The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Strikeout not credited? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/23250-strikeout-not-credited.html)

greymule Sat Nov 19, 2005 02:11pm

<b>1926 Pitchers are not credited with a strikeout if a batter reaches first base because of a wild pitch on the third strike</b>

This rule change is listed on the Cosmic Baseball website (thanks, BigUmp56, for supplying the link). Many scoring changes are later rescinded, but apparently not this one.

So in MLB today, is a strikeout <i>not</i> credited on a wild pitch that allows the BR to reach 1B?


SanDiegoSteve Sat Nov 19, 2005 02:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
<b>1926 Pitchers are not credited with a strikeout if a batter reaches first base because of a wild pitch on the third strike</b>

This rule change is listed on the Cosmic Baseball website (thanks, BigUmp56, for supplying the link). Many scoring changes are later rescinded, but apparently not this one.

So in MLB today, is a strikeout <i>not</i> credited on a wild pitch that allows the BR to reach 1B?


I saw that too, and was wondering the same thing. I think that somewhere along the line, the rule was changed back to crediting the strikeout. Check out Rule 10.17(a)(3).

DG Sat Nov 19, 2005 02:40pm

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
<b>1926 Pitchers are not credited with a strikeout if a batter reaches first base because of a wild pitch on the third strike</b>

This rule change is listed on the Cosmic Baseball website (thanks, BigUmp56, for supplying the link). Many scoring changes are later rescinded, but apparently not this one.

So in MLB today, is a strikeout <i>not</i> credited on a wild pitch that allows the BR to reach 1B?


Item 433 in the BRD indicates that FED, NCAA, and OBR are now in agreement, so text deleted in 2000. 10.14(f)(1)(i) is is referenced for OBR scoring rule which says "when the third strike is a wild pitch, permitting the batter to reach first base, score a strikeouit and a wild pitch."

DG Sat Nov 19, 2005 04:13pm

Re: Give me a break,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
My question would be, "Why would any umpire even read Rule 10?"

It is not an umpire rule.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Nov 19th, 2005 at 04:08 PM]

I don't, unless asked a question comes up that that requires reading section 10. These questions generally come up on this forum only. If they come up on the field I generally say that I don't read section 10.

Rich Ives Sat Nov 19, 2005 04:32pm

Re: Give me a break,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
My question would be, "Why would any umpire even read Rule 10?"

It is not an umpire rule.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Nov 19th, 2005 at 04:08 PM]

Well, for one thing, a lot of playing rules are linked to when a runner is trying to steal and the only place that comes close to being defined is in rule 10.

For another, if you want to tell an official scorer he cannot divulge a BOOT, that's only in rule 10.

briancurtin Sat Nov 19, 2005 04:49pm

Re: Give me a break,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
My question would be, "Why would any umpire even read Rule 10?"

It is not an umpire rule.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Nov 19th, 2005 at 04:08 PM]

i could have sworn i posted in this thread already, but i guess it either did not work or i didnt do it, but this was my immediate thought.

Rich Ives Sat Nov 19, 2005 05:19pm

Tee

The ONLY place in OBR that it says an official scorer cannot notify a team of a BOOT is in rule 10. If you heard it at umpire school they were using 10.01 as the basis.

6.07 says: <i>"The umpire shall not direct the attention of any person to the presence in the batter's box of an improper batter. This rule is designed to require constant vigilance by the players and managers of both teams"</i>

Note the absence of an admonition to the official scorer.

The admonition to the official scorer is in 10.01(b)(5)
<i>"The scorer shall not call the attention of the umpire or of any member of either team to the fact that a player is batting out of turn."</i>


There is NO <u>definition</u> of "Steal" or "Stolen Base" anywhere in rules 1-9. The conditions of what constitutes a stolen base are in 10.08.

Being a coach does not mean one is wrong.




umpduck11 Sat Nov 19, 2005 07:32pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Tee









There is NO <u>definition</u> of "Steal" or "Stolen Base" anywhere in rules 1-9. The conditions of what constitutes a stolen base are in 10.08.

Being a coach does not mean one is wrong.




I fail to see where it matters to me whether a base is
stolen or not. Either the runner is safe or out. I don't
want to argue, Rich, but why do I care if a runner is credited with a stolen base? I do not.

JugglingReferee Sat Nov 19, 2005 08:20pm

Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
No, but being a coach means you can add nothing to a discussion, or website, that is for umpires.

T

Are you usually this arrogant?

SanDiegoSteve Sat Nov 19, 2005 09:43pm

Re: Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
No, but being a coach means you can add nothing to a discussion, or website, that is for umpires.

T

Are you usually this arrogant?

Are you new?:D

GarthB Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:38pm

Re: Give me a break,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
My question would be, "Why would any umpire even read Rule 10?"

It is not an umpire rule.

T

[Edited by Tim C on Nov 19th, 2005 at 04:08 PM]

There's a Rule 10? It must be one of those things coaches who think they're umpires read.

Pete in AZ Sun Nov 20, 2005 05:39am

Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
No, but being a coach means you can add nothing to a discussion, or website, that is for umpires.

T


~sigh~

That post sounds awfully condescending and arrogant.

Sometimes it is just too easy.

What was the line? Oh yeah, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This seems like a remarkable turn of events.

greymule Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:11am

I didn't think that questions about scoring or Rule 10 were out of bounds on this forum. A while back somebody asked why umpires indicate "foul" on a foul fly that is caught. It's purely for scoring purposes.



BigUmp56 Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:33am

Pete,

There's a history between Tee and Rich. If you had been here a while, you would know that.

Keep picking nits, and soon you'll develop your own "history!"

Tim.

BTW- I'm still waiting for that little mail icon to appear at the end of your posts.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 20th, 2005 at 01:15 PM]

GarthB Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:07pm

Re: Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Pete in AZ
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
No, but being a coach means you can add nothing to a discussion, or website, that is for umpires.

T


~sigh~

That post sounds awfully condescending and arrogant.

Sometimes it is just too easy.


Arrogant? Sure. Maybe some pomposity added. A little bombastic, maybe. But condescending? No. In what language do you teach pre-law? And, if you get good enough, can you move from pre-law to law or even post-law?

<i>"The most useless thing for an aspriring law student to study is pre-law. One should earn a degree in an actual discipline that will assist him in understanding his world. He will get all the law he needs in law school."

Antonin Scalia</i>




[Edited by GarthB on Nov 20th, 2005 at 12:41 PM]

GarthB Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:47pm

Re: Dear Pete,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C


(Note: Pete remember I "welcomed" you to joining the pompous club that included "yrs trly").

Thanks for playing,

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Nov 20th, 2005 at 11:26 AM]

Tee:

Careful. You may have inadvertantly misinterpreted denseness for pompousness. At times they can appear quite similar but upon closer inspection one usually includes the positive element of correctness while the other, cluelessness.

WhatWuzThatBlue Sun Nov 20, 2005 08:04pm

Is "careful" a sentence in any language?

I felt you would appreciate the fact that you made a grammatical blunder, after all you have embraced the need to point out others' foibles. TAC did the same, those are charming character flaws. Pete's attempt to make you think twice was better served by the adage about glass houses.

As far as the topic is concerned, I've rarely concerned myself with scorekeeping rules. I understand Rich's point and TAC's counter, but see no reason to worry about stats. If a coach asks me if the ball is a hit or error, I politely tell him that if the kid is one hit away from his performance bonus, give him the hit.

Jurassic Referee Sun Nov 20, 2005 08:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB
[/B]
<i>"The most useless thing for an aspriring law student to study is pre-law. One should earn a degree in an actual discipline that will assist him in understanding his world. He will get all the law he needs in law school."

Antonin Scalia</i>

[/B][/QUOTE]<i>"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers".</i>

<b>Skakespeare</b>

GarthB Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Is "careful" a sentence in any language?

I felt you would appreciate the fact that you made a grammatical blunder, after all you have embraced the need to point out others' foibles. TAC did the same, those are charming character flaws. Pete's attempt to make you think twice was better served by the adage about glass houses.


Actually, it is a grammatically and literary correct manner in which to write an admonishment. Sometimes it is puncutated with an exclamation point; but the use of a period is also correct. While I do not write flawlessly and do make my share of mistakes, this isn't one of them.

For an answer to your charge of pointing out the errors of others, (I am not in the habit of paying attention to foibles; a slight error on your part) you would need to read my post in the thread in which you accuse of me of that and more.

Good evening. (Not a sentence either, but acceptable.)

briancurtin Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
If a coach asks me if the ball is a hit or error, I politely tell him that if the kid is one hit away from his performance bonus, give him the hit.
id probably politely tell him that i dont give a sh!t whatsoever.

WhatWuzThatBlue Mon Nov 21, 2005 06:50am

Yes, but he'd be smiling while walking away from my comment. He'd scratch his head and think about it while that joke grenade gets ready to detonate. I like to baffle them sometimes. Coaches are easy targets.

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

Coach: Hi, how are you?
Umpire George Carlin: I'm not unwell, thank you.

greymule Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:53am

<i>Careful</i> and <i>good evening</i> are elliptical expressions meaning <i>you be careful</i> and <i>may you have a good evening.</i> Even <i>goodbye,</i> in its full-sentence form, is <i>may God be with ye.</i> But when our elementary school teachers told us to write in complete sentences, they wanted to see all the words on the paper.

Keep in mind that many of the rules we learned in elementary school (don't start a sentence with <i>and</i> or <i>but</i> or <i>because;</i> don't end a clause with a preposition) may have been appropriate for kids, but they don't apply to someone more skilled at writing. I remember the first day of school in 1973, when an eighth-grader of mine wrote about the television program he liked least: "<i>Honeymooners.</i> Same thing every wheek [<i>sic</i>]. Plus it stinks. And he does." That kid needs rules, whether they are fully accurate or not.

Oddly, a few years later a large state university adjudged that kid sufficiently scholastically competent to attend their institution (must have been my good teaching). Then the kid surprised them by turning out to be a terrific defensive tackle and a key to their top-ten ranking.

Today--no, he's not a TV critic--he plays slow pitch softball and blasts the ball over the fence at will.

Now, <i>let he who is without sin cast the first stone,</i> <b>that's</b> bad grammar.

mcrowder Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:54am

This forum has become a waste of time. We get maybe 1 intelligent original post in 10 now, and even those get hijacked into stupidity.

(Note to Rich - I can't remember EVER wondering whether a player had just stolen a base or not. All I care about are - can he advance or not, and is he liable to be put out while doing so, and was he safe or out. Don't care what the team-mom-turned-reluctant-scorekeeper writes down.)

Thanks, rats, for turning us into McGriffs and Eteamz. Go away now.

Bob Lyle Mon Nov 21, 2005 01:07pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder


Thanks, rats, for turning us into McGriffs and Eteamz. Go away now.

Careful! :D Check out McGriff's. Gary is a censor. He's cleaned house. He threw the baby out with the bath water.

briancurtin Mon Nov 21, 2005 01:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
This forum has become a waste of time. We get maybe 1 intelligent original post in 10 now, and even those get hijacked into stupidity.
i definitely agree (note: it is clearly hypocritical for me to talk about a lack of intelligent posts, as my last bunch posts probably could have stayed in my head. ill call those 'exhibit A')

its nothing but bickering back and forth between moe, larry, and curly for the most part, but it rubs off on everyone (look at exhibit A). normally these threads should not be going 9 pages. cut out 7.5 of those pages, any random assortment of them, and its probably a partly decent thread.

mbyron Mon Nov 21, 2005 01:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Lyle

Careful! :D Check out McGriff's. Gary is a censor. He's cleaned house. He threw the baby out with the bath water.

Ah. That explains it. More like rats & a sinking ship, etc.

SanDiegoSteve Mon Nov 21, 2005 02:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by briancurtin


its nothing but bickering back and forth between moe, larry, and curly for the most part, but it rubs off on everyone (look at exhibit A).

Hey Moe, look....noyses!!!WooWooWoo!!

Rich Ives Mon Nov 21, 2005 04:07pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
This forum has become a waste of time. We get maybe 1 intelligent original post in 10 now, and even those get hijacked into stupidity.

(Note to Rich - I can't remember EVER wondering whether a player had just stolen a base or not. All I care about are - can he advance or not, and is he liable to be put out while doing so, and was he safe or out. Don't care what the team-mom-turned-reluctant-scorekeeper writes down.)

Thanks, rats, for turning us into McGriffs and Eteamz. Go away now.


But there a number of rules that have consequences depending on whether or not a runner is attempting to steal.

Rich Ives Mon Nov 21, 2005 06:06pm

With all due respect Tee,


If a scorer improperly notifies a team of a BOOT, how would you address a protest based on that? I realize that the actual play becomes a "cat out of the bag" item but the protest reason is to get the scorer into silent mode. For that you need some reference so you can address the issue with the scorer. For that you need 10.01(b)(5).


How do you administer 7.04(d) without knowing what a steal is? At the levels you work, it's something that everyone knows already and it won't be an issue. Problem is, there are significantly more games played at lower levels where people don't understand, so a definition is needed.

I am well aware of your disdain for the lower levels of the game, but that does not mean that those involved don't need guidance from those that do understand.

Carl Childress Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:56pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Is "careful" a sentence in any language?

I felt you would appreciate the fact that you made a grammatical blunder, after all you have embraced the need to point out others' foibles.

Talk about ignorance. (Now <i>that's</i> a fragment.)

But "Careful" is an excellent imperative sentence. In such locutions, the subject is understood to be the person addressed:

"Careful!
"Watch out!"
"Sing!"
"Talk!"

There are other, one-word sentences that have an implied subject <i>and</i> verb:

"No!"
"Yes!"
"Maybe!"

Garth is not a friend of mine, as everyone knows. And he makes a few mistakes in his posts because of his eagerness and passion. But "Careful" is no mistake.

He's also teaching an honors Humanities class. Yesterday, they began work on 15th-century Italian art, architecture, music, painting, and sculpture.

What did you do yesterday?

Carl Childress Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:23am

Re: Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Pete in AZ
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
No, but being a coach means you can add nothing to a discussion, or website, that is for umpires.

T


~sigh~

That post sounds awfully condescending and arrogant.

Sometimes it is just too easy.

What was the line? Oh yeah, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This seems like a remarkable turn of events.

Someone pointed out this is bad grammar. It is, but at first glance it seems correct.

The subject of the verb "cast" is the nominative pronoun "he."

But on closer review:

"Cast" is not the verb in this sentence. It's an infinitive, with the sign of the infinitive ("to") understood.

Since the subject of an infinitive is in the objective case (strange but true), the correct pronoun is "him."

Let (Allow) him who is without sin (to) cast the first stone.

And, you gotta admit, "let him" sounds better than "let he."

A sentence without an adjective clause (who is without sin) makes the point clearer:

Let her make the money.
Let them run the company.
Let him cast the first stone.

Finally, here's a sentence that shows how the subject of an infinitive, even <i>with</i> the sign, must be in the objective case:

<blockquote>I wanted her to go. (Naturally, we wouldn't say: I wanted she to go.)</blockquote>That sentence, parsed, is: Subject (I) Verb (wanted) Direct Object (her to go).

Ah.... He didn't want "her." He wanted "her to go."

Truth to tell, this is more fun than discussing verbal obstruction.

Grammar: Now <i>that's</I> where it's at.

Oh, does that sentence end with a preposition?

Churchill said: "That's something up with which I will not put!"

Dave Reed Tue Nov 22, 2005 03:30am

Re: Re: Re: Hmm,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Truth to tell, this is more fun than discussing verbal obstruction.


Possibly, but I am put in mind of James Thurber's essay entitled "Here lies Miss Groby" in which he commented about his teacher of English composition: "It wasn't what prose said that interested Miss Groby; it was the way prose said it. The shape of a sentence crucified on a blackboard (parsed, she called it) brought a light to her eye."

I enjoyed the grammar lesson, but let's not extend it to diagramming sentences, OK?

[I can't remember if the title of an essay should be underlined or enclosed in quotation marks. But on an Internet site, underlining means something else anyway.]

Dave Reed

SanDiegoSteve Tue Nov 22, 2005 09:58am

Dave, I believe italicized would be appropriate for titles.:D

JJ Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:07am

Quote:


He's also teaching an honors Humanities class. Yesterday, they began work on 15th-century Italian art, architecture, music, painting, and sculpture.

What did you do yesterday? [/B]
I raked my yard with my daughter. In the great scheme of things, I wonder what was more valuable? :)

JJ

mbyron Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:28am

Quote:

Originally posted by JJ
Quote:


He's also teaching an honors Humanities class. Yesterday, they began work on 15th-century Italian art, architecture, music, painting, and sculpture.

What did you do yesterday?
I raked my yard with my daughter. In the great scheme of things, I wonder what was more valuable? :)

JJ [/B]
I don't presume to know the great scheme (or the Great Scheme, if there is one). But I do agree with Keynes, that in the long run we are all dead. Hope that's on-topic.

GarthB Tue Nov 22, 2005 08:55pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mbyron

I don't presume to know the great scheme (or the Great Scheme, if there is one). But I do agree with Keynes, that in the long run we are all dead. Hope that's on-topic. [/B]
"Is my team ploughing,
That I was used to drive
And hear the harness jingle
When I was man alive?"

Ay, the horses trample,
The harness jingles now;
No change though you lie under
The land you used to plough.

"Is football playing
Along the river shore,
With lads to chase the leather,
Now I stand up no more?"

Ay, the ball is flying,
The lads play heart and soul;
The goal stands up, the keeper
Stands up to keep the goal.

"Is my girl happy,
That I thought hard to leave,
And has she tired of weeping
As she lies down at eve?"

Ay, she lies down lightly,
She lies not down to weep,
Your girl is well contented.
Be still, my lad, and sleep.

"Is my friend hearty,
Now I am thin and pine,
And has he found to sleep in
A better bed than mine?"

Yes, lad, I lie easy,
I lie as lads would choose;
I cheer a dead man's sweetheart,
Never ask me whose.

BigUmp56 Tue Nov 22, 2005 09:14pm


Far from the churchyard dig his grave,
On some green mound beside the wave;

To westward, sea and sky alone,
And sunsets. Put a mossy stone,

With mortal name and date, a harp
And bunch of wild flowers, carven sharp;

Then leave it free to winds that blow,
And patient mosses creeping; slow,

And wandering wings, and footsteps rare
Of human creature pausing there.

--William Allingham.
__________________________________________________ ____________
__________________________________________________ ____________

Tim.

SanDiegoSteve Tue Nov 22, 2005 09:18pm

Aw, jeez, now it's gonna be the freakin' poetry thread!!!

Carl Childress Tue Nov 22, 2005 09:54pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB
Quote:

Originally posted by mbyron

I don't presume to know the great scheme (or the Great Scheme, if there is one). But I do agree with Keynes, that in the long run we are all dead. Hope that's on-topic.
"Is my team ploughing,
That I was used to drive
And hear the harness jingle
When I was man alive?"

Ay, the horses trample,
The harness jingles now;
No change though you lie under
The land you used to plough.

"Is football playing
Along the river shore,
With lads to chase the leather,
Now I stand up no more?"

Ay, the ball is flying,
The lads play heart and soul;
The goal stands up, the keeper
Stands up to keep the goal.

"Is my girl happy,
That I thought hard to leave,
And has she tired of weeping
As she lies down at eve?"

Ay, she lies down lightly,
She lies not down to weep,
Your girl is well contented.
Be still, my lad, and sleep.

"Is my friend hearty,
Now I am thin and pine,
And has he found to sleep in
A better bed than mine?"

Yes, lad, I lie easy,
I lie as lads would choose;
I cheer a dead man's sweetheart,
Never ask me whose. [/B]
Housman's poetry is so spare, he's always put me in mind of Emily Dickinson. Let me change from death to a lighter vein:

<blockquote>A narrow Fellow in the Grass
Occasionally rides —
You may have met Him — did you not
His notice sudden is —

The Grass divides as with a Comb —
A spotted shaft is seen —
And then it closes at your feet
And opens further on —

He likes a Boggy Acre
A Floor too cool for Corn —
Yet when a Boy, and Barefoot —
I more than once at Noon

Have passed, I thought, a Whip lash
Unbraiding in the Sun
When stooping to secure it
It wrinkled, and was gone —

Several of Nature's People
I know, and they know me —
I feel for them a transport
Of cordiality —

But never met this Fellow
Attended, or alone
Without a tighter breathing
And Zero at the Bone — </blockquote>It's my favorite short poem by an American author, perhaps because I grew up in the 40s where the "Whip lash" was real. I know first hand about "Zero at the Bone."

GarthB Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:17pm

I love Dickinson. Simple yet elegant...concise but not stingy...a wonderful control of "words".

I remember from the first time I read this how the first line "A narrow Fellow in the Grass" is such a broad tell, but the sibilance in line 4 is the cincher.

WhatWuzThatBlue Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Is "careful" a sentence in any language?

I felt you would appreciate the fact that you made a grammatical blunder, after all you have embraced the need to point out others' foibles.

Talk about ignorance. (Now <i>that's</i> a fragment.)

But "Careful" is an excellent imperative sentence. In such locutions, the subject is understood to be the person addressed:

"Careful!
"Watch out!"
"Sing!"
"Talk!"

There are other, one-word sentences that have an implied subject <i>and</i> verb:

"No!"
"Yes!"
"Maybe!"

Garth is not a friend of mine, as everyone knows. And he makes a few mistakes in his posts because of his eagerness and passion. But "Careful" is no mistake.

He's also teaching an honors Humanities class. Yesterday, they began work on 15th-century Italian art, architecture, music, painting, and sculpture.

What did you do yesterday?

Your examples were exclamations. His use of it was not. Imploring is not proclaiming vehemence, but I know that you knew that. I guess it was just another case of writing one thing but meaning another. Lah me!

GarthB Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Is "careful" a sentence in any language?

I felt you would appreciate the fact that you made a grammatical blunder, after all you have embraced the need to point out others' foibles.

Talk about ignorance. (Now <i>that's</i> a fragment.)

But "Careful" is an excellent imperative sentence. In such locutions, the subject is understood to be the person addressed:

"Careful!
"Watch out!"
"Sing!"
"Talk!"

There are other, one-word sentences that have an implied subject <i>and</i> verb:

"No!"
"Yes!"
"Maybe!"

Garth is not a friend of mine, as everyone knows. And he makes a few mistakes in his posts because of his eagerness and passion. But "Careful" is no mistake.

He's also teaching an honors Humanities class. Yesterday, they began work on 15th-century Italian art, architecture, music, painting, and sculpture.

What did you do yesterday?

Your examples were exclamations. His use of it was not. Imploring is not proclaiming vehemence, but I know that you knew that. I guess it was just another case of writing one thing but meaning another. Lah me!

As I tried to explain before, imperatives need not be punctuated with exclamation points. I find it curious you still want to argue this. From your history, I would have deemed it beneath you.

Carl Childress Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Is "careful" a sentence in any language?

I felt you would appreciate the fact that you made a grammatical blunder, after all you have embraced the need to point out others' foibles.

Talk about ignorance. (Now <i>that's</i> a fragment.)

But "Careful" is an excellent imperative sentence. In such locutions, the subject is understood to be the person addressed:

"Careful!
"Watch out!"
"Sing!"
"Talk!"

There are other, one-word sentences that have an implied subject <i>and</i> verb:

"No!"
"Yes!"
"Maybe!"

Garth is not a friend of mine, as everyone knows. And he makes a few mistakes in his posts because of his eagerness and passion. But "Careful" is no mistake.

He's also teaching an honors Humanities class. Yesterday, they began work on 15th-century Italian art, architecture, music, painting, and sculpture.

What did you do yesterday?

Your examples were exclamations. His use of it was not. Imploring is not proclaiming vehemence, but I know that you knew that. I guess it was just another case of writing one thing but meaning another. Lah me!

Ph.D.: piled higher and deeper.

The last time I looked, a punctuation mark had nothing to do with the parse of a sentence.

<blockquote>The snitch is tied to a chair. Waddles up the fat enforcer. Slowly he leans down, down... close to the unfortunate's ear and softly whispers, the sibilants hissing in the still of the shadowy room: "Sing. Ssssing."</blockquote>Do you suppose the guy in the chair is worrying about his tormentor's grammar?

"Sing." is a complete, imperative sentence, whether shouted or spoken softly. "Careful." belongs in the same category.

I was you, I'd stick to ignoring FED rules. That's something you seem to do well.

Oh, by the way: I've had three emails from readers who would like me to criticize for structure and mechanics one of your longer posts. So far, I have resisted temptation. But I am an inveterate sinner and backslider, so....

WhatWuzThatBlue Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:00pm

Funny, but the King gave only examples that had those pesky puctuation marks.

Carl Childress Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Funny, but the King gave only examples that had those pesky puctuation marks.
It was my error not to include an imperative sentence that was not also emphatic. But that's not the point, which is:

Do you now understand that a complete sentence requires but one word?

Even adjectives and adverbs can be single-word sentences:

"Good."
"Awful."
"Fine."
"Worried."
"Proud."

A sentence is complete when there is a subject and a verb in an independent clause. That subject and verb may be stated ("When you won, how did you feel?" "I felt proud.") or implied ("Proud.").

WhatWuzThatBlue Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:16pm

"I was you, I'd stick to ignoring FED rules. That's something you seem to do well."


Okay, let's say a high school batter hits a fence clearing homerun to tie the game. He crosses, but doesn't actually touch the plate...


Still want to play? Be careful what you wish for, Carl.

Carl Childress Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
"I was you, I'd stick to ignoring FED rules. That's something you seem to do well."


Okay, let's say a high school batter hits a fence clearing homerun to tie the game. He crosses, but doesn't actually touch the plate...


Still want to play? Be careful what you wish for, Carl.

No, you be careful that you don't give the impression you're a politician on the run in Washington.

We both ignore FED rules. True. But...

The rules you ignore have the potential of giving one team an advantage not intended by the rules.

The rules I ignore are those where the miscreant gained no advantage.

Your watchword is: I don't like that rule.
My watchword is: No harm, no foul.

In the great scheme of things (grin), which is the better philosophy?

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 01:30am

"No, you be careful that you don't give the impression you're a politician on the run in Washington.

We both ignore FED rules. True. But...

The rules you ignore have the potential of giving one team an advantage not intended by the rules.

The rules I ignore are those where the miscreant gained no advantage.

Your watchword is: I don't like that rule.
My watchword is: No harm, no foul.

In the great scheme of things (grin), which is the better philosophy?"
Papa C Editor-in-Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rules you ignore allow a run to score that shouldn't. How is that less of an impact than not enforcing a rule that is not in the Fed Case or Rule Books? In the grand(better word choice - grin) scheme of things, your ignorance of printed book rules is clearly the poorer choice. As I've said, if the VO rule was important it would be clarified in places other than decade old newsletter that only a few hagards possess.

Secondly, the expected call is "no harm, no foul" to you. I think that most of us would agree that the team you screwed thinks otherwise. You also suggested that if the ball beats the runner by five steps but the runner makes a terrific slide, avoiding a high and lazy tag, you'll call him out because it is expected. That is classic ego at play and horribly tragic. Your vanity prevents the proper call from being made. God forbid you should have to explain your call to a coach! "Not me, I'm the great and powerful Carl Childress, I make the expected call because appearance is better than accuracy." How difficult is it to say, "Coach, the ball did get there early, but tell your fielder to tag the runner so I can call him out."? What section of the umpire manual contains the "expected call" philosophy? I didn't hear Davis professing that view last year. In fact, he said they were being scrutininzed more intensely and told to get the call right.

Are you also one of those umpires that won't call a strike if the catcher doesn't catch it with his webbing up? You probably don't like to call the non-swinging strike when the catcher can't hold the pitch. I've seen these umpires before and they love to tell catchers to grab it clean and they can sell it. B.S.! (Correctly used emphatic element.)
Call the damn pitch and leave your ego at the gate.

Prescience is a gift wasted on umpires. Most of us wait to see what really happened before making the call. We don't assume or let coaches/assignors/evaluators dictate our judgement. We should do the best job we can because the next generation of umpires may be playing or watching.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 04:02 AM]

Carl Childress Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:21am

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
[B]You also suggested that if the ball beats the runner by five steps but the runner makes a terrific slide, avoiding a high and lazy tag, you'll call him out because it is expected. That is classic ego at play and horribly tragic. Your vanity prevents the proper call from being made. God forbid you should have to explain your call to a coach! "Not me, I'm the great and powerful Carl Childress, I make the expected call because appearance is better than accuracy." How difficult is it to say, "Coach, the ball did get there early, but tell your fielder to tag the runner so I can call him out."?
</b>Your ignorance of my published work is almost beyond belief. Let's take a look at an excerpt from my book, <i> 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game</i>, RightSports, 2002. (Actually, if I didn't know better, I might think you were giving me a chance to publicize the book. It's available at http://shop.officiating.com/ for $11.95 plus shipping.)<blockquote>On the other hand, there are moments in your career when you hear that irresistible command: “Carpe diem!” Seize the day.

My students used to say: “Go for it!” Destiny calls. Fame awaits.

Play: R1 goes to third on a single to right. You’re the UIC and you hustle down to third because you see the ball is also headed for that base. The ball beats the runner by quite a long way, but the throw pulls the third baseman to the outfield side of the bag. Still, he has plenty of time to pivot back and get the glove onto the ground in front of the bag. Flustered, he goes for the runner instead of the dirt. R1 fakes left then slithers right and slides around the glove. By the time it touches his chest, he has his hand on the bag.

The ball was there in plenty of time. The fielder did not juggle it. He did tag the runner. But it was not a routine slide.

You may be the only person in the park who knows that the runner’s hand was on the base well before the “high” tag. That is the situation that tests your “judgment,” not your call of “safe” or “out,” but your decision of how you will handle the call. Should you pronounce what everyone saw? Or should you deviate from the norm? If you make the routine call, practically nobody will know the difference, not even the third-base coach.

But an unusual play deserves an unusual call. The baserunner executed above and beyond the demands of duty. He deserves a medal. “Safe!” you yell, signaling vigorously and then patting your chest to show where the tag landed. You might even get away with that: “Grace, the Blue seemed really sure of himself, didn’t he? I wonder what happened. He looked out.”

The defensive coach may hop out to question your eyesight, your honesty, or even your lineage. You can take all that, secure in the knowledge that you called exactly what happened.

Some amateur umpires always take umbrage at such advice. “You’re cheating!” they say. “Who are you to take that upon yourself? You must always call exactly what happened.” Then, they do that, and they wonder why they never advance.</blockquote>
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
What section of the umpire manual contains the "expected call" philosophy? I didn't hear Davis professing that view last year. In fact, he said they were being scrutininzed more intensely and told to get the call right.

I presume Davis is Gerry Davis. Here's another excerpt from <i>51 Ways....</i><blockquote>...[W]e don't see the phantom double play very often in the big leagues anymore. Every game is televised. No umpire wants to see ten replays showing him calling an out when F4 wasn't within a foot of the bag. But they don't have ten TV cameras bearing down on your every move at your local park.</blockquote>
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Are you also one of those umpires that won't call a strike if the catcher doesn't catch it with his webbing up? You probably don't like to call the non-swinging strike when the catcher can't hold the pitch. I've seen these umpires before and they love to tell catchers to grab it clean and they can sell it. B.S.! (Correctly used emphatic element.)
Call the damn pitch and leave your ego at the gate.

Here's a passage from <i>Behind the Mask</i>, published by Referee Enterprises. It was in its fifth edition in 1991, and I was told it was the best-selling book in the history of <i>Referee</i>. Sadly, it's no longer in print. But <i>Working the Plate</I>, published by Gerry Davis, is - and you can get it at the same site as <I>51 Ways....</i><blockquote>Should a catcher “frame” a pitch?

Never. That unqualified “No” needs some qualification. When a professional catcher “frames” a pitch, he presents it to the umpire. On the corner the glove fingers are vertical, not horizontal. A low pitch is framed the same way. In the big time, catchers who don’t properly present the pitch lose strikes.

But amateur catchers think framing the pitch is taking a pitch that is a little outside your zone and pulling it back across the plate as they grab it. They may call that framing the pitch; I call it framing the umpire. When F2 does that to me, I usually call “Ball.” I really don’t care where that picth was since everybody saw him pull it. If I should blunder and call that a pitch a strike, even when it was, the coach on offense will use my guts for garters.

But don’t overdo that insistence on well-framed pitches. We cannot expect amateur catchers, even those who play for top-rated college teams, to properly present every pitch. <i>Behind the Mask</i></blockquote><blockquote>Don’t insist on miracles, though. You can’t expect your catcher to look like Benito Santiago. If you must teach your catcher one skill, settle for getting him not to jerk the pitch onto the plate. The next guy who calls that team may send you roses. <i>Working the Plate</i></blockquote>If you want to discuss "missing the plate," I have an excerpt from <i>51 Ways....</i> that makes my point crystal.

But for now...

Everyone on The Forum knows your problem: You've painted yourself into a corner, and there's no way out. To mix my metaphors, you've tied yourself onto a sinking ship called "consistency." Your clamor for "getting the call right" ignores a hundred and fifty years of baseball tradition and practice. And the farther the amateur umpire goes down the food chain, the more he needs those historical guidelines.

Here's a quote from a man slightly more famous than either of us: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson, <i>Self-Reliance</i>, 1841.)

BigUmp56 Wed Nov 23, 2005 08:20am

I liked the poetry much better than this.
http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Tim.

__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________

Why should I join with those in Play,
In whom I've no delight,
Who curse and swear, but never pray,
Who call ill Names, and fight.

I hate to hear a wanton Song,
Their Words offend my Ears:
I should not dare defile my Tongue
With Language such as theirs.

Away from Fools I'll turn my Eyes,
Nor with the Scoffers go;
I would be walking with the Wise,
That wiser I may grow.

From one rude Boy that's us'd to mock
Ten learn the wicked Jest;
One sickly Sheep infects the Flock,
And poisons all the rest.

-- Isaac Watts

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 05:38pm

I am truly dumbfounded by Carl's response. You actually took the time to justify your opinion with excerpts from a TOME AUTHORED BY YOU!

I think we can end all of this now, I will support all of my rulings with the manual I distribute at any of my umpire clinics. That makes as much sense.

You give an example of the phantom tag at second base as being unacceptable. But you also insist that a missed base by a runner who hits a fence clearing HR is an expected call. The best umpires are consistent; well, they are consistently accurate. Sometimes you make this too easy.

Recognizing that things are bigger in Texas, your ego must be truly larger than your brain. I can't believe you thought that I should be familiar with all of your publishings or would care. How's that manifesto coming?

To borrow a bit from TAC, ~ sigh ~.

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 05:51pm

"Everyone on The Forum knows your problem: You've painted yourself into a corner, and there's no way out. To mix my metaphors, you've tied yourself onto a sinking ship called "consistency." Your clamor for "getting the call right" ignores a hundred and fifty years of baseball tradition and practice. And the farther the amateur umpire goes down the food chain, the more he needs those historical guidelines.

Here's a quote from a man slightly more famous than either of us: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson, Self-Reliance, 1841.)"

From Papa C.

So, you now speak for everyone...that's very humble. I believe that I showed that the consistency issue is a problem in Houston, not Chicago. I have always said that we should work to improve our angles, hustle and respect the game enough to get the call right. You ignore multiple rules for tradition and appearance sake, while I rely on the printed word in the Rule Book to guide my decisions. The RWE quote should be beneath your mirror at home. Better yet, place it above your monitor.

At least you've abandoned grammar patrol duties. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.

BigUmp56 Wed Nov 23, 2005 05:56pm

Who knows, Mr. Windy, maybe when you stop being such a detriment to the internet umpiring forums, you can take the time to write a few of your own books on umpiring.

Then, maybe people will take you seriously.http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


Tim.
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________
Arrogance and Ignorance



This story paints a picture of a boy you may have known,
Whose arrogance was so intense he went off on his own.
He left his home, he left his friends, he left humanity,
He really could not tolerate their ignorance you see.

So often was he bothered by the little things in life,
And family and friends would only give him grief and strife.
" They're not so smart," said he aloud with remarkable distaste
" Their skin's too thin for them to win my favor and my grace."

In his own mind he's very kind and helpful as can be
He simply tries to tell these folks "You must be more like me..."

[The cobbler doesn't make boots right, he doesn't make them strong.
The seamstress seldom sews clothes right, she seems to sew them wrong.
The dancer's feet are made of lead, or so we're led to think.
The singer never hits her notes, Not G, nor F, nor C.]

And if they all march to the beat of a slightly different drum,
There is a problem, so you see, to him they're all so dumb.

--Quinn McAuley




[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 06:03 PM]

Carl Childress Wed Nov 23, 2005 06:19pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I am truly dumbfounded by Carl's response. You actually took the time to justify your opinion with excerpts from a TOME AUTHORED BY YOU!

I think we can end all of this now, I will support all of my rulings with the manual I distribute at any of my umpire clinics. That makes as much sense.

You give an example of the phantom tag at second base as being unacceptable. But you also insist that a missed base by a runner who hits a fence clearing HR is an expected call. The best umpires are consistent; well, they are consistently accurate. Sometimes you make this too easy.

Recognizing that things are bigger in Texas, your ego must be truly larger than your brain. I can't believe you thought that I should be familiar with all of your publishings or would care. How's that manifesto coming?

To borrow a bit from TAC, ~ sigh ~.

You attributed three opinions to me. Carl: (1) doesn't give credit for a great slide that avoids an out; (2) doesn't understand that some umpires cannot call the phantom double play at second; and (3) forces catchers to demonstrate prowess before calling close pitches strikes.

Lurkers or passers-by might believe your unrebutted claims of my positions. That would be bad for my business. So, quoting from my <i>published</i> opinions, I proved you were misrepresenting what I urged umpires to do. Furthermore, you have advocated all three positions I "took time to justify"! On those three issues, <b>we are in agreement</b>, but your antipathy to me blinded you.

More dangerously:

You are perfectly willing to attribute to your opponent any position you need that advances your cause. That is unconscionable.

As for my "manifesto," I suppose you are talking about the Texas State Baseball Curriculum. Thanks for asking. It's at the printer.

Carl Childress Wed Nov 23, 2005 06:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I believe that I showed that the consistency issue is a problem in Houston, not Chicago.
You haven't shared with us the evidence of how you know there is a "consistency issue" in Houston.

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:06pm

Actually, I just did...thanks for making it look easy.

Carl Childress Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I believe that I showed that the consistency issue is a problem in Houston, not Chicago.
You haven't shared with us the evidence of how you know there is a "consistency issue" in Houston.

It's 340 miles from my house to Houston. Why not ask Corky Carter about consistency in his hometown.

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:29pm

I don't live in Chicago either, but you felt comfortbale lumping me into that group before. More Kryptonite, Carl?

I (TAC told me that speaking for others was improper) know that when we actually discuss baseball, you have admitted that my consistency is akin to a one note band. My stripes don't change and that has brought me wrath and accolades. Neither makes me change what I've long written. The funny thing is that you've published one thing and then write another here. Do you really believe that ignoring that missed plate is any different then the phantom tag at second? It is obvious that your NCAA days are behind you or you wouldn't be spouting all of this gibberish about expected calls and "51 ways".

You can huff and puff but my house is pretty sturdy.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 07:38 PM]

GarthB Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:33pm

Uh.....the game has been over for a long time. Everybody left early when the score got so onesided. The lights are about to go out. Go home.

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:38pm

Does the other team know they lost?

GarthB Wed Nov 23, 2005 07:55pm

~sigh~ The losing team doesn't seem to have a clue.

Bob Lyle Wed Nov 23, 2005 08:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I am truly dumbfounded by Carl's response. You actually took the time to justify your opinion with excerpts from a TOME AUTHORED BY YOU!

I think we can end all of this now, I will support all of my rulings with the manual I distribute at any of my umpire clinics. That makes as much sense.


Windbag,

Reasonable people can disagree with Carl's opinions. I'll be the first to say that I'd call the runner out for missing home plate. But who am I?

The fact remains however, that several publishers have risked their money to take Carl's works and put them into print, in either book or magazine form. Like it or not, Carl has built up a reputation over the years as someone who knows something about baseball and those opinions have been accepted by some subset of the baseball community.

What books or magazine articles have been published by the Windbag? What verifiable credentials does the Windbag have? Other than as an outstanding troll on an internet board, the answer is ZILCH. You're such a coward that you cannot even identify yourself. Carl has verifiable credentials. That's why Carl has earned the right to quote his works when buttressing his position and you've earned nothing but the scorn of your readers. For all we know, you're nothing but a Little League umpire with good writing skills.

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 09:41pm

Garth, that is no way to speak about Carl. He is not clueless, just misguided. I am sure he was a terrific umpire at one time.

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

I can't believe that I am doing this, but I must address you, Mr. Lyle. Please take note of my screen name. You make some valid points and have written them here before.

1) Carl is a published author.
2) Carl has placed his reputation and credibility on the line.
3) You don't know who I really am, but it disturbs you that I may actually be who I say I am.


I don't believe that Carl's works are incorrect or ill intended. I have read an old BRD and found that it has a purpose. Do not confuse being published with being accepted universally. I recall the Unibomber was published and a once respected authority in his field. Now, I'm not saying that Carl is an anti-establishment hermit, but I don't pretend his halo isn't tarnished either.

I have nothing to gain by remaining anonymous. Read that again, I am not trying to become famous or improve my standing within my umpire circles by using a pseudonym. I have never admitted my identity because it is not important to the conversation. I don't need to know the cook to appreciate the meal.

There is no conspiracy and I have never said that I have a personal agenda against Carl. There are others who have stronger feelings and they let them show every once in a while. I take umbrage at the fact that he places himself on the mount and belittles those that don't pay homage. I have found inaccuracies in his statements and inconsistencies in his writings. I have answered every one of his direct questions because my credibility is not at stake. He has shied from mine because his is.

I am disappointed that a couple of you have agreed with my 'get the call right' mentality but disappeared when I challenged Carl's 'expected call' philosophy. You state that you agree now. When the man was implying that the entire board recognized that I must be a fool for disagreeing with tradition, where were you? Are the big dogs afraid of telling Carl he is wrong for cheating? That is what he is doing after all.

I have had more than my share of disagreements with you and still don't know why I am responding to you. My obstinance is often construed as arrogance. I pride myself on trying to better the next generation of umpires. I respect the game and know that I have never worked a perfect contest. Tolerating anything less than what I demand from myself is not acceptable. It serves no positive interest to tell others that cheating is permited by umpires. I can't rationalize others not reognizing this.

Carl Childress Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:41pm

You've answered all my direct questions, you say. Let me ask some more.

Let's talk just about FED:

You told me you would "probably" enforce FED 2.22.1a. Would you be "cheating" if you didn't?

Would you force the coach to stand with both feet in the coach's box?

The score is 21 to 0 in the third inning of a game without a mercy rule. Do you widen your strike zone?

The pitcher assumes the set position stance with two inches of his pivot foot outside the end of the rubber. Do you make him put his foot completely inside the pitcher's plate?

Do you require the coach to designate a captain and tell you who he is?

Do you call a balk if the pitcher does not come to a stop with his glove at or below his chin?

The rule requires the pitcher to disengage the rubber by stepping back "at least partially" within the length of the pitcher's plate. Do you check that every time and call a balk is he does not?

In the set position the pitcher must have his pitching hand down at his side or behind his back. If he does not, do you call a balk?

The rule requires the pitcher to take his sign from the catcher. If he takes it from the coach, do you call a balk or illegal pitch?

If a batted ball lodged in a pitcher's glove and he threw the glove/ball combination to first in advance of the runner, would you award the runner second base?

Or:

The first baseman's mitt in FED is 14 inches maximum; in NCAA, 12. Do you measure to see if the glove is legal for the level you're working?

The baseball in an NCAA game may be one-quarter inch larger than the ball in a FED game. (I'll bet you didn't know that.) Do you insist on checking the size of the balls?

I don't need to go on, do I?

I have given clinics in Halifax, Nova Scotia; Piedras Negras, Mexico; California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Wyoming, and more than 30 cities in Texas.

In my experience, umpires <i>always</i> choose which rules they will enforce — and when. Regular questions at clinics are: <blockquote>When do I open it up?
How strict should I be in calling balks?
What should I do if I hear good-natured ribbing from one team to the other?</blockquote>Every rule book has an elastic clause. In FED it's 10-2-3g. Baseball tradition, history, practice: We use those to help us decide what to do when we reach uncharted waters.

Don't accuse me of cheating because the rules you ignore and the rules I ignore are different.

WhatWuzThatBlue Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:36pm

No, Carl, you do not get to ask anything more until you start answering what has been asked of you. Now, what is it going to be? Are you going to keep running or put your credibility to the test?

For the record, I said 'probably' and then explained it in a slightly less than 1,800 word response. Since you believe in the collective 'we', we know that you can read better than that. We've already discussed absolutes and you looked bad. Do you really want to revisit that?

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 11:38 PM]

Carl Childress Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
No, Carl, you do not get to ask anything more until you start answering what has been asked of you. Now, what is it going to be? Are you going to keep running or put your credibility to the test?

For the record, I said 'probably' and then explained it in a slightly less than 1,800 word response. Since you believe in the collective 'we', we know that you can read better than that. We've already discussed absolutes and you looked bad. Do you really want to revisit that?

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 11:38 PM]

Refresh my memory. Ask me any five questions. Try to sell this dodge to anyone except the most gullible.

Don't misunderstand me. You are hoist by your own petar. Or, if you prefer, you may raise the blue peter.

WhatWuzThatBlue Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:12am

Let's start with an easy one and then I'll indulge you.

For many weeks now, your expected call philosophy has not answered this:

The batter hits a fence clearing home run, he misses the plate on this game leading hit. You see it clearly, do you ignore it? (Anticipating the answer:) How much do you allow him to miss it by? What if he missed first base?


Now, I will reciprocate: I don't measure the baseballs or mitts. But I don't measure the bases, plate or distance to the mound either. In the Majors, I believe that the Braves were accused of making the catcher's box too big and they were caught. I don't check the bats for pine tar below the 18" mark either. No rule book or umpire manual suggests that these things should be done prior to a game. However, if a coach questions the legality of a mitt, I will rule on it. This attempt at humbling me was ill advised.

I don't work in many leagues that don't permit mercy rules. But,I don't change my strike zone regardless of the weather, score or discomfort the pitcher is experiencing. I encountered this dicussion last year at the NCAA meeting. If you want to succeed, you call the game the way it should be - first pitch to last. So, I guess it is a matter or priorities. Success that is earned or success that is ill gotten. We have both made our decisions and I can sleep soundly because of mine. Letting the players decide the game is one of the first things taught at most of my clinics.

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive. The ability to travel is not a gift. Instructing in multiple states is to be commended, I just hope you didn't try to explain the expected call mania. I'll have a tougher one for you later, but I can tell that this one will make you review your posts to see that you don't step on anything.

SanDiegoSteve Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:36am

WhatWuzThatBlue,

Even the American Legion, who, after reading their umpire manual, are by far the most anal of all amateur sports organizations, agree that one should widen the strike zone in a game that has gotten lopsided. If a game is 21 to 0, the team with 21 better know to swing the bat when they're up. In blowouts, I've had coaches with the 0 tell me to open it up. They don't want to be there any more than do the fans, players, and umpires.http://media.scout.com/media/image/19/190049.gif

Carl Childress Thu Nov 24, 2005 01:39am

Quote:

Originally posted by PWL
I hate to interrupt this battle of wits, but isn't the captain designee rule new for 2006? I know they can have one at the pre-game meeting. However, it was not required to know who the the team captain was to my knowledge.

I don't think the pitcher is in the set position when he has his hand at his side or behind his back. He is preparing to come set.

As for the other little rules that are out there. I would enforce them if neccesary. If I have a pitcher with his foot 2 inches of the rubber or coming set with their hands too high, I will inform the coach or the pitcher of the violation. This is something you might see very, very seldom. I do this because neither one is aware that this is illegal. This depending on age, competition, and experience level. Coaching box sizes vary. Coaches have alot to keep up with. I think we all cut them some slack on this.

As for the glove and ball issue. I don't think they make first base gloves over 12" long anymore, or balls of a different diameter. If there is a difference in NCAA balls that I've seen or used, I couldn't tell by look or feel.

I believe we're starting to split hairs now.

If you don't know who the captain is, how can you know whether the coach appointed one?

You'd better re-read rule 6. There are two stances: set position and wind-up position. The pitcher has to come to a complete stop in the set position. "Coming to the stop" is <i>NOT</i> preparing to "come set." You make a common mistake, though.

You have good answers on most of the rest. You're making my point, of course. "Splitting hairs" is what Windy is doing. He knows well the difference between making the expected call and cheating. He knows that <i>everybody</i> ignores some rules. When I do it, though, it's a bad thing.

One thing: The mounds must be a lot better in your area than in mine. I can't remember a pitcher adopting the set position down here without some part of his pivot foot outside the end of the pitcher's plate. It has to do with the quality of the mound, I think.

Carl Childress Thu Nov 24, 2005 02:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Let's start with an easy one and then I'll indulge you.

For many weeks now, your expected call philosophy has not answered this:

The batter hits a fence clearing home run, he misses the plate on this game leading hit. You see it clearly, do you ignore it? (Anticipating the answer:) How much do you allow him to miss it by? What if he missed first base?

Pretty simple stuff. The rule for touching bases is to prevent the runner from gaining an advantage. As I've said before, I'm not a stickler for base-touching when the ball is dead because it went out of the park. But I "probably" (grin) would uphold an appeal when the batter-runer missed first. Needing to score to win the game, he likely missed the bag trying to gain an advantage. Somewhere after first, he'd realize the ball had gone over the fence. A famous play (famous because I've covered it in print several times) was: R2, B1 hits a stand-up triple. In the days before FED reinstated appeals, my base umpire killed the ball and called out R2 for missing third. That's pretty weird umpiring, I think.
Quote:

I don't check the bats for pine tar below the 18" mark either. No rule book or umpire manual suggests that these things should be done prior to a game.
I'm taking "these things" to mean illegalities of equipment. Check FED 10-2-3a, NCAA 4-1a, and OBR 3.01a. All books require the umpires to check for that before the game.
Quote:

I'm not sure why you are being so defensive. The ability to travel is not a gift. Instructing in multiple states is to be commended, I just hope you didn't try to explain the expected call mania. I'll have a tougher one for you later, but I can tell that this one will make you review your posts to see that you don't step on anything.
The point of listing the clinic sites was to support the words "my experience," which is not limited to a suburb of Chicago.

Look, we've beaten this poor nag to death.

I say tradition counts for something.
You say "get it right at all costs."

I say we ought to ignore some rules because the offender did not gain an advantage.
You say we should ignore some rules but not the ones that (you say) count.

I say the amateur umpire is generally better off making the call that everybody expects: phantom tag and double play, "if he's gonna be out, he's gonna be out."
You say damn the torpedos, full steam ahead. Runner at third. The pitch hits the outside edge of the plate at the hollow of the knees and breaks down so that the catcher has to lunge to his right to catch the ball and prevent the runner from scoring on the wild pitch. "Strike!" is your call. Everybody knows what I would call.

Everybody also knows where we stand on this issue. You are the romantic; I am the realist.

Just don't tell me that when the score is 20-0, you still make the pitcher bring the ball over the white of the plate if he wants to get a strike.

You know, you wouldn't be in this mess if you were just "consistent" instead of "foolishly" so. You can argue that my general philosophy is wrong without adopting a "winner-take-all" attitude. If you've been honest about <i>your</i> experience (of course, no one can check that), then we know there are times when you, too, bend the rules. If an umpire <i>always</i> calls what happened, he will be in deep caca before long. At least, that's been my experience: Rule book umpires don't get very good games where I've been.

Carl Childress Thu Nov 24, 2005 03:00am

Quote:

Originally posted by PWL
Carl,
I heard having a captain at the home plate meetings was going to be something new in FED this year. I also heard that some of the gloves that were illegal for pitchers in the past were going to be made legal. For example, the brown and black two tone were now going to be okay. However, if they were of a grey or white as in the past they would still be illegal.

The reference I use when the pitcher is on the mound instead of set is "toe the rubber". He can still be in the same position you descibed, only his pivot foot can be behind the rubber. As you well know even if he has his pivot foot on the rubber, he can still turn his shoulders towards first base.

The other term I use is "set stop". As you also know, as the pitcher is coming to his stop, he can also turn his shoulders towards first. When he comes to his stop, he becomes more restricted in his movement. That is why I use these terms.

I understand where you are coming from on the mound issue, too. If someone has dug a grave in front of the rubber, I'm going to give some leeway. I know some schools don't maintain their fields as good as others. Some even have to use a public facility.

You know how four letter words can get you in trouble. BALK is one of those words.

I just like my games to run as smooth and painless as possible.

HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING

We understand what you mean, but that's not what you say. "When the pitcher in in the set position" means he has his pivot foot in front of and within the edges of the pitcher's plate. If his foot is behind the pitcher's plate, he's not a pitcher. When he is in the set position, then, his pitching hand must be behind his back or at his side.

FED 1-1-1 says one player <i>must</i> be designated captain. That's been the rule for 30 years. What's new this year is that the head coach has to be at that pregame meeting.

As for turning his shoulders as he's coming to a stop being legal: The FED interprets that to mean he cannot turn <i>after</i> he brings his hands together, whether he's still moving to the complete stop or has stopped already.

Here's a hint I've found useful: Always describe an event by its rule book name:

It's not "coming set"; it's "coming to a stop."

It's not "dropped third strike"; it's "pitch not caught in flight."

The runner is not out for passing a preceding runner (OBR to the contrary). <i>Who</i> does the passing isn't important. What counts is which runner is in advance on the base path. When it's the trailing runner, he's out, even if the other runner passed him going back to the base.

A ball nicked down at the plate isn't a "foul tip." That critter has to be a caught foul ball that went direct from the bat to the hand or mitt.

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

WhatWuzThatBlue Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:59am

Gentlemen,
I just got back in town from an exhausting stay at some of our in laws. My wife had a death in the family and I just couldn't bring myself to use the laptop or PDA during the visit. Give me a few hours to get some sleep and I will be happy to be Carl's foil. I do have some baseball issues to address.

Pleasant dreams!

WhatWuzThatBlue Mon Nov 28, 2005 01:25am

I see you're up, so I'll give you one to kick around until I am better rested.

1) Umpires are not required to measure the bases or pitching plate, check every bat for pine tar or remove loose gloves from the field. Don't tell me that 10-2-3 says that we should! (Do you measure the pitching circle to be certain that it is legal?) We are merely charged with a cursory inspection of the equipment. McClelland should be concerned to hear that he should have caught the illegal bats used by Messrs. Brett and Sosa during his pregame!!!

I have also worked a few games that saw the catcher leave his mitt on the dish as he left each half. The other team either broke theirs or the regular catcher (and his gear) was unable to find his way to the field.

10-2-3g is a favirite of mine on the Fed field, though. It allows for me to ignore the coach who implores me to call VO for an infielder saying "Back". 'Coach, if you can just show me specifically where it mentions that this is an infraction, I'll be happy to oblige.' (grin, grown and good night!)

WhatWuzThatBlue Mon Nov 28, 2005 07:00am

Good Morning, Ya'll...it's been a rough couple of days, but it's time to get back to
 
from Carl's fingertips to your brain...

An asterisk (*) identifies my responses

"You've answered all my direct questions, you say. Let me ask some more. Let's talk just about FED: You told me you would "probably" enforce FED 2.22.1a. Would you be "cheating" if you didn't?"

* No, as I’ve said, it is not the same play. Please don’t make me question your reading skills. For those just tuning in, I say ‘probably’ on most of my specific play responses. I don’t understand how anyone can provide a definitive answer to any hypothetical play. There are simply too many grey areas and conditions involved in this great game. I provided several to Carl’s initial queries.

"Would you force the coach to stand with both feet in the coach's box?"

* During my pregame, I usually tell them to keep themselves where they are supposed to be, unless they need to talk with me. That goes for the coaching box or dugout. I usually let them meander, especially when they have a chance to interfere with a defensive play. Oh, I make sure they are dressed appropriately too. I’ve kept ‘coaches’ in the dugout who weren’t properly dressed – yes, on a college field, too.

Also, a coach can be in a wheel chair in the box - no feet on the ground at all! I bet you didn't know that.

"The score is 21 to 0 in the third inning of a game without a mercy rule. Do you widen your strike zone?"

* No, I’m kind of religious about not changing my zone when a pitcher has trouble, it’s getting late, it’s cold, my feet hurt, my wife made a great meal, the score is lopsided…

If you cater to an inning, score, pitcher, catcher or coach that is your prerogative. I found that climbing this ladder depends on consistency, not popularity. But let’s give your theory some legs, let’s say that the coaches decide to play some younger athletes. Are you serving them your best by opening your zone? What if that is the only at bat that kid gets all season and you job him with a nose to toes and line to line strike zone? I respect the game too much to play with the outcome. Also, I don't work too many games without some sort of a mercy rule.

"The pitcher assumes the set position stance with two inches of his pivot foot outside the end of the rubber. Do you make him put his foot completely inside the pitcher's plate?"

* I usually don’t look that close at his toes, (especially with a four inch hole in front of the rubber, he's not likely in contact with it either!) but if I did, I would probably tell his catcher to talk to him or I’ll handle it. It looks better when the catcher requests time and provides the message, rather than me strolling out there – I don’t play to the spotlight. You’d also be surprised how many illegal pitching plates are out there. I don’t measure those either, but I thought you appreciate that I’m aware that some schools cut corners in lots of ways.

"Do you require the coach to designate a captain and tell you who he is?"

* Nope, never have and it has never been a problem. In fact, I’m usually tickled pink when a player announces that he is the Captain. I ask him if I should salute and he usually laughs and says that he’s just happy to hand me the line up card. I don’t do a cup check either – I usually just ask if everyone is properly equipped and ready to play. I just didn’t want you asking me if I check for the mandatory cup on the catcher, since it’s in the rules too!

"Do you call a balk if the pitcher does not come to a stop with his glove at or below his chin?"

* Usually, I’ll get a better angle from the inside of the infield, but I’ve called my share of high balks from both positions. Again, I usually let the catcher know if I see it during his warm-ups. This usually prevents it from happening, but I don’t see a whole lot of technical balks on the college fields. Call it once and they figure it out – I’m pretty sure the pitcher from the CSF/ASU game won’t have a problem coming set next year either!

"The rule requires the pitcher to disengage the rubber by stepping back "at least partially" within the length of the pitcher's plate. Do you check that every time and call a balk is he does not?"

* During that millisecond of time, I’m watching many things, but probably not that fraction of an inch. I have balked pitchers for not disengaging the rubber before exhibiting distance and direction.

You seem confounded by minutiae. I said I enforce the rules I see, but you keep trying imply that I’m seeing things and ignoring them. We’ve already covered this and that is your domain.

"In the set position the pitcher must have his pitching hand down at his side or behind his back. If he does not, do you call a balk?"

* Yes, I have called this too many times to remember. It usually only takes one and the game moves along. This is an easy balk and not a difficult concept for pitching coaches to conquer.

"The rule requires the pitcher to take his sign from the catcher. If he takes it from the coach, do you call a balk or illegal pitch?"

* No, we’ve covered this before, as well. If the pitcher is taking his sign from the bench, the stands or Dionne Warwick, as long as he is engaging the rubber and looking at the catcher before he comes set, I have no problem with it. Chances are that the catcher is getting it at the same time as he is. Most of my catchers are smart enough to flash some silly signal toward the pitcher before he begins his windup. I’m not looking between the catcher’s legs, I won’t suggest you are either.

Most of us believe that this rule is to prevent quick pitching to confound a runner or the batter. I like to think that some OOC thinks he can call a better game than a monkey with a pair of dice.

"If a batted ball lodged in a pitcher's glove and he threw the glove/ball combination to first in advance of the runner, would you award the runner second base?"

* I knew this was coming and if you recall our last conversation, I said that I would call what was in the book, but I disagreed with the logic. It would be as painful for me as calling that missed plate for you.

"Or:

The first baseman's mitt in FED is 14 inches maximum; in NCAA, 12. Do you measure to see if the glove is legal for the level you're working?"

* Asked and answered, your honor. I don’t measure any equipment unless a problem is brought to my attention. Despite your assertions, the book does not tell us to measure mitts, bases, balls or uniform patches during the pregame.

"The baseball in an NCAA game may be one-quarter inch larger than the ball in a FED game. (I'll bet you didn't know that.) Do you insist on checking the size of the balls?"

* I was not aware that our balls were different sizes. (grin) I insist on having the correct number of approved baseballs to start the game. However, I have been known to look away when a coach hands me brand new professional baseballs instead of the shiny NFHS ones. I usually ask the other coach if he has a problem with it and most likely hear, ‘As long as there white and round, I don’t care.’

"I don't need to go on, do I?"

* Oh, please…this is such fun. Especially after the last four days I’ve had.

"I have given clinics in Halifax, Nova Scotia; Piedras Negras, Mexico; California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Wyoming, and more than 30 cities in Texas."

* Texas? You sank my battleship! I hope your accountant gets mileage reimbursement for you. I could never hope to have traveled to and taught in so many places. (bigger grin) My training and teaching experience are not relegated to a tiny hamlet in Illinois. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

"In my experience, umpires always choose which rules they will enforce — and when."

* a la verbal obstruction…or just when the ‘expected call’ is desirable?


"Regular questions at clinics are:

When do I open it up?"

* I suggest on the wedding night, but that is rather personal for most of my clinics. Or were you referring to Christmas presents? Because I like the little ones to open one on Christmas Eve; it just makes them all giddy.

"How strict should I be in calling balks?"

* What level do they work and what are their priorities? Does the league demand umpire enforcement of them or do they allow for discretion? If they were working coach pitch or tee ball, I would discourage them from calling balks.

"What should I do if I hear good-natured ribbing from one team to the other?"

* Write them down on the back of your line-up card. They make great off season fodder for umpire chat rooms. I like the one about the school for the blind playing the school for the deaf. As long as I don’t hear the Aristocrats joke one more time…

"Every rule book has an elastic clause. In FED it's 10-2-3g. Baseball tradition, history, practice: We use those to help us decide what to do when we reach uncharted waters."

* So, if it isn’t in the book, we can rule on it according to our best judgment? At last, we can agree on Verbal Obstruction from an infielder on a runner leading off. Thank you, I knew you’d finally see it my way.

Carl Childress Mon Nov 28, 2005 09:55am

Re: Good Morning, Ya'll...it's been a rough couple of days, but it's time to get back to
 
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
from Carl's fingertips to your brain...

[nipped]
Also, a coach can be in a wheel chair in the box - no feet on the ground at all! I bet you didn't know that.

[snipped]

"Do you require the coach to designate a captain and tell you who he is?"

* Nope, never have and it has never been a problem. In fact, I’m usually tickled pink when a player announces that he is the Captain. I ask him if I should salute and he usually laughs and says that he’s just happy to hand me the line up card. I don’t do a cup check either – I usually just ask if everyone is properly equipped and ready to play. I just didn’t want you asking me if I check for the mandatory cup on the catcher, since it’s in the rules too!

The Forum has moved on. Two points: First, wipe out all the earlier "plays." That 2.22.1a is different from the original play in this thread <i>IS NOT RELEVANT</i> to my question.


Second: It's enough to point to only one of your answers (though there are others) to prove that you, too, selectively enforce FED rules.

<blockquote>Each of the two teams consists of at least nine players throughout the game ... one of whom must be designated captain. (FED 1-1-1)</blockquote>There's no wiggle-room here. You say it's not a problem. I agree. I treat it the same way. But I don't go around bragging that I'm a perfect rulebook umpire either. BTW: I check for the cups as the books requires: "Coach, are your players equipped legally?" (I don't ignore that rule.) But there's no such question required for discovering who the captain is. You don't do it; I don't do it. That one rule we both ignore.

We <i>all</i> selectively enforce the rules of the game. Only [fill in the blank] suggest they do otherwise.

Finally, listen carefully: <i>There is nothing about the current rules that I don't know!</i>

As the old saying goes, "No brag. Just fact!"

If you care, you may read my separate post on the event you bet I didn't know.

BigUmp56 Mon Nov 28, 2005 02:20pm



* Asked and answered, your honor. I don’t measure any equipment unless a problem is brought to my attention. Despite your assertions, the book does not tell us to measure mitts, bases, balls or uniform patches during the pregame.


Then what does the book mean when it says, before the start of the game, the umpire in chief shall inspect the equipment of the players?

This would include *all* player equipment. No one does it, but it is certainly in the book/books.

Tim.

SanDiegoSteve Mon Nov 28, 2005 03:01pm

Re: Good Morning, Ya'll...it's been a rough couple of days, but it's time to get back to
 
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

"Would you force the coach to stand with both feet in the coach's box?"

* During my pregame, I usually tell them to keep themselves where they are supposed to be, unless they need to talk with me.

You actually discuss this in your pregame? I hope you word it more diplomatically than that.

Quote:

Also, I don't work too many games without some sort of a mercy rule.
You do know that the Fed did away with the 10-run rule, right? I miss it a lot! I don't think anyone is suggesting "nose to toes" strikezones, but if a batter on the 21 run side is standing there on 3-2 looking for a walk, he's gonna be sitting down on anything close.

Quote:

"How strict should I be in calling balks?"

* What level do they work and what are their priorities? Does the league demand umpire enforcement of them or do they allow for discretion? If they were working coach pitch or tee ball, I would discourage them from calling balks.

You were just joking with this one right? Good one, you got me! Coach pitch or tee ball, hahahahahahaha!!!!!:D

LDUB Mon Nov 28, 2005 04:12pm

Re: Re: Good Morning, Ya'll...it's been a rough couple of days, but it's time to get
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
Quote:

Also, I don't work too many games without some sort of a mercy rule.
You do know that the Fed did away with the 10-run rule, right? I miss it a lot! I don't think anyone is suggesting "nose to toes" strikezones, but if a batter on the 21 run side is standing there on 3-2 looking for a walk, he's gonna be sitting down on anything close.

The mercy rule can be adopted by the state association.

Tim C Mon Nov 28, 2005 04:18pm

Well,
 
The State "can" adopt the rule. But as Portland (OR)has continued to show, "leagues" have the ultimate choice.

The OSAA allows Mercy Rule games . . . none of our largest schools allow it BUT ALL OTHER sized schools have it.

T

Carl Childress Mon Nov 28, 2005 05:07pm

Re: Well,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
The State "can" adopt the rule. But as Portland (OR)has continued to show, "leagues" have the ultimate choice.

The OSAA allows Mercy Rule games . . . none of our largest schools allow it BUT ALL OTHER sized schools have it.

T

Thye mercy rule is required in Texas, even in championship play-offs.

WhatWuzThatBlue Mon Nov 28, 2005 05:34pm

"There's no wiggle-room here. You say it's not a problem. I agree. I treat it the same way. But I don't go around bragging that I'm a perfect rulebook umpire either. BTW: I check for the cups as the books requires: "Coach, are your players equipped legally?" (I don't ignore that rule.) But there's no such question required for discovering who the captain is. You don't do it; I don't do it. That one rule we both ignore."

I have never said I was a perfect rule book umpire, but you love to put words in other's mouths. On the contrary, I've admitted that I've never worked a perfect game and neither have any of my crews. My ego is in check, yours could use some work.

The book says that the coach must designate a captain, where? Also, where does it say that he must divulge that information to me? Remember, you live on the Fed field, but many of us don't.

If you want to worry about the size of the baseball and mitt, I suspect that you have deeper seated issues. Those were your examples, yet when I pointed out that a cup is mandatory equipment and you don't check to see that it is there! If you want to live in the ludicrous world, welcome to cup check time. If you rely on a coach to tell you, then why not rely on a coach to tell you that the mitts, baseballs and bats are regulation too. BTW, I used the "properly equipped" quote first, thanks for ignoring it to make your point. You never cease to amaze. [not a compliment]

Apparently you did not know somethings about Fed ball...Fed rules allow the baseball to vary by as much as a quarter inch. Also, I'm sure you remove any non-leather mitt from play, since that is what is stated. With the proliferation of sythetic mitt materials, you'll be very busy. What'll we do without a 2007 BRD? Maybe BU56 can pen it. [not a compliment to either of you]

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

BigUmp56,
It does not say 'all'! You would make an awful translator.

You are also the only umpire who thinks we should examine the dugout equipment bags to see that they are hanging properly...'nuff said. That is the definition and accompanying photo of an Overly Officious Official! Do you check the size of the commemorative patch, as well?

BigUmp56 Mon Nov 28, 2005 06:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
"



BigUmp56,
It does not say 'all'! You would make an awful translator.

You are also the only umpire who thinks we should examine the dugout equipment bags to see that they are hanging properly...'nuff said. That is the definition and accompanying photo of an Overly Officious Official! Do you check the size of the commemorative patch, as well?

Ok Blowhard, What does it mean then? I already said I don't check equipment. No one does that I've worked with either unless it's a problem that's brought to their attention. If they did, however, they would be within thier rights to do so.

Your the idiot who said there is no rule to support measuring mitts before the game. I pointed out that you were wrong and the rule does provide for an umpire to check before hand, and you change the subject because you simply cannot ever admitt you're wrong.

And it is your job to make sure the field is clear of playing equipment before you put the ball into play. This includes the equipment bag's now doesn't it.

I never said I examine bags. I said they need to be secured away from the playing field. I could care less if they stow their gear in pillow cases. As long as their securely in the dugout, I'm a happy camper.

Tim.

Carl Childress Mon Nov 28, 2005 07:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
"



BigUmp56,
It does not say 'all'! You would make an awful translator.

You are also the only umpire who thinks we should examine the dugout equipment bags to see that they are hanging properly...'nuff said. That is the definition and accompanying photo of an Overly Officious Official! Do you check the size of the commemorative patch, as well?

Ok Blowhard, What does it mean then? I already said I don't check equipment. No one does that I've worked with either unless it's a problem that's brought to their attention. If they did, however, they would be within thier rights to do so.

Your the idiot who said there is no rule to support measuring mitts before the game. I pointed out that you were wrong and the rule does provide for an umpire to check before hand, and you change the subject because you simply cannot ever admitt you're wrong.

And it is your job to make sure the field is clear of playing equipment before you put the ball into play. This includes the equipment bag's now doesn't it.

I never said I examine bags. I said they need to be secured away from the playing field. I could care less if they stow their gear in pillow cases. As long as their securely in the dugout, I'm a happy camper.

Tim.

In Texas the UIL insists that we check bats for -3 and cracks and helmets for NOCSAE seal and cracks. Last year, an umpire failed to do that because he was late. During the game a non-wood bat broke and the barrel end went sailing. Nobody was injured. It's <i>possible</i> an inspection could have detected the bat. I'd say he was lucky, all round.

It's <i>never</i> overly officious to enforce any rule connected with safety. It's simply GFYW.

WhatWuzThatBlue Mon Nov 28, 2005 07:54pm

You do not check all of the equipment and field conditions...period, end of story. If you do, good luck with the spikes, uniform lengths, batters box width, diameter of the on-deck circle, athletic cup use, back stop distance, base dimensions...


Once again, I didn't say not to check the pertinent equipment. When it is mandated, I give a cursory inspection to bats and helmets. Checking equipment bags earned you the mocking of an entire board. Why pursue that ridicule again?

You and Carl are peas in a pod. The bad thing is that one of you has the experience to know better. He just continues to fumble when the facts make him change course. [For the record, I answered all of his questions and am still awaiting a pertinent rebuttal.] The other is like Don Quixote. Look it up, you'll find a striking similarity to the man in the mirror.






--------------------------------------------------------
"Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow." ~ William Pollard

BigUmp56 Mon Nov 28, 2005 09:04pm

Again, Blowhard you need to take some lessons in remedial reading. I never said I check the equipment bags. I said I make sure they are secured off of the playing field. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


More than likely, the only one ridiculing me on the outhouse forum was you using multiple aliases.

It'll be nice to see how you fair over there this coming season now that IP addresses are being added to each post again.

Also, for the record, I was not the one to post that short article on the outhouse forum. It was copied from either my board or eteamz and pasted there.


Isn't it time for you to sell one of your $100,000 properties again and do some jet setting?

Or, maybe it's time to re-write your memoirs and include how Narcissism is ruining your life. Does the pool ever show a ripple now and then?

Give me a break you pretentious jerk!

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 28th, 2005 at 09:11 PM]

SanDiegoSteve Mon Nov 28, 2005 09:26pm

WWTB,

You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.

WhatWuzThatBlue Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:26am

For someone who isn't familiar with the intricacies of McGriffs, you certainly write about them enough.

I have not been on that site in some time. I used the name WindyCityBlue over there and never have a problem stating my opinions. Aliases aren't required for those who can write intelligently. The beat down you took from those others was frighteningly funny though. For what it's worth, GhostSurf beats any IP identifier. So, you'll probably still take a pummeling over there and never know who it was. On this site, we are only too happy to oblige. Did you have a baseball related question?

As for the subject at hand, I was not the one who insists that an umpire is supposed to check ALL player and field equipment - YOU WERE! If you haven't noticed, no one is coming to your aid here. Using words you should be familiar with; you made a mistake - now admit it and get on with your life. Any umpire worth his salt is laughing at how preposterous your statement was. Put in a few more years and then get back to me.

BTW, I don't have any $100,000 properties. The land to build a garage can cost that much around here. I see that real estate escapes your grasp, as well. If you would like to get back to baseball, it'll be easier to explain. I've got to go check the coaches box dimensions again...those damn field supervisors keep making our job so tough!

briancurtin Tue Nov 29, 2005 01:15am

do you guys get paid by the keystoke at work or something?

SanDiegoSteve Tue Nov 29, 2005 01:33am

Re: Re: Well,
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
The State "can" adopt the rule. But as Portland (OR)has continued to show, "leagues" have the ultimate choice.

The OSAA allows Mercy Rule games . . . none of our largest schools allow it BUT ALL OTHER sized schools have it.

T

Thye mercy rule is required in Texas, even in championship play-offs.

I hope enough umpires complained about the lack of a mercy rule in HS games in 2005. Hopefully they will reinstate it in California for 2006. Here, the CIF is a dictatorship, and what goes for one high school, goes for them all.

All the umpires want it, and so do many of the coaches I've talked to. Apparently there were quite a few coaches who cried that they weren't getting enough baseball when games were called early.

All I know is that I had way too many blowouts last year. I had coaches beg me to call the game after 4-1/2 or 5 innings when it was out of hand. I obliged them, as long as it was mutual between the teams.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1