Officials' Quarterly

[my3sons]

Has anyone read the article on pages 4 and 5 about "Making final decisions on points not covered". Have they totally lost their minds? A do over? Is the Fed that hard up for articles that they want us to start considering doing do overs?

[LDUB]

That might be the stupidest article I have ever read (and I have read many of Rollie's).

In case you missed it here is what it says:

Count is 3-2, batter leans into a curve ball. The umpire is unsure if the pitch would have been a strike or ball had it not hit the batter.

What to do when this happens:

Call time, tell batter to say in box.

Gather head coaches and umpires in a big circle.

Say to defensive coach "I can't call him out because the pitch wasn't in the strike zone, but it might have been without his unsportsmanlike act."

Say to offensive coach "I'm gonna let him remain as a batter, but if he ever pulls that stunt again in any game I'm umpiring, I will eject him without any warning.

Say to both coaches "That's my ruling. There's nothing in the book to cover it. So, smile, nod, and go back to your positions and let's play ball.

Return to the plate and signal 3-2, and say "Batter, never bull that stunt again."

*******************

There are other potenital outcomes such as giving the batter first base or ejecting him, but those are shot down as not being as good as the do over. The do over will be the call which is "most easily sold" according to the article. I think we may have found Rollie's long lost twin.

[BigUmp56]

You might as well just eject the defensive manager before the pow-wow and save time. It's an eventuality anyway if you pull this stuff.

What ever happened to ring him up and set him down.



Tim.

[largeone59]

Who would be the author of this article, so we can brand him with the award: "Worst advice ever given in a published article."?

Does official's quarterly proofread this crap?


This play IS directly covered in the rules. Call it a strike. The part where it says "the umpire is unsure whether or not it would have been a strike", the umpire should give the benefit of the doubt to the pitcher and ring 'em up.

[irefky]

AHHHHHHH, ring 'em up, he's out. A do-over! Do-overs will not get you home quicker.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by LDUB
That might be the stupidest article I have ever read (and I have read many of Rollie's).

In case you missed it here is what it says:

Count is 3-2, batter leans into a curve ball. The umpire is unsure if the pitch would have been a strike or ball had it not hit the batter.

What to do when this happens:

Call time, tell batter to say in box.

Gather head coaches and umpires in a big circle.

Say to defensive coach "I can't call him out because the pitch wasn't in the strike zone, but it might have been without his unsportsmanlike act."

Say to offensive coach "I'm gonna let him remain as a batter, but if he ever pulls that stunt again in any game I'm umpiring, I will eject him without any warning.

Say to both coaches "That's my ruling. There's nothing in the book to cover it. So, smile, nod, and go back to your positions and let's play ball.

Return to the plate and signal 3-2, and say "Batter, never bull that stunt again."

*******************

There are other potenital outcomes such as giving the batter first base or ejecting him, but those are shot down as not being as good as the do over. The do over will be the call which is "most easily sold" according to the article. I think we may have found Rollie's long lost twin.

I think the gist of the article is that there are things that could happen that are not covered by the rules. If you read the article there are a number of alternatives that could have been applied.

The author simply gave his opinion on how he would have handled the situation. It is an interesting problem that is not addressed by the rules. A full count bases juiced an obvious ball when it struck the batter who leaned in to the pitch that may or may not have been a strike if it didn't hit the batter. Call it a ball and send the batter to first. Is that fair to the defense? Call it a strike (keep in mind it's an obvious ball) is that fair to the offense? I've got no rule to hang my hat on. Perhaps a "do over" is fair to both teams in this case. As UIC you do have the authority to make this type of ruling. I've called many a batter back after leaning in to a pitch but never on a 3-2 pitch as outlined in the case.

Championship game State Finals bottom of the seventh score tied. The above happens all the "Big Dogs" are in the stands what's your call?

[SanDiegoSteve]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gordon30307

Championship game State Finals bottom of the seventh score tied. The above happens all the "Big Dogs" are in the stands what's your call?

"Dead Ball - Strike 3."---on to the top of the eighth.

Anybody who argues is getting tossed.

The batter intentionally allowed the ball to hit him, and I'm not rewarding his action. He was banking on the pitch being a strike, or he would have simply took the pitch for ball four. So, based on that, I would always call strike in this situation.

One thing I'm not doing is "it over." How retarded.

[mcrowder]

If the pitch was heading for the strikezone (with leeway), this is a deadball strike. If it was not, it is a deadball Ball. Why in the WORLD would anyone want to make this a do-over?

However, those that say this is the worst article every have not read Rollie. In fact, this sounds VERY much like something he would write.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by PWL

I noticed you haved you have used the word retarded in some of your previous posts. Is this something you do on a regular basis when you describe a ruling or play you don't like. I don't care if you have an opinion on the play. However, your choice of words to describe it could be way much better than "retarded".

That just doesn't sound right. I hope you don't use that word out on the ballfield around the coaches and players. I notice at some of my games, there are somtimes a "mentally challenged" or "physically handicapped" student in the dugout helping out with the team. [/B]

I can't remember the last time I agreed with PWL, but I do so now.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by GarthB

I can't remember the last time I agreed with PWL, but I do so now.

[/B]

I apologize. I meant no disrespect to any person with my comment. I am a physically handicapped person myself.

I used the word in a sentence, not directed at anyone. It was used to describe a ridiculous interpretation. Retarded is a word. It doesn't insult anyone unless the word "mentally" is attached to it. There are many forms of retardation in the world, as in "smoking retards growth" for example.

And no, I don't use that word out on a ballfield. I used it on an internet forum, in which it would be considered very mild in comparison to the usual drivel contained herein. I would never use that term in regard to a person in any derogatory way. Saying that something is retarded is an expression. I didn't say that the person was retarded. PWL should worry more about the shenagins he pulls on the field, and quit worrying about what a far superior umpire does.

And I have agreed with PWL on several subjects, but he never acknowleges those instances. He chooses to ignore them, and instead dwell on the negative, as in this case. I made a perfectly good point, yet he chose to point out a word choice. I would say "how lame," but he would probably come back that I was now insulting people who have trouble walking.

Not PC,

Steve

[FVB9]

We had this happen two years ago to end a HS game with two heated cross-town rivals. Bottom 7, two outs, bases jacked and a 2-2 count on the batter. Pitcher threw a letter high curve on the inside part of the plate, and the batter leaned forward and got it with his elbow. Crown goes nuts, R3 comes running home, tied game...Home plate umpire rung his *** up to end the game.

Now he may have caught a lot of crap walking to his car, and I'm sure he did because it's a half mile to your car at that school. But he made the right call, and his stock went up as a result. Was the pitch a strike? Probably not, but it doesn't matter. There's a school of thought that penalizes the player who tries to gain an unfair advantage, especially if he's on offense.

You want the big game? Don't run from the tough call.

By the way...when's the Fed going to adopt the NCAA interp of the hit batter (if the ball is inside the vertical lines of the batter's box, he doesn't have to move)?

[jumpmaster]

Originally posted by PWL

I noticed you haved you have used the word retarded in some of your previous posts. Is this something you do on a regular basis when you describe a ruling or play you don't like. I don't care if you have an opinion on the play. However, your choice of words to describe it could be way much better than "retarded".

That just doesn't sound right. I hope you don't use that word out on the ballfield around the coaches and players. I notice at some of my games, there are somtimes a "mentally challenged" or "physically handicapped" student in the dugout helping out with the team. [/B]

Stop picking boogers.

Steve apologized and clarified his intent. Geezsh. Next we'll have people complaining about the color of the wheels on an indicator.

Get a life. Or better yet - go play with BigDump on his website.

[Tim C]

. . . there are, of course, two situations where umpires are required to do "do overs" but this article takes the cake.

[LMan]

If you can't call the location of a pitch where the batter 'leans' into it, you should not be behind the plate.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LMan
If you can't call the location of a pitch where the batter 'leans' into it, you should not be behind the plate.

Phil said this was a situation not covered by the rules. That's just flat wrong.

The rules are crystal.

Read Alan Roper's explanation tomorrow in Officiating.com.