whats the rulebook say

[Bainer]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I don't see interference here. What I see is a carelessly discarded bat and an umpire with a limited understanding of the rules of youth baseball.
Tim.

I'm not sure that there is an umpire out there that would come to this decision on his own.

Alos, umpires, regarless of their understanding of the rules don't have the ability to suspend someone for a tourney.

This situation was either explained to the tournament committee incorrectly or incompletely, or the committee is taking NOTHING for granted and throwing the book at this kid.

Either way, it's out of the umpire's hands- it's no longer about the call.


Bainer.

[SAump]

I'm saying I too should have ejected him after the catcher took the brunt of the first carelessly thrown bat. I am saying the second thrown bat was a close call, but not the gut buster that deserved immediate ejection. I'm saying the crowd knew about the kid and the VET UMP didn't hesitate removing him from the ballgame. It was the EXPECTED CALL.

[Bainer]

EXPECTED CALL is the scariest term I have ever heard in my life.


Bainer.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SAump

I'm saying I too should have ejected him after the catcher took the brunt of the first carelessly thrown bat. I am saying the second thrown bat was a close call, but not the gut buster that deserved immediate ejection. I'm saying the crowd knew about the kid and the VET UMP didn't hesitate removing him from the ballgame. It was the EXPECTED CALL.

And you would have been well within the rules to do so. I take it then that this sitch happened to you when you were a "rookie"?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Bainer

I'm not sure that there is an umpire out there that would come to this decision on his own.

Alos, umpires, regarless of their understanding of the rules don't have the ability to suspend someone for a tourney.

This situation was either explained to the tournament committee incorrectly or incompletely, or the committee is taking NOTHING for granted and throwing the book at this kid.

Either way, it's out of the umpire's hands- it's no longer about the call.


Bainer.

Bainer:

There are certain tournaments that prescribe a mandatory removal for the remainder of the event should an ejection occur. I'm not debating the validity of the ejection. What we've been trying to impart to SA is that the only rules set that allows for an out to be called for a carelessly discarded bat is Dizzy Dean youth baseball.


Tim.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

What we've been trying to impart to SA is that the only rules set that allows for an out to be called for a carelessly discarded bat is Dizzy Dean youth baseball.


Tim.

Lord knows this thread has made me dizzy enough....

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This whole friggin' thread is making me dizzy, Dean.

LMan,

I realize this is a very long thread, but post #86 already contained this humor. You need to get your own material.

[SAump]

You're saying:
"1 - A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not: carelessly throw a BAT."
The penalty is a warning and an ejection.
-------------------
I'm saying you are applying a rule that covers basically everybody on both teams to protect or allow the batter's ACTION to remain "unpunished." What do I mean when I say unpunished? A warning does NOTHING and you agree with the ejection. But you also allow a substitution. So if a coach can replace the batter after a hit with a faster RUNNER, he gains an ADVANTAGE. YOU reward the offense in a situation when the course of a ballgame may be decided. In the final two innings, the batter may never return to the plate. You're a NICE guy.
--------------------
My second point is that if you allow the catcher to receive two crushing blows in one game, he is NOT likely to care whether the batter ever receives proper instruction afterward. You have DONE NOTHING to protect the SAFETY of the individuals INVOLVED in a GAME that should be decided on FAIR PLAY.
--------------------
My third point is that some UMPS are so focused with the RULE SET that it becomes an hindrance to the reality of serious injury taking place on the field. Would you like me to list the changes over the course of the last 5 years that were brought about to INSURE SAFETY. It is the UMPIRE'S obligation to protect the integrity of the game. You, SIR, have failed in this regard and have been called OUT onto the carpet.
--------------------
My final point is I admitted that I would warn and eject and follow the rules up to a certain point. I can not condone serious injury in that analysis when I stated, "had you been more willing to discuss the situation like a REAL man."
Any RAT who approaches dialogue with one objective, whatever is best for his team at that moment in time, is NOT A REAL MAN.
--------------------
Hey SDS and NFump, my favorite thread was locked. It is hard to play the devils advocate in every situation without looking like an ***. But the satisfaction of the political tickling with the BIG DOGS and the unexpected responses is my reward. LOL. I'll keep looking for another opportunity like this.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

LMan,

I realize this is a very long thread, but post #86 already contained this humor. You need to get your own material.

You dont think I could actually stand to read all that, do you?? That it was in "Post #86 (!!!)" is indictment enough!

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SAump

You're saying:
"1 - A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not: carelessly throw a BAT."
The penalty is a warning and an ejection.
-------------------
I'm saying your applying a rule that covers basically everybody on both teams to protect or allow the batter's ACTION to remain "unpunished." What do I mean when I say unpunished? A warning does NOTHING and you agree with the ejection. But you also allow a substitution. So if a coach can replace the batter after a hit with a faster RUNNER, he gains an ADVANTAGE. YOU reward the offense in a situation when the course of a ballgame may be decided. In the final two innings, the batter may never return to the plate. You're a NICE guy.
--------------------
My second point is that if you allow the catcher to receive two crushing blows in one game, he is NOT likely to care whether the batter ever receives proper instruction afterward. You have DONE NOTHING to protect the SAFETY of the individuals INVOLVED in a GAME that should be decided on FAIR PLAY.
--------------------
My third point is that some UMPS are so focused with the RULE SET that it becomes an hindrance to the reality of serious injury taking place on the field. Would you like me to list the changes over the course of the last 5 years that were brought about to INSURE SAFETY. It is the UMPIRE'S obligation to protect the integrity of the game. You, SIR, have failed in this regard and have been called OUT onto the carpet.
--------------------
My final point is I admitted that I would warn and eject and follow the rules up to a certain point. I can not condone serious injury in that analysis when I stated, "had you been more willing to discuss the situation like a REAL man."
Any RAT who approaches dialogue with one objective, whatever is best for his team at that moment in time, is NOT A REAL MAN.
--------------------
Hey SDS and NFump, my favorite thread was locked. It is hard to play the devils advocate in every situation without looking like an ***. But the satisfaction of the politickling and the unexpected responses is my reward. LOL. I'll keep looking for another opportunity like this.

It was never about when to eject, but about the "out" you were trying to get. If it's bad enough, toss the little bugger, no warning (to him anyway).

As for "playing" the devil's advocate, there's a point where it's just to much. But you keep looking for "opportunities" and we'll keep "rewarding" you.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by NFump

It was never about when to eject, but about the "out" you were trying to get. If it's bad enough, toss the little bugger, no warning (to him anyway).

As for "playing" the devil's advocate, there's a point where it's just to much. But you keep looking for "opportunities" and we'll keep "rewarding" you.

I'm well aware of the PACK MENTALITY.

Too bad, you can't focus on the message.

An OUT is sorely needed in this sitch.

[SanDiegoSteve]

SA,

I am still trying to figure out why you insist on creating an artificial out in the original situation. I explained in detail, as did others, that what the batter did by accidently releasing the bat and striking the catcher on a ball hit to the outfield did not constitute interference, and interference would have been necessary in order to call the batter out.

Grasp that, and you will see that no out can be created, as the rules do not allow it in the given situation.

You can certainly make up scenarios in which you can get an out, but the situation we have been discussing ad nauseum is not one of them.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by SAump

An OUT is sorely needed in this sitch.

An out May be needed, but calling one in this situation
is indefensible. There is nothing in the rules to say you can
call the out. I suppose you would use 9:01c, but most
reasonable umpires would not. Of course, most of us don't
make up rules, we use those already in the book.

.

[NFump]

See? You just can't let it go. An out is not needed here. That's my opinion. I got your message in your first post, however, it is apparent the one not getting the message is YOU().

"Of course, most of us don't make up rules, we use those already in the book."

Umpduck's statement sums up what we've been telling you all along. Stop trying to impose your sense of fairplay into the game.