|
Thu Nov 17, 2005, 08:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not being snotty, that's just the way it is!
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
Thu Nov 17, 2005, 08:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Every year I tear into my new copy of the rules, and the only thing that ever changes is the strike zone.
Every year? I may be mistaken by a year or so, but I don't believe the strike zone has been changed in the rule book for about 42 years.
__________________
GB |
|
Thu Nov 17, 2005, 08:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"The Official Playing Rules Committee has adopted changes in Rule 2.00, Strike Zone, which are underlined. Rule 2.00 The Strike Zone is the area that is over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the mid-point between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determine from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." This changed from "the top of the knee." The mid-point for the upper limit had already previously been changed from the old "armpits" upper limit. I forget what year that was. By the way Garth, I didn't mean it changed every year, I meant it seemed like it was the only thing that ever changed. Steve [Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 17th, 2005 at 08:58 PM]
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
Thu Nov 17, 2005, 09:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I wasn't crying about it. I'm just tired of reading, "well the BRD says" or "Jim Evans says", when not many have this resource. I have no problem just calling it the way the book says. You sound like a fan of Fed rules, right? I am not. I prefer real baseball. I like working leagues that go strictly by the OBR, without the slide or avoid connotation. Granted, these are all adult leagues, and few of them let you run over people these days. But all of Pony Baseball (with modifications for level, naturally) uses OBR for its playing rules, except for slide or avoid. Here we have a lot of "horsey ball", from Pinto to Palomino, and everything in between. I find Fed rules to be "artificial baseball", with all the silly differences. I guess many are for safety, but I haven't seen much of a difference in safety in 20 years of games with both sets of rules. I would rather put up with all the errors in the OBR, than to have every league switch to the Fed. Steve
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
Thu Nov 17, 2005, 10:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ya know,
This thread, in my opinion, has moved into being silly.
No umpire EVER should try to quote any kind of rule reference during a game. It is the responsibility of an umpire to KNOW the rules (and the correct interpretation) not to quote the rules. In over 3,700 games I have NEVER heard an umpire explain anything of WHERE a ruling comes from. I don't really care if someone is tired of hearing about the JEA, NAPBL, the BRD or any other source. All these sources are to help an umpire learn "about" the rules. No decent umpire would EVER pull a rule book out of his back pocket to make a point as no umpire would ever quote ANY source. The most "OOO" umpires in the world are ones that turn to Skippy and say: "Coach you know that in 3-3-1 the play specifically says . . . 'blah, blah, blah.'" It is amazing to me that a competent umpire wouldn't take every source avaialble and simply try to understand the reason, common sense, practical applications, letter, spirit, and general accepted philosophies of rules. Not Evans, Childress, or any other are trying to replace the rule book with their documentation, they are simply filling in blanks. I am glad that I know the rules but I never let them get in the way of a great game. With that I return to my next column, "Strikes & Outs . . .Umpires and the Internet, Part III . . . in praise of the three dumbest umpires ever to post on umpire sites." Send me a private e-mail to nominate your favorite. Tee |
|
Thu Nov 17, 2005, 11:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ya know,
Quote:
Nobody I know would carry a rule book onto the field. Oh, except Smitty. I can't afford all the manuals, but gee, I wish I had them. I am only 700 games behind you Tee, and I never let the rules get in the way of a good game either. Edited to correct the spelling of facetious, thanks W. [Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 18th, 2005 at 05:06 AM]
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 04:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Facetious"
 TAC, Let me propose a hypothetical situation; you are a rookie umpire and really enjoy the game but are having a tough time with HS, OBR and some local rec rules. During one game, still early in your first season, you make what you think is the right call. You think that you read somewhere the exact ruling necessary to support your call. You are being asked about the call by one of the most successful (but doggone really nice) coaches in the area. He isn't really mad but concerned that you are misapplying a rule. The coach wants to know where the rule is so he can look it up. He isn't questioning your knowledge as much as checking his. I'm not suggesting that you pull out a rule book then and there, but you'd better be prepared to back it up with something other than, "That's my call and you can protest if you want." Would you dare quote an ancient newsletter? Many guys work independently and the relationships with their coaches are crucial. If you are suggesting that they make something up it is a bad move. I would rather see them say, "Coach, I know it's in the Case Book and I'll have a look for it later. Right now, my call stands. Let's get them going again." The coach will probably buy it and may even look it up himself. Maybe he has a book worm assistant who is already poring over his highlighted books. That is why I was so adamant about the mystery rules! I know that for guys with a few years under their belts, it is an easier bridge to sell. Maybe we have to eat some crow later on but our talent saves us from the wrath of a pissed off coach. I've met some of these guys in the supermarket or airport that still remember calls I made ten years ago. I'm at a comfortable point in my life where I can call most of them by first names and tease them about bad hit and runs or why they dropped a bunt in a certain situation. I would never suggest to my students that this is appropriate banter for a rookie. When you sit down in front of the screen, remember that some newbies out there need more than a smart comment or a war story to fall back on. Yes, an OOO may know the rule number and reference, but in certain situations, it'll save their butts too. I can quote the college balk rules to some of my coaches that still don't get it. One thing is sure, they leave knowing that if I called it, I know it's correct. (At least I hope they do!)
|
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 07:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well WCB....
Since you've once againg taken exception to one of my comments, let me be the one to reply. No rookie umpire, or experienced umpire should have to worry about being able to quote rules to a manager. He shouldn't be on the diamond without an experienced partner. That's one of the reasons we allow conferences, so that we can put at least one more head into the mix to sort things out, away from the manager. What rules are we talking about here anyway? You're stuck on the newsletter and it's interpretation of verbal obstruction and there's a simple solution to that discussion any way. You just tell the coach that obstruction can be either physical or verbal, and that it was verbal obstruction in your judgement. End of conversation. If he files a protest, you can write it up the way you called it, and let the protest committee decide. You brought up being able to quote balks. What do you do, cite the rule by number? I doubt even your arrogance would allow that to happen. Let's say a pitcher does not come set before delivering the ball. Are you going to cite the rule by number, or just tell the manager the pitcher didn't come set, and he can't do that. I'll explain my calls to a point, but if the manager want's to know where it is in the rules, I'm not doing his work for him. He can look it up on his own after we get the game going, or he can lodge a protest. Either way is fine with me as to how he proceeds. I only have 15 years experience umpiring and probably only 800-900 games. I'm sure that would make me a rookie compared to you, but in all those games. I've never had a protest upheld. Tim. |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 07:34am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
Quote:
FED rules are the way they are because of safety and tailored to the younger player (less than NCAA level). The reason I stated that youth leagues should use FED is because these leagues always ba$tardize the OBR with "extra safety additions" and pitching restrictions so they may as well use the book tailored to that. I'd much rather do OBR without any ba$tardization of the OBR rules. [Edited by ozzy6900 on Nov 18th, 2005 at 07:49 AM]
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 08:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well WCB....
Quote:
2) I'd just rather not call the verbal obstruction in the first place. I am one of those picky umpires that likes to see the rule in writing before enforcing it. 3) I have called balks that required a chapter and verse to a manager with a degree in moronics. I've called it and had the guy come out to ask me to show him what the guy did wrong. Instead of acting like Marcel Marceau, I tell him what it was and if he wants to look up x-y-z, he can do it after the game is restarted. It shuts them up quickly when the guy in dark blue polyester knows what he's saying. Maybe you can't pull it off yet, but trust me, it works. 4) I've never lost a protest, since I'm not playing anymore. I can't recall a protest being lodged as a result of my calls either, but I'm getting old. Being able to support your call is based on both communication and intelligence. Sometimes a simple look replaces a five minute rookie conversation. Other times, it is nice to know that if I have a coach that vehemently diagrees with my explanation, I can tell him to look up a-b-c while we get the game going again. It gets him off my field, let's him cool down and if he comes back to argue about it an inning later, he's crossing a very big line. I'm not Yoda yet, but I like to think that I'm more than a Jedi in training. The robes are cooler! |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 08:32am
|
|||
|
|||
FYI
Quote:
This has nothing to do with the thread, but who really wants to get into the "FED isn't real baseball" nonsense?
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 09:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FYI
Quote:
|
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 10:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for refocusing the thread, because it was really getting silly. I am so glad we are now discussing vowels.
Mbyron, Fed rules IMO, suck. As I have explained before, most umpires where I work don't like Federation rules. We enforce them, but we don't care for them. We service over 80 high schools, and even though there are 6 or 7 other competent associations, we are the exclusive supplier of umpires for high school baseball here. Approximately 75 to 80% of my games are played under Fed rules, and I work a ton of games. Let's look at it the other way around. Kids grow up, from Cap League on up, playing some form of OBR baseball. Then, after 7 or 8 years of, what I term, "real baseball", they suddenly have to learn a totally different set of rules and regulations. Safety? They made it this far in one piece. What, they got to high school, and all of a sudden forgot how to play ball safely? When Marcus Giles played Pony League, he did a Pete Rose take-out of the catcher. I mean he flew horizontal like Superman into this kid and knocked him into next week. He dislodged the ball, and was safe. I called him safe, then said, "Marcus, you're done, you know you can't do that." This game was played with OBR, with a slide or avoid Fed style rule. The only difference was that he was safe and gone, instead of out and gone, as he would have been under Fedlandia. While some Fed rules make it a bit safer for little Johnny to play baseball, many rules are just weird. For instance, the balk rule. Kill the ball on a balk. What genius thought of this? Balk...crack...HR...not. Again, not baseball. The pitcher can go to his mouth on the rubber, but must wipe his hocker off on his uniform, or it's a balk. See where I'm going? I guess I'm just a traditionalist. The term "real baseball" is used by umpires or coaches as an ice breaker in pre-game conferences, and usually gets a laugh. "Coach, are we using high school rules today?", "No, Blue, we're playing real baseball." See? It's just an expression. When we sit around at our meetings discussing another rule change to the Fed, we grumble and gripe, and voice our displeasure with the sadists that come up with some of this stuff. __________________________________________________ _________ Now then, this thread started by asking when all the rule errors in the OBR would get fixed, so everybody would be on the same page, without having to take out a loan for all the manuals needed to interpret the rules. Ozzy answered my question, that it is MLB's resistence to change that is the culprit. Then I said that the rule book had not changed much over the years. But then I did some research and discovered many changes to the rules. Then I did a thing about the strike zone rule change of 1996. The only reason I knew this is because my "old faithful" rule book was a 1996 model. You know, that favorite rule book, with all the yellow highlights, and notes crammed in every margin. So, no, I don't have all of the rules memorized by number. I am not an OOO umpire. In fact, I usually let everyone else argue the rule first, then I speak up and give the correct answer. Or the wrong answer. But you know that. 
__________________
Matthew 15:14, 1 Corinthians 1:23-25 |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 10:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmmm,
Steve:
I have posted this about a million times: Fed makes rules for four reasons: 1) Player safety -- While the players might have made it through other leagues while learning the game FED recognizes two important factors: a) High school aged player run from 14 to 19 years old and there is a serious difference in the size of players in any one FED game and b) all FED plyers have parents which in turn have lawyers. 2) Player participation -- FED wants the "high school sports expereince" to be all it can be for as many children as possible. Additonal ways for players to enter, leave and reenter open more opportunity for all types of players. 3) Game Speed-up rules -- Now I don't know one umpire that is against shorter games. There is an issue that in some pocket areas of the United States 7 inning high school games take over 3 hours to play -- ON A REGULAR BASIS. 4) Weakest Link Umpire Rules -- Sorry but not all umpires have the same capabilities and conditioning. FED has attempted to make rules that require less and less judgment and less and less physical activity from umpires. Face it, they have no idea if Smitty will be able to cover a triple from "A" because of physical limitations. Now Steve, you seem to put a lot of importance in your local association. You name drop continually of players that enventually become MLB guys. I doubt seriously if San Diego is that much better than many of the areas where noted posters on this site work. "If" names of players are so important to you, every time I write F3 (insert Jon Olrude or Greg Brock), every time I say F4 (insert Harold Reynolds), every time I say F2 (insert Tom Lapkin), every time I saw F6 (insert Kevin Stocker), every time I saw F5 (insert John Elway) . . . I think you get my drift. You mentioned once that you had worked over 40 players that went on the MLB baseball . . . well I worked over 60 does that mean Portland and Seattle are better than your area . . . nope, it just means I am older. WCB says he wants to call rules that he "sees in print" . . . he will not accept that the Interpretation Newsletter is official and that's fine . . . like the rules or not I will call FED games as they have asked them to be called. Tee |
|
Fri Nov 18, 2005, 10:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"You are being asked about the call by one of the most successful (but doggone really nice) coaches in the area. He isn't really mad but concerned that you are misapplying a rule. The coach wants to know where the rule is so he can look it up."
I have news - the coach IS testing you. Don't fall for it.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
