? If the runner doesn't bite, we have nothing! Please take a Xanax and read the book again.

2) If the infield says "Bunt" and the batter doesn't do it, do you penalize them?

3) You still can't justify enforcing the penalty on something you can't possibly see. Carl, when someone curses directly at you from the dugout what do you do? What happens if your back is turned and you can't tell who said it?

4) T, I did not change the topic. Analogies are the name of the game here, since so many seem to not want to answer the question. When two sides vehemently disagree, the dialogue needs to change. I even offered A2D as an option to the debate.

Carl said that he makes some calls based on what is expected of him by assignors, evaluators, etc. I said that our state doesn't agree with his assessment of this play. Finally, you realized that our interpreters are no different than the ones that don't emphasize coach uniforms, the batter's box, exclusive use of NFHS baseballs. There is a section in the book that says by state assocation declaration, any rule may be superceded. Again, why is this a puzzle to Carl and his minions? I would love to see them pull out the Newsletter to validate their point. "Uh, coach this is from 1988, but it says quite clearly..." The casebook changes every year, so does the rule book. Grab the 1988 one (since you seem to have that Newsletter handy), how many pages are in it? Uh, oh...

I appreciate your candor and the fact that you can dialogue without taking it into the gutter. I respect umpires that disagree and can argue their convictions. That is what most every call is about.

**Please let me know when the San Antonio clinic will be held. I know some guys down there that will be happy to speak up for me. It will be interesting to see how an autocrat responds to someone who doesn't make his living on a highschool or Legion ball field.