hello,

I just need a clarification on a rule of making a mockery of the game. This weekend i was umpire in chief for a AAU baseball tournament here in Virginia. A team from Northern Virginia was using a play that i think was illegal. The pitcher would step off the rubber with the ball in his glove and fake a throw to the outfield and the whole team even coaches would yell get the ball get the ball while the runners on 1st and 2nd come very confused, to me this play has no place in baseball. This is almost like faking a throw and then faking the tag. What is the proper ruling on this play, they play on National Federation rules and i couldnt locate this anywhere in the book.



"YOUR ONLY AS GOOD AS YOUR CREW"

Tim Harris

Legal. The proper ruling is to watch the ball and see what happens next, which is what the runners should be doing.

It's been a while since I cracked it open, but I believe this very play is described in the Federation Case Book. If I'm not mistaken, they put the onus on the offensive team's coaches. I liken this to the hidden ball trick. It may seem unethical, but it is legal. It's amazing how often it works though. It is even described on a few coaching websites.


Edited later that morning!

Okay, I just found it - in the current Fed book, page 48. Rule 6.2.4 E says it all.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Oct 24th, 2005 at 08:09 AM]

Just like WWTB said, it's legal.

Coach's must teach their players to pay attention. I remember a trick that one of the HS coach's used to play when I was in high school. He'd have one of his players on the bench holding two bats, and instead of throwing the ball back to the pitcher, the catcher would simulate a pop up, while at the same time the player on the bench would bang the bats together. Talk about chaos.I used to enjoy watching my coach go ape on the bench.

All part of the game.

Bob P.

That play is illegal (obstruction) under FED rules.

The play in the original post is a legal play. Bush league, maybe, but legal.

You will find no rule in the books about "making a mockery of the game". You might be thinking of the phrase "making a travesty of the game" which is used in only one case- in reference to a runner running the bases in the reverse order.

Either way, that's not what happened here, so the "mockery/travesty" clause does not apply.

<b>"I just need a clarification on a rule of making a mockery of the game." </b>

There is no such rule.

Please cite rule, case book, or whatever other source you have.

NFHS Rule Book
2-22-1

"Obstruction is an act(intentional or unintentional,as
well as physical or verbal) by a fielder,any member of the defensive team,or it's team personnel,that hinders a runner
or changes the pattern of play as in 5-1-3,and 8-3-2"
Case book contains a situation somewhat similar to this
one,although it is verbal in nature.

I need a better reference than this, should this come up in an important game.

I can see calling obstruction on the offense when they verbally do something to prevent the offense from advancing. Or a fake tag, that makes a runner slide insted of advancing. But this play is a trick play designed to enduce the offense to advance, not hinder advance.

Now for a similar play, run by the offense all the time to trick the defense. R1 and R3, R1 starts for 2b, either after the pitch, or after pitcher comes set. The intent is not to steal 2b, but to draw a throw, and allow runner on 3b to score, while defense is pre-occupied with R1.

i saw something similar this weekend. Batter walks with runner on 3b, he rounds 1b like he is legging out a double and nearly stops between 1st and 2nd. Needless to say the next 60 seconds were funny as sh*t, and when it was all over we had R1 and R3 and no one tagged out. Better execution on defense would have resulted in an OUT on one of the runners. There was a point in time that if 2b man was a tad smarter, R3 would have been out (love to get those lead runners on trick plays).

If this is well defensed it will not work. In the other situation, if runners watch the ball it will not work either.

I have heard this play called the "Miami" play. I always assumed it was first used by Univ of Miami, but I don't know for sure.

Originally posted by timharris
"I just need a clarification on a rule of making a mockery of the game. This weekend i was umpire in chief for a AAU baseball tournament here in Virginia. A team from Northern Virginia was using a play that i think was illegal. The pitcher would step off the rubber with the ball in his glove and fake a throw to the outfield and the whole team even coaches would yell get the ball get the ball while the runners on 1st and 2nd come very confused, to me this play has no place in baseball. This is almost like faking a throw and then faking the tag. What is the proper ruling on this play, they play on National Federation rules and i couldnt locate this anywhere in the book."

If the runner is goaded into sliding back into second when the fielder fakes taking a throw, by FED rules you will have Obstruction (Fake Tag). Other than that, it's a fire drill that is legal - I saw it twice this year with runners on second and third (in different games). In one instance the 3rd base coach recognized the play, and when the runner on third base started to take off for home the coach physically grabbed him. Yep, the umpires had an out AND an unhappy third base coach!

JJ

Under your definition, any spin move to 2b that results in the runner sliding back to 2b is illegal, since he was "goaded" to return by a fake tag and a fake throw.

So, if the pitcher steps off the rubber with a runner on 1b and fakes a throw to 1b, thereby "goading" the runner to slide back (or dive) is therefore also obstruction. I hope you will agree that this is rediculous, as is faking a throw to 2b to "goad" the runner to go back to 2b.

In general this play is not about faking a tag. It is about faking a wild throw from the pitcher. It works best when 2b and SS both dive headlong for the "wild throw", thus enducing the untrained runner to advance, not slide (or dive) back to 2b, and I have never seen this work without the "wild throw" sell by 2b and SS.

[Edited by DG on Oct 25th, 2005 at 12:27 AM]

What about FED 6-2-2c ????

Delay of game includes:

C)failing to pitch or make or attempt a play, including a legal feint, within 20 seconds after he has received the ball.

I would not consider faking a throw to the outfield a 'legal feint'.

Start calling balls on the batter !

Nick, that is simply not a delay of game. He is making a play on a runner. It is cited specifically as a legal play. We are picking nits here.

In Bob's obstruction call, the defensive team made a sound associated with the game (the fake ball/bat) and induced the deception. Without the sound, we've got nothing. However, the coaches have taken a unnecessary action to sell the play. Bob was correct and this should be penalized accordingly.

I've only seen one reference to making a mockery of the game and it doesn't refer to this type of play.

Please clarify what you're trying to say here. I read your response this way. If the feign to the outfield is not accompanied by the verbal shout of "get the ball", or something to that effect, there is no obstruction to call.

If there is a verbal shout along with the feign, this has altered the course of the play and the provisions of 6-22-1 then apply.

Am I understanding you correctly?


Tim.

The answer to your question is, "probably not".

I suggest that you invest in the Case Book. Fed has made it clear what is acceptable and what is not with regards to this play. I don't understand why they do certain things, but it is specifically supported in the Case Book.

This play has been in that book for a number of years. As I intimated earlier, I recalled seeing it some time ago and had to dig through the book to locate it. It hasn't been changed and Fed loves to rectify problem interpretations. This is accepted and legal in High School baseball.

To be clear, I'm saying the second play in this thread (banging the bats together) is illegal. The first play (the Miami play -- the fake overthrow) is legal.

I don't have my books handy to provide a reference.

<i> Originally posted by DG </i>

<b> Please cite rule, case book, or whatever other source you have. </b>

FED Rule 2-22-2

I am at work but I believe the FED case play reference is under section 2.22.1

The FED case play is a bit different but the concept is the same. The Case play talks about F2 throwing a pop-up to F6/F4 (doesn't matter) where F6 yells "get back get back" to the runner so that the runner thinks it's a pop-up and retreats.

In FED that is treated as verbal OBS. Pretty similar to the play in question.

In OBR, hopefully the player that banged the bats together is not in the line-up otherwise his ears might "get banged" if you know what I mean.

Pete Booth

You've misinterpreted my post. I did not say, nor did I imply, that ANY spin move "goading" the runner into sliding back into a base is ILLEGAL. What I DID say was that if the fielder fakes receiving a throw which results in the runner sliding when there was no throw, you should penalize the fake tag. I hope this "goads" a long way into clarifying what I was trying (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully, evidently) to say. :)

JJ
PS Why are we putting "goad" in quotes?

<b><i>"If the runner is goaded into sliding back into second when the fielder fakes taking a throw, by FED rules you will have Obstruction (Fake Tag)."</i></b>

To get an obstruction call for a "fake tag", you actually need to have something happen that resembles a, well... "tag". Like a sweep at the runner with the glove, when the fielder is not in possession of the ball.

Simulating taking a throw from another fielder is not a "fake tag".

[Edited by BretMan on Oct 25th, 2005 at 03:29 PM]

Thanks for clarification, I should have read more carefully. I thought you were referring to the Miami play from the first post.

The Miami play does not fake receiving a throw to get the runner to slide, it fakes the runner into thinking a throw is wild, into CF, thus "goading" the runner to advance. I think there is a lot of difference between holding your glove up as if you are going to receive a throw, and a fake tag. I think FED wants to warn/penalize a fake tag becaue they don't want unnecessary sliding, which might get someone hurt.

Where I grew up, goading was poking an animal with a stick to make him move. I thought it was funny to goad (fake) a runner into moving to 3B.

I hate this call
 

The question was answered and most of us seem to understand the what, why and how involved with this particular play.

Let's take it a step further:

R2 and no outs. The shortstop sets up a step or two behind the runner leading off the base. He slaps his mitt every time the pitcher glances back at the runner. He says "Back" at the same time he slaps the mitt. How many of you would call this Obstruction according to Fed guidelines? NCAA? OBR?

Re: I hate this call
 

My first thought was that I would tell the SS to stop saying "back" as he slaps his glove. But given the propensity for debate on this site I decided to do some research. I checked 2005 BRD (item 340) and J/R (page 207 of 2004 edition) and based on the examples given for verbal obstruction I would say that saying "back" to a runner in this situation is a very grey area. I also checked to see if anything in the FED case book on this and did not find, although I did find some case plays that were similar to ones mentioned in BRD and J/R as examples. So, after this quick look at references I will stick with my original thought, and tell the SS to stop saying "back" when he slaps his glove.

It's nothing in NCAA and OBR, see item 340 in BRD. Clearly, to be mentioned in the BRD means there is a difference in interpretation between FED, NCAA, OBR.

From DG -

My first thought was that I would tell the SS to stop saying "back" as he slaps his glove. But given the propensity for debate on this site I decided to do some research. I checked 2005 BRD (item 340) and J/R (page 207 of 2004 edition) and based on the examples given for verbal obstruction I would say that saying "back" to a runner in this situation is a very grey area. I also checked to see if anything in the FED case book on this and did not find, although I did find some case plays that were similar to ones mentioned in BRD and J/R as examples. So, after this quick look at references I will stick with my original thought, and tell the SS to stop saying "back" when he slaps his glove.

It's nothing in NCAA and OBR, see item 340 in BRD. Clearly, to be mentioned in the BRD means there is a difference in interpretation between FED, NCAA, OBR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate here: The coach says, "Why does he have to stop doing that? Show me the rule."

Coach, FED has a rule against verbal obstruction and there are a number of examples in the case book. Saying "back" in this situation could be interpreted as verbal obstruction by some umpires. Sooner or later you will run into an umpire who thinks it should be called vs. one who thinks it could be called, but my preference is just to put an end to it wo we don't have this grey area.

This question came up earlier this summer. The guys in our association seemed to be divided as to what they felt constituted the necessity for a verbal obstruction call to become warranted.

I wrote to Kyle McNeely who has served on the NFHS baseball rules committee in past years. The following is his response.

Tim.
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________


Tim, thanks for the question. Hope your spring and summer seasons have gone well. Pretty much wound down here.

I am not surprised that there exists a high level of debate on this. Obstruction as a topic, for some reason, tends to be on a national basis, misunderstood and misapplied.

As you are well aware, Rule 2-22-2 tells us that obstruction can verbal and physical, intentional and unintentional. An additional key phrase in that definition deals with obstruction being an act that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play. This means that the obstruction did something; caused something else to happen.

So, in reality we do not handle verbal obstruction any differently than we would a physical act. If it hindered a runner or changed the "pattern of play" we would enforce the penalty. What is and is not obstruction then lies with the umpire. That is the basis of your discussion.

We know that many times, on the batter-runner rounding first following a base hit single to the outfield, he may run into the first baseman who is standing on the base or near it in the basepath. Most of the time, that is not obstruction as the batter-runner was not going to second anyway, he was just rounding first and going to return there. But, let's say the ball gets through the outfielder or the outfielder kicks it around, then the same act now might be obstruction as it did hinder the runner or changed the play. Before it did nothing, now it had an impact. Same act, but one is obstruction and one is not.

So, applying this train of thought to the verbal act in question, we have 2 approved rulings which provide some guidance.

The first one is from 1993:

PLAY: With R1 on second, F5 yells, "Back! Back!" R1 thinks the instructions have come from his third base coach. R1 (a) does not return or (b) is thrown out at home on B2'����� after first starting back to second. R1's coach claims F5 should be called for obstruction because he hindered R1. F5's coach contends that this is just part of baseball. RULING: Anytime a fielder hinders a runner, obstruction should be called. In (a), because R1 was not hindered, there is no obstruction. In (b), had R1 not attempted to return, he may not have been put out at the plate. Therefore, F5 is guilty of obstruction.

The second approved ruling is from 1997:

PLAY: With R1 on second base, F6 yells "back, back, back!" as F1 starts his pitch. R1 returns to second base, thinking he was following the commands of his base coach. B2 (a) does not hit the ball, or (b) hits the ball.
RULING: In (a) and (b), verbal obstruction shall be called. The umpire shall award R1 the base he would have reached (a minimum of one base), had there not been obstruction.

In a way, both are saying the same thing, and the same thing on any obstruction. If the act hindered or changed the play, obstruction should be called. The 1993 ruling is obvious, but to some the 1997 ruling might be debatable.

What is being said here, is in both cases, the runner went back to second when he ordinarily would not have, hence the pattern of play was changed (as well as some safety factor bearing on it as well). Had the runner not gone back, the mere fact the defensive player said "back, back" would not have been obstruction. When it influenced the runner it became obstruction. In truth, in the past, even when a runner went back to second (nothing else happened) I have simply told the defensive player to stop as next time I will rule obstruction. If they do it again, I rule it. Certainly, if something happened I would rule obstruction.

This is a kinda of long winded response, and I hope it helps. Let me know if I didn't clear the debate up.

Kyle

This question was also addressed by Anthony Holman and Bob Laufenberger, NFHS Baseball Rule Committee members. Kyle does not speak for the NFHS and is using unsubstantiated interps. Contrary to his and your contention, it is not illegal. It is accepted along with the hidden ball trick, the outfield lead off and the "overthrown pickoff". When properly executed, they are things of beauty.

If Fed says that the responsibility is on the coaches to insure that the players aren't fooled, then that is good enough for me. That is why I said I hated the aformentioned "overthrown pickoff". Some guys don't understand that masterful coaching goes into that play. Absent minded playing and coaching cause it to succeed. It is very skilled execution of a legal strategy.

There are too many arguments against making the obstruction call:

1) Your back is to the play and you need to see the defensive player say it and the offensive player respond. Most of the time the runner ignores him or tells him to F-off.

2) The defensive player could argue that he is telling his pitcher he is getting "back" into defensive position and not holding the guy on any longer. Yes, it is hogwash but are you clairvoyant?

3) We already have a play that says the players can yell in a deceptive way and it is not construed as obstruction. It is also at 2B and involves a runner not listening to his coaches.

4) Just because an infielder says "Bunt" doesn't mean the batter has to do it. Does the runner on 2B have to take a step back?

5) It's just another example of being an overly officious official. The rule and casebooks do not mention this type of behavior. Yelling "Foul", "Slide", or "Hold Up" are very different pronouncements. This is the type of behavior that rule is designed to forbid.

I've seen this issue debated here and on other sites. There are those that believe the players should behave like altar boys out there - no backtalking, cussing or trash talk. At some levels and in some neighborhoods, this nay be appropriate. For the majority of baseball, we let the kids play and ensure that we enforce the rules consistently. Grey areas get us into trouble, like the "Don't do that." comment in J/R. If I'm the coach who hears an umpire say that some umpires might construe that behavior as inappropriate, he's likely to say "Do you?". Of course you'll say you wouldn't have brough it up if you didn't. Then he's likely to ask for the other umpires next game. Those would be the ones that call the rules in the book and aren't concerned with fabricating other ones. A2D, if you want. Call what you see; rule 1 of umpiring school.

WCB
 

Just from my perspective:

First, you need to recognize that Kyle McNeely is Eliott Hopkins "right hand man" when it comes to Federation Baseball rulings. Being an official member of the committee is really rather unimportant, Kyle does speak for FED whether I like it or not.

Second, I am not sure why you call the interps "unsubstantiated." They are clearly printed on the Spring Newsletter's list (available from NFHS if requested).

Third, the "alteration" of play reference are not new they have been around for many years.

Fourth, don't tell me I don't under "masterful" coaching. I understand the game pretty well.

Fifth, my umpire association agrees on how this is called so we don't have the silly wars of "the guys last week didn't call it!" BooHoo.

Sixth, officials in EVERY sport use preventive officiating all the time. "Don't do that" is just a portion of game control that is learned over time. I strongly reccomend using it.

Windy, I will give you one thing:

Sometimes: UMPIRES HAVE TO UMPIRE -- we get paid to do and we need to understand ALL ramifications when we take the field.

So, in my neck of the woods, we tell infielders not to say "BACK!" if continue and it IMPACTS play we call it!

Pretty simple.

Tee

Re: WCB
 

Very well stated Tee, that's exactly how we handle it in our area.

Bottom line, if it doesn't affect the play, ignore it.

Thanks
David

"Bottom line, if it doesn't affect the play, ignore it."

Thus would be a contradiction and my contention - ignore it. Unlike T and Kyle, I still have not found where this play is specifically forbidden. Kyle may have been Hopkins' right hand man at one time but is no longer such. The Rules Committee members have far more creedence than you afford them. Most have been involved in the game for a very long time. Some administer their state's programs and others are long time officials. Two of them say that your interp is incorrect. These are the gentlemen charged with publishing and editing the annual rule book. In other words, those are the ones who write the book.

Saying "Back" to a runner that ignores it, is not play altering. If it is said and the guy dives back, did you see who said it? Why wouldn't a smart coach teach his kids to yell "Back" and dive back to the bag. You, the OOO on high alert for treachery, throw your hands up and say, "That's obstruction." and send R2 to 3B. You didn't see it, but you called it. That's phenomenal judgement on your part. The coach at third is chuckling.

Read the definition of Fed obstruction again and check the Case Book; this is not 2.22.1 Sit A in the Case Book. While it may be true that your organization enforces this, it would be against the opinions of members of the current NFHS Rules Committee. You may consider it preventive officiating, but it cannot be substantiated. Yes, it is true that sometimes we have to umpire. How do you umpire when you can't see the infraction and don't have a supporting rule for your penalty? Common sense should dictate that you will run into a coach that will demand it some day. That may be the end of your meteoric rise - once he tells others of your blunder. Then again, in your area, it may already be known that coaches have to adjust to your association's bad interps. I've seen groups that never enforce the batter's box or jewelry rules. I've come across umpires that never inspect the bats and helmets. If this is just another example of that, then I apologize. If it works for you, don't rock the boat.

You're really stretching things here, but I'll play along.

If I don't know who said "BACK!", of course I can't call it. But I'll likely hang up the cleats and go get a hearing test too. These players are not that far from me, and not (hopefully) in a straight line from me - it shouldn't be that difficult to know who said it.

But the play in question has F6 saying "Back!". I assume then, for the sake of the discussion, that F6 did, in fact, say back. If this is not verbal obstruction to you (or to the two guys you are saying back you up --- of course, I've not seen anything published from either of them that support your assertion... whereas I HAVE seen and read the one quoted by Tim), then what IS verbal obstruction to you (and them)? Seems to me that this type of play is EXACTLY why the word verbal appears in the rulebook.

Here are simple questions: Do you call things you don't see? If some guy in the dugout swears at you, do you eject the guy closest to you?

Simple statement: Fed is clear on what they want called. They even give specific examples in the Case Book, so that clarity is insured. I don't see this anywhere. In fact, the only mention of "Back" anywhere in the book involves a fake pop-up. However, I do see a play that allows a runner to be caught off second base because the defense has tricked him with verbal AND physically obstructive means.

The truth is, I don't care what you call as long as your coaches buy it. I hate this call and realize that the Fed has let this contradiction fester for more than a few years. If you can get away with making up rules then you are very lucky indeed. When the coach is screaming at you, T and Kyle can drive in to tell them all about their beliefs. Most of my coaches know the rules and have access to the book - they don't give much creedence to those guys.

I'm one of those unlucky umpires who has to perform in accordance to the rules. I don't like the rule, as it is written. I also despise the batter's box rule, courtesy runners, the IBB, finishing a game with eight players, the home run balk, re-entry, etc. OBR has been doing a fine job for a long time and Fed comes along to muck it all up.

I don't understand what this has to do with the original question, which was: Is the Miami Play legal in FED. Answer: Yes. CB 6.2.4e)

In a twist on the Miami play: R1, R3. The pitcher fakes a throw to first; the defense may not supplement the acting of the pitcher by throwing a practice ball against the fence. Penalty: Live ball. After play has stopped, the umpire will eject the offender's coach and award the affected runner one base. CB 8.3.2j

All of this is readily available in the BRD, section 361.

The fake throw to a base has nothing to do with obstruction.

BTW: The pitcher did not need to step off the rubber to pretend to throw to second.

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I don't understand what this has to do with the original question, which was: Is the Miami Play legal in FED.[/B][/QUOTE]It has nothing to do with the original question. It has to do with the subsequent question of the SS who says "back" while stepping toward 2b and slapping his glove with his non glove hand. The subsequent question was about whether this should be considered verbal interference, and the poster also wanted to know if the ruling would be different between FED, NCAA and OBR.

It has nothing to do with the original question. It has to do with the subsequent question of the SS who says "back" while stepping toward 2b and slapping his glove with his non glove hand. The subsequent question was about whether this should be considered verbal interference, and the poster also wanted to know if the ruling would be different between FED, NCAA and OBR. [/B][/QUOTE]All right, somebody put the thread off course. Fine.

Verbal obstruction (it's obviously not interference) is covered nicely in published FED materials:

"Go!" by defense to runner tagging on a fly ball. Website # 12, 2004: obstruction.

"Foul ball!" by defense to runner advancing on a passed ball. NFHS News, #14, 1999: obstruction.

"I've got it!" defense to runner on a fly ball that's well beyond the defender's reach. Website #14, 2001: obstruction.

"Back! Back!" defense to runner. NFHS News, #19, 1995: obstruction.

All published, all covered by the BRD. (You guys should know by now that the answers to rules questions are generally in that book. <grin>)

Summary: Almost all physical deoys - "dekes," as they are called - are legal: pretending to field a grounder, catch a popup, glove a throw, or throwing a "popup" into the air on a steal. The one decoy that's forbidden is the fake tag.
Quoted from the BRD, Section 340.

Re: I hate this call
 

Carl,


My response was to Windy's post. He specifically asked about a fielder yelling "back."

This would constitute verbal obstruction.

Tim.

Re: Re: I hate this call
 

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

The tactic is legal but, if I recall, if there is any accompanying VERBAL deception, it becomes verbal obstruction. You said "the whole team even the coaches would yell get the ball, get the ball."

I don't see any difference between this and a fielder improperly telling a runner that the ball was foul when it was fair.

I would rule the play legal and then call verbal obstruction.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Some of us know the difference and don't call what we can't possibly see. Some of us see things, but don't call them. That is strange.

Here's another point of clarification.

Carl correctly wrote that if a runner steals and the catcher throws a pop up in order to trick the runner into thinking that the ball has been hit, it is a legal play. However, if a fielder tells the runner to return or "go back", we have obstruction. If the defensive team makes a sound associated with a hit baseball we have obstruction, as well.

I've only witnessed this play once in twenty five plus years of umpiring. It worked and the offensive coach was crimson with shame.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder Most of my coaches know the rules and have access to the book - they don't give much creedence to those guys.

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

You're welcome.


:)

A GENERAL rule of thumb -- if the defense acts like the defense, the play is legal. If the defense acts like the offense ("go", "get back") or the umpire ("foul ball") it's illegal.

I used to think that was nearly a universal rule-of-thumb --- but then FED added (or added to) the "F2 throws a pop-up" play -- in the new version, F4 says, "I've got it." To me, that's "acting like the defense." To the FED, it's verbal obstruction. I think the FED is "wrong" in this ruling.

Bob, the rule is simpler: It's verbal v. visual, the three v's.

If the deke occurs as a result of the defense speaking to the offensse, it's verbal obstruction.

If the deke is visual, it's nothing. (Fake tag excepted)

Using that guideline, you don't have to worry about whether the FED is right in its interpretations.

Hehehe,
 

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]

Re: Hehehe,
 

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

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]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue Quote: Originally posted by mcrowder Most of my coaches know the rules and have access to the book - they don't give much creedence to those guys. 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!!!!"

WOW!
 

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.

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.

Not only verbal but just obstruction ...
 

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

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.]

<font size=3><blockquote>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.</font></blockquote>

[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

<font size=3><blockquote>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".</font size=3></blockquote>

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

<font size=3><blockquote>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.</font size=3></blockquote>-------

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 <i>with the wrong</i> 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. <i>But you won't enforce it because you don't like it.</i>

Shame on you. Again!

By the end of <i>Twelve Angry Men</i>, 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?"

Re: Not only verbal but just obstruction ...
 

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)

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 <i>despised</i> 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."

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.

Re: Re: Re: I hate this call
 

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.

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.

Yes, that is what I say.

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 <i>and</i> penalizes the obstruction.

From my book <i>On the Bases</i>, Referee Enterprises, 1987, which was quoting my "Doing It" column of May 1984:<blockquote>When I was growing up many years ago, I remember listening to Gordon MCLendon, the "Old Scotsman." He was sitting in a Dallas studio [<u>KLIF</u>] 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. [<u>Most now - 2005 - don't, because of the relentless eye of the camera.</u>]

Since both sides accept the "out" as the <i>legitimate result of the play</i>, 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 <i>after</i> he released the ball or <i>before</i> 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 [<u>That was the play Joe West called <i>correctly</i> in this year's ALDS. In an earlier thread, you incorrectly wrote that I disputed his call.</u>], 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.</blockquote>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.The penalty for verbal obstruction is older than that. It's been a part of the FED philosophy since <i>March 1988</i>:<blockquote><b>SITUATION #18</b>: If a fielder yells "go," ... is this obstruction? <b>RULING:</b> 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.</blockquote>That's <i>seventeen</i> 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 <i>this</i> discussion?(1) Explain who "we" are and list the "very similar plays that permit this type [<u>which type?</u>] 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]

Ah HA!
 

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'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.

Well,
 

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]

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.

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]

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

Catch this,
 

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

Re: Catch this,
 

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

Re: Ah HA!
 

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.

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]

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

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.

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

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.

Literal interpretations ...
 

These two plays are not even on the same page. I assumed that you understood the game, but maybe I was wrong.

It is expected in certain situations the defense will anticipate a bunt and they might charge, (yelling "bunt bunt" as they do) or they might just have F5 move in etc.,

This does nothing to fool the offense or to gain an advantage.

Now, at second base F6 yelling back with freshman Joe on 2nd, he might gain a huge advantage. Thus FED saw the need to put in a rule to prevent that from happening.

Taking the rules literally can be a bad thing.

thanks
David

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
1)<b> Carl writes: My comments are bold.</b>

There is a section in the book that says by state assocation declaration, any rule may be superceded [sic]. Again, why is this a puzzle to Carl and his minions?

<b>Carl: I don't have minions. Vassals, yes; minions, no. (grin)

We'd all be interested in the statute that allows a state association to suspend "any rule." The FED gives states specific rules they may adopt: coach's uniform, courtesy runner, guidelines where ejected participants may go, limits on innings pitched, protests, questions about protests (1970 off. interp.), safety bases, game-ending procedures, mercy rule, tie games, speed-up rules, unforms, and uniform logos. Funny: Verbal obstruction, lodged ball in equipment, the batter's box, exclusive use of NFHS baseballs are not listed. Oh, you can find the rule numbers in the BRD. Look in the index under State Association Adoption.</b>

Grab the 1988 one (since you seem to have that Newsletter handy), how many pages are in it? Uh, oh...

<b>Carl: Four pages, 46 official interpretations.</b>

**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 [sic] or Legion ball field.

<b>Carl: When I reached 55, I retired from the college ranks - after calling over 400 Division 1 games for, among others, Texas A&M, Baylor, Rice, University of Houston, SMU, Maine, Seton-Hall, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Arkansas, Arkansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Michigan, and Michigan State.

The TASO convention is January 20-22 at the OMNI in San Antonio. Of course, if your "guys down there" have not been nominated for state certification, they won't be allowed to attend my classes. Still, they and I can have a Dr Pepper or two and discuss whatever suits them.

Finally: I know you've heard this before, but it bears repeating. <i>Everybody</i> knows who I am. I hide behind no pseudonyms. You'll find no coy references to my identity in my posts. I have the guts to allow my opinions to attach to me.

BTW: Anthony NoLastName did not call yet. No email, either. Perhaps he hasn't yet dropped by The Forum. Why don't you give him a call?</b>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
[B]

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

I'll address this remark for both of my friends Dave and Steve. Windy, there is no post in this thread that's been made by my friend from SanDiego Dave Allison. He's the one who uses the alias DaveinSoCal.

The man who uses the alias SanDiego Steve is a different person entirely. From my recollection, he has never made a post on the McGriffs $h1thou$e board. I'll let Steve try to enlighten you further on your assumption that they are one person.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
[B]
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 and ....


No one has said that verbal obstruction should be called if the play is not altered. Are you now saying that if the play is altered by a fielder yelling "back" that the call should be made? Earlier, you said that that call was wrong no matter what the outcome of the play might be. You refered to this as smart coaching when a coach yells this. Your statement here saying that if the play is not altered, we would have nothing, implys that if the play is altered we would have justification for making the call.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
[B]

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?



This statement is also a ruse to support your position. Since none of can "see" verbal comments, what's your point?
If you need to be looking straight at a defensive player to be able to tell if he was the one who yelled, your judgement is seriously lacking.

I cant speak for Carl , but I will tell you how I handle a player or coach cursing at me with my back turned to the dugout. I call time and call out the manager from the dugout or the coaches box to have a little chat. During our little huddle, I tell him he needs to put a stop to it! I'll tell him,

"Skip, the next time I hear it, I'm turning to the dugout and dumping the first player I see. You can bet good money on it that the first player I find will be either your starting pitcher, or your catcher." This has always worked for me and the managers will shut it down.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
[B]
.
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...



Again Windy, what's your point? Are you saying you need to pull a rule book or a case book out every time a manager disputes a ruling? If a manager disputes a ruling that I'm confident in, I tell him I've made the call and if he doesn't like my answer, he can lodge a protest. End of story. I'm not going to hold a rules clinic with a manager during the course of a game. I'll let him file the protest and forward along the ruling interpretation to the protest committee.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Oct 30th, 2005 at 12:27 AM]

So many students, so little time...

David B -
I recognize that the the issues are separate, thus the different numbers identifying each. I was suggesting that the team yells "Bunt" not to identify what the player is going to do, but because it rattles him. Too many umpires wet their pants when they hear "Swing", so some coaches have resorted to this tact. I've witnessed it on a Legion field, during the state championships! We did not penalize it since it was ignored by the other time and just didn't fit the bill for verbal obstruction.

Carl -
You are a fool. Your ego is clouding your judgement. Brad must be really proud of your efforts in alienating an NFHS Baseball Committee member and besmirching an entire population. Claim that you didn't write it, but most of us saw you say that the umpires in Illinois got it wrong again. The Rule Book does not contain statutes, I thought you were familiar with the terminology.

We have schools that have ThorGuard Lightning Systems, they use different criteria for suspending/postponing games. We have conferences that don't permit the DH or Mercy Rule. I know of multiple schools that never use officially sanctioned NFHS baseballs. I worked twelve ball games in another state last year that used Fed rules but allowed take out slides! The coaching uniform is mandated by the rule book (3-2-1), but I've rarely seen correct compliance. These are rules we've seen flaunted throughout the US. Last year, a Florida umpire told us that one of his favorite coaches buys MLB seconds when the pro team breaks spring training. Another told us that they have schools that never allow courtesy runners. You told us that you ignore the proper call (according to the rules) because your evaluator/assignor/league administrator doesn't want the headaches. This sounds very familiar.

SanDiegoSteve/BigUmp56/DaveinSoCal -
Your thoughts are too conjoined for mere coincidence. If this is the case, a paternity check may be in order. You'll never understand why I don't like this rule or why I think you are incorrect. I've never written that I would call it if the runner bit, I was just pointing out yet another fault in your logic. You heard it, so you call it, even with no play alteration!

When a player swears at you from the dugout, dumping the starting pitcher or catcher sure makes you feel good but look stupid. If someone is yelling in the dugout, I don't let the coach handle it. I wait until I can identify him and then I do my job. I don't invite the coach out to talk with me - that's called baiting and good umpires frown on it. Bad umpires rely on it.

No, I don't make verbal obstruction calls on F5 when I don't see him utter the words. I suggest you read what I wrote earlier. "A smart coach or player will figure out how inept you are. As an OOO, they will trick you by having the runner say loudly, "Back" and then dive back to the base. You'll throw your hands up and say, 'That's Obstruction' and put him on third. Nice going blue, call what you don't see." Good coaching will always beat bad umpiring. It sounds like you are desperately looking for a win.

Call it if you want, many High School umpires have a bad reputation for a reason.

Hey Windbag,

Carl Childress has forgotten more about umpiring than you or I even know, so I tend to respect his opinions, even when I disagree with them. You, on the other hand, have no respect for others, and it really shows your lack of class.

I am not Dave in SoCal, although I have heard he's a very good official. He is in a different association, and we have never met, nor do I recall having read anything he has ever written. So, If some of our baseball related opinions are similar in nature, it is purely coincidental.

From what I understand, you were a real jerk on this board before, and got banned from here, Now you're back under a new assumed name. Good luck.

Edited to add: BTW, Windy, I am on record as not being a Fed rules fan. I think most of the rule differences are retarded, the verbal obstruction rule being one of them. But I go ahead and enforce these rules regardless of my personal feelings. Just so you don't keep misstating facts.

Steve



[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Oct 30th, 2005 at 12:00 AM]

In case you didn't see the other post, I've apologized for confusing you and he. If that is not enough, I offer it once again...I'm sorry for accusing you of being he.

I'm not back under an assumed name any more than San Diego Steve was your birth name. I am opinionated and eloquent enough to speak my mind. I also bring many more years of umpring to the table than you can imagine. My resume has been posted here before and much to a couple of member's chagrin, actually was supported by a couple who worked with me. I'll agree that Carl has forgotten more about umpiring. The game has changed and accountability is more important than relationships. Yes, I enforce the rules, that is my biggest gripe. I just can't find that rule in the Fed book. I don't save newsletters because the rules are in the book. I have been fortunate to never have one of my calls protested. I have been witness to a partner's misfortune when he misapplied a rule in a crucial game. I can't imagine the amount of laughter when one of you would whip out a newsletter from 1988 or even 1995 to substantiate that call. All important interps make their way into the Rule and Case Books. In Illinois, we have annual Rule Interp Meetings. Powerpoint has replaced overhead transparencies but the message is the same. I have never seen that particular verbal obstruction mentioned. I have seen ones regarding "Time", "Foul", "Balk" and "Swing". Now, if it is different where you live, that's terrific. I hate the rule even more than you. If you have to call it, I can understand why. Just be sure you see the guy say it and watch the runner alter his action.

Again, sorry for the confusion. I don't expect that we'll be fast friends, but I hope you'll accept my words.

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 and ..


Windy,

These are your words, not mine. You've now said what we all were saying at the begining.

By stating that unless the play is altered, there is no obstruction, implys that if the play is altered, there is obstruction. You can't have it both ways.

Your post containing the insult regarding my family lineage would get your @$$ kicked if you said it to me personally. Both of my parents died tragicly in the last couple of years. To me, that was one h@11 of a low blow.

You can call me what you want to, but leave my family out of it!

If your any kind of man, you'll apologize.

Tim.

Once again,your reading skills befuddle me. I used that phrase to illustrate the futility of what you kept saying. You are on record at both sites that if the fielder says back it is obstruction. I have given you several ways that controvert your assertion. Namely, if you can't see it, you can't call it. Next in line; the very words are not enough, thus you are mistaken. Lastly, I offered the fact that similar plays allow for trickery and verbal obstruction (the fake pick off) yet this one is missing from all Case and Rule Books for the past decade.

I will apologize when it is appropriate. You came here throwing stones and live in a glass house. Others can read your displays of gentility on the other site. Even here, most know that you plow ahead without the couth required. I never questioned your lineage, but made a sarcastic point that the two of you use the same writing style - errors included. If you think that is a shot at your parents, then I'd hate to see how you react to criticism on the field. We've all lost loved ones, parents included. I've never met a person that didn't find their parents' demise tragic. I have never brought mine into a conversation, no matter how badly I was being humbled. I miss mine as well, but find your display sadly misguided.

As I've stated before, I tried to remain above the fray. When those below insist on throwing muck, they are met with a maelstrom. If you want to argue the validity of the play, I will be happy to entertain your thoughts. Until then, I will await a more subtle display of false machismo.

Listen up dickhead! How is questioning my paternity not taking a shot at my parents? You claim to be "above" the rest of us by taking the "high" road, and yet when I dispute your interpretation of this play by posting a nationally known NFHS rules interpreter's take on the play, you stoop to personal insults of the lowest caliber in an attempt to support your position.

You are mere pond scum my friend. It's no wonder why you hide behind an internet alias. If you didn't, you would be hunted down like the dog you are!

You claim that "most" of the members of this board know I have no couth and just "plow" ahead with my responses. Please tell me who "most" of these members are. The only members of this forum I've ever engaged in a debate with were Tee and Ozzy. Both times, we were able to A2D on the situation. Don't bring up that cesspool of filth McGriffs and claim anything negative about me. I haven't posted anything on that board since this subject was discussed there. Even in those threads dealing with this topic, a full 50% of the posts made under the moniker BigUmp56 were not made by me. For all I know, you made them in an attempt to make me look bad. Either way, the members of this board know with certainty that you have no class and should go back to your groupies on McGriffs. Curious, Al, and Franklin are there waiting to stroke your ego once again. You were not missed here while you were gone.

At least on boards like this that require registration, your kind of trolling is kept to a minimum.


Again Windy, you can kiss my @$$!

Tim.

Suggesting that a paternity test might be in order was more of an insult to San Diego Steve than it was to you.

Obviously, he understood what sarcasm means.

Nice diction and use of our mother tongue. The curses were a nice touch. It's probably a good thing you can't get your mouth washed out anymore.

Windy,

You claim to have all these years umpiring. I have 19 myself, and I do it full-time, not as a hobby. I have over 3,000 games, most at Varsity HS level or higher. 6 days a week, 8-10 games a week, from January until games run out. So, please don't talk to me like I just fell off the turnip truck. Mark Prior sure always thought I was a pretty good umpire when I would call his games, when he would pitch a no-no and strike out 15, for example. But I see no need to post my entire resume here, as you apparently already have.

I can't think of anything that I have said concerning the playing rules that would lead you to believe that what I say is "claptrap". But that is what you said, so be specific, so I can address the issue.

Edited to add: Also, I have never called obstruction for a defensive player yelling "back". I turn around and say, "knock it off". That has always nipped it in the bud before it got out of hand. HS only, naturally.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Oct 30th, 2005 at 02:03 PM]

Hmmm,
 

Windy wrote:

"So many students, so little time..."

--------

WCB, it is simple statements like this make even you strongest supporters wince.

It can be taken as condesending and arrogant (and I know a lot about those two issues).

WHY? Why, do you think that you can "teach" umpiring to anyone on this board?

Actually I have only one challenge with your posts:

They would have a value if you identified who you are so we can decide if your experience and umpiring level equal that which you profess.

Pretty simple answer, huh?

Tee

TAC,

My resume has been discussed ad nauseum. A few of you actually know my identity. Suffice to say that what many of you thought was fluff, turned out to credible enough that some apologized. I feel no need to address my detractors - I'm old enough to have made good use of the B-F school.

I felt compelled to teach a lesson, that is a simple extension of my role as an umpire instructor around here. If that phrase bothered you, then you were clearly not among those that required assistance in understanding my point of view. As any proctor knows, some lessons fall on deaf ears. My goal is not to convince all of you that my view is better than yours. Sometimes, my posts reflect the fact that my message was lost, as what had happened there. I've said it multiple times, if you feel the need to make that call, go right ahead. It won't affect me or those around me. I simply cautioned you to be aware that supporting it with a ten year old newsletter is treading a slippery slope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Prior? Wow, a high school pitcher told you that you were pretty good. I can't believe it. Did you really want to brag about that?

Prior wasn't just a high school pitcher, he was a pitcher who was a highly sought after top draft pick, who had dozens of scouts at each game. We also had quite a few conversations at "A", when he played first base, and things got boring. I could have thrown in all 30+ current and former major leaguers I had the pleasure of umpiring, but I did not wish to post a resume, unlike you. You brag about your exploits ad nauseum. This is several times I have read that you have this impressive resume. Who cares?
We all do. So you work D1 games. I know umpires who can't umpire tiddlywinks contests that work D1. I have found through the years that ability does not necessarily equal higher level assignments.

When Mark Prior pitched in high school, believe me, it was a big deal around here. My assignor would not give games like this to an unqualified umpire, and that is why I even mentioned it, so you might quit thinking that I, or any other umpire on this board, needed any "schooling" from the big "Teach".

You just don't get it, I'm not bragging and you are. TAC asked about my resume and I declined. We have burned up a lot of bandwidth talking about where, when and who I worked with over the last few years. Most of this stems from discomfort on some members' behalfs. They can't believe that someone could possibly have a better life than they do. Some of my breaks were earned and others by blind luck. Either way, I feel no need to reiterate my accomplishments. By the way, what is a scout? I've never actually seen one. Do they look different than ordinary people?

You must have some self-confidence issues. I don't recall saying that you were unqualified to officiate. I can suggest that some schooling may be in order though. Apparently you missed the English lessons involving proper grammar. Once again, you've turned an innocent observation into a catastrophe of biblical proportions. (Okay, I'm exagerrating, but you seem to like hyperbole.) I have been an umpire instructor for longer than I care to remember. I learn new things every session. I'm not offended by others showing me how to be better.

I can't understand why you keep making issues out of this. Plenty of people use pseudonyms and we don't fret. Is your name really "San Diego Steve"? I use the current nom de net because the system does not allow me to use the old one. If you can't accept that I know enough to support my views, that is your choice. I have merely provided a counterpoint to a very contentious issue. It is called this way in Illinois and a few other places. If they call it differently in your area, that is fantastic for you. I can't believe that you are that worked up about this.

Let me preface this by saying that I am in no way "worked up", as you put it, about anything. So you can quit playing that card, because nobody's buying it!

Nobody is even talking about the play any more. You are the one that keeps up the attacks. Everyone is telling you this. You think you are so smart, smarter than anyone else here. I haven't argued against your point. I gave an example of how I deal with an infielder yelling "back" to a runner. You have some ridiculous idea that you have to actually see the fielder say "back", in order to call anything. That is asinine! Who in B or C is looking back at F4 or F6? If you can't tell the difference between an infielder saying "back", and the runner saying "back", then you certainly have a problem, alright! I've personally never had any trouble with this situation, for reasons already stated.

It seems you can't get through a single post without getting in a little dig at me. Why do you choose to insult my grammar? The fact that I end an occasional sentence with a preposition is of no bearing on this forum. This is an umpire board, not an English Grammar board. We sometimes digress into the grammar police, but what is the point?

By the way, what is the "innocent observation" you keep bringing up, that I turned into a catastrophe of biblical proportions? I have merely responded in kind to your constant put downs of me, someone you don't even know.

I have no self-confidence issues. What, now you're going to say that you are a Psychologist too? Wow, you have many talents, you're right!

Look, I am sure I could learn some things about umpiring from you, and you could learn some from me. But don't act like you're some kind of guru to all of us neophytes below you. That is exactly how you come off. It forces the ones you belittle to defend themselves with their experience.

Also, my real name is Steve, and I live in San Diego. So, SanDiegoSteve fits pretty well.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Oct 31st, 2005 at 02:12 AM]

I can tell that you are relatively new to this board.

1) My wife is a psychiatrist, they make more money and may be of more assistance than a psychologist.

2) My baseball experience is far greater than you'll ever know or appreciate. I didn't need to post my resume, bits and pieces have come out over the past few years.

3) Go back and look...I never said that you weren't a capable official. You chose to brag about an MLB player who you saw play in high school. There are more than a few of us that have worked games with future MLB players. Some of us have worked them in the minors, a couple of us saw them in college and yes, many of us saw them in high school. I live in Illinois but haven't lived here my whole life. I've worked games across the country and seen some pretty special players. I don't feel the need to mention them when I'm looking for attention.

4) You are a case study in paranoid schizophrenia. You think I'm out to get you and I couldn't care less if you were standing next to me. I disagree with your assessment of a play, period. I took swipes at your language skills because you are losing control of your emotions. I take pride in my ability to communicate and be articulate. The wrong word, phrase or tense can spell doom on the field. I'd say that I'm teaching you the importance of control and communication, but you'd say that you don't need it. It's okay, some of us recognize that we learn everyday. My "teachers" are my employees, friends, crewmates, children and the guy that flipped me off while driving to work this morning. I'm not embarassed to learn new techniques, approaches to the game or interps. I saw a MLB umpire admit that he will have to change his plate mechanic after his critical error. Maturity is being able to accept that we never stop being taught.

5) San Diego Steve is the name on your license? Contrary to some opinions, I am known in the Midwest by my old handle. The email I received in regards to Carl's blunder was from someone who saw what was happening and chased me down. I'm not that hard to find.

6) Baseball umpiring is about hustle, timing, communication and understanding. The ability to disagree and still maintain control is an art. I've had coaches and partners that wanted blood, but could restrain themselves. They were humble enough to know that the game is bigger than any of us.

7) If you are still hung up on the paternity thing, I suggest you talk with my wife or one of her colleagues. I apologized and you didn't like the way the words looked. You're very angry and I'm worried about you.

Like I said, I am not angry, nor am I losing control of my emotions, and I'm definitely not paranoid. You, however, are a blowhard with a bad attitude. Please don't respond to this, as I am not trying to anger you. I don't really care about your impressive background, okay? Do you get it?
I doubt it, because you will probably post something else directed towards me, with more disparaging remarks.

I am very confident in my abilities, and would appreciate it if you would kindly quit flaunting your superior knowledge and experience. I'm telling you dude, nobody here wants to hear it.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I am almost done with you. You asked for me to identify myself so that it would give weight to my opinions. In case you didn't notice, I've been around here a little longer than you - minus the hiatus for bad behavior. Many know me or I should say, know of me. My reputation was not good, as I challenged a few members that could also write well. I sank to some pretty low depths and earned a banishment. Since I returned, I have tried to argue the merits of my opinion. I challenge the veracity of other claims and enjoy a good debate. While I wouldn't characterize him as my nemesis, Carl has relished his role of patriarch of educated umpires and has had some great exchanges with me.

Contrary to your contention, I am not trying to be smarter than anyone here. It has been my experience that two umpires will see the same play and sometimes have opposite calls. I use proper grammar and pride myself on being able to use more than ordinary words to fill my sentences. It makes my brain feel good, akin to yoga for the mind. I'll admit that occassionally I become preachy, but you'll notice that when I dialogue with RPatrino, Tee, Sal and a few others, it is done as peers. I ask no more respect than I give. In your case, you challenged me and I came down hard.

As I've said before, you may very well be umpire of the year material - I don't care. You contend that you don't need anyone to tell you a better way to umpire and that is silly. Eddings, West, McClelland, Rapuano all learned some lessons this past post season. Maybe you are uncomfortbale admitting that I may make sense. That too, is okay. I make my crew uncomfortable sometimes because I demand perfection on the field. We've never achieved it and that's our motivation. You dismiss me as a crackpot who loves to lord his baseball smarts over the lesser umpire. That is not true; I spend many hours insuring that the next generation of umpires is better than me. It's an old business trick - hire someone who can do your job better than you. He'll work hard to prove it and never let you down. When you retire, he's ready for the job. That is why I am adamant about doing whatever is necessary to get the call right. Maybe the kid in the front row isn't saying we're blind. Maybe he has a sparkle in his eye because we are doing a great job. That is one of the biggest reasons I umpire.

There...I did not insult you and made my point. If there is something else you'd like to discuss, I'll be happy to chat. Otherwise, relax and look around. Some of the best umpires on this board aren't as upset about this as you've become. Verbal Obstruction is a very intricate call. Like the balk, we know it when we see it. That is all I've ever asked.

Enjoy your Trick or Treaters...I always keep the hose handy for the little buggers that want to show me an egg sized fastball!