whats the rulebook say

[RPatrino]

SAUmp,

Please provide me the name of your pharmacist or subscribing physician. I need some of what you are taking!! Where do you come up with some of the stuff you say?

Do you call strikes on batter's if the offensive team is not in the bench area? Any other situations where we can get some easy outs?

Bob P.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

There's also a rule that allows for a batted ball that leaves the playing field in flight over fair territory to be ruled a homerun. Now tell me what either your example or my example has to do with a carelessly thrown bat. Both examples are just as obsolete to the play at hand. You're grasping at straws again. No, I would say you're grasping at thin air.

Tim.

Tim.

What part of carelessly thrown bat do you not understand? The penalty.
YOU quoted rule 3-3 which vaguely applies to everybody on the field.
You'll have difficulty applying a rule that addresses the both coaches, players and attendants from both teams.
Where did you get that 3-3-E scenario? I suggest you find another part of the rule book if you want to address my concerns. Bench and Field Conduct may cover the subsequent action which follows.

I quoted rule 2-21. The penalty for interference is an OUT.
The batter is responsible for his bat making contact with the catcher.
I have no qualms about enforcing a rule that actually addresses the batter's inappropriate actions, such as 7-3 ART 6.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Now that's certainly making things up as you go along.


3.3.1 SITUATION E: After hitting a line drive toward F5, B1 releases the bat, which strikes F2 or the umpire. The act was judged by the umpire to be (a) intentional or (b) unintentional.

Ruling: In (a) and (b), this is a delayed dead-ball situation. In (a), the offender will be ejected from the game. If his fair hit ball is a base hit, he will be replaced with a substitute runner.

In (b), the umpire will warn the coach of that player's team that the next player on that team to violate the rule shall be ejected from the game.



Tim.

Please tell me what part of the above case play don't you understand? You should note that in (a) above the intentional act does not warrant an out call. The batter-runner is ejected and then replaced on the bases.

Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by SAump

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

The ruling you mention applies to any person who carelessly throws the bat back toward his own dugout or who may carelessly throw a bat back towards the opponents dugout. The rule is in place to protect those who are not paying attention from be struck and seriously injured. Read "A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:"
YOU will notice the word batter and runner are missing.

ESE,

Are you saying that batters are not "players" or that runners are not "players?" I believe they are both covered since they qualify as players.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Please tell me what part of the above case play don't you understand?


Tim.

"A Batter shall NOT:
Art. 6 ... If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference WILL be called."

PENALTY: For infraction of Art. 6, the batter is out and runners return. If, in the umpire's judgement, interference prevented a possible double play, two players may be ruled out.

Help yourselves.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

What part of carelessly thrown bat do you not understand? The penalty.
YOU quoted rule 3-3 which vaguely applies to everybody on the field.
You'll have difficulty applying a rule that addresses the both coaches, players and attendants from both teams.
Where did you get that 3-3-E scenario? I suggest you find another part of the rule book if you want to address my concerns. Bench and Field Conduct may cover the subsequent action which follows.

I quoted rule 2-21. The penalty for interference is an OUT.
The batter is responsible for his bat making contact with the catcher.
I have no qualms about enforcing a rule that actually addresses the batter's inappropriate actions, such as 7-3 ART 6.

The play is specifically covered in the casebook. This is a scenario which we have the exact, explicit desire and ruling of FED, and you want to do something completely different.

If you don't feel bound to FED rules and rulings, feel free. The rest of us will call it correctly.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

"A Batter shall NOT:
Art. 6 ... If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference WILL be called."

PENALTY: For infraction of Art. 6, the batter is out and runners return. If, in the umpire's judgement, interfernce prevented a possible double play, two players may be ruled out.

Help yourselves.

The catcher was NOT attempting a play.

Try again.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

The play is specifically covered in the casebook. This is a scenario which we have the exact, explicit desire and ruling of FED, and you want to do something completely different.

If you don't feel bound to FED rules and rulings, feel free. The rest of us will call it correctly.

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

I'm trying to figure out like everybody else just what the FED wants me to do.
7-3-6 + 2-21 doesn't equal 3-3.
I try to call it like I see it.

Don't get mad if you scored a hundred on the test and real life is more complicated.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

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

I'm trying to figure out like everybody else just what the FED wants me to do.
7-3-6 + 2-21 doesn't equal 3-1.
I try to call it like I see it.

Don't get mad if you scored a hundred on the test and real life is more complicted.

I'm not mad. Not much in real life is more complicated than FED, however, in this instance FED was kind enough to give exact directions.

It would be less complicated for you if you didn't continue to make changes to the scenario and try to create rulings. Take a deep breath and accept reality.

[BigUmp56]

I'll leave it at this. If any of you newbies are even remotely confused about this, don't be. It's pretty basic stuff. No matter how many times or how many different rules SA tries to bend to suit his own agenda, he has nothing supported by the rules to make this call. He is leading you to a potential protest should you follow his advice. As officials we are circumscribed by the rules and must remain within those boundries. We cannot make stuff up as we go along. There is a difference between being rules ignorant and being just plain ignorant. If you're not inclined to listen to my advice then listen to Garth B.



Tim.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I'll leave it at this. If any of you newbies are even remotely confused about this, don't be. It's pretty basic stuff. No matter how many times or how many different rules SA tries to bend to suit his own agenda, he has nothing supported by the rules to make this call. He is leading you to a potential protest should you follow his advice. As officials we are circumscribed by the rules and must remain within those boundries. We cannot make stuff up as we go along. There is a difference between being rules ignorant and being just plain ignorant. If you're not inclined to listen to my advice then listen to Garth B.

Tim.

And I'll leave it at this: Two of the classes I teach are comprised completely of freshman. They are fond of questioning the material by either straying from the point being made or attempting to apply the lesson at hand to circumstances governed by another lesson.

In other words, my day job is pretty much like dealing with SA's posts in this thread, so I don't get frustrated or annoyed. I'm used to it. I've found in the classroom that 99% of the time patience and logic will eventually win out over ignorance and defiance. Those rare cases in which it doesn't usually involves "repeat offenders" who demonstrate the same characteristics in other areas of their lives as well.

So much for "no child left behind."

Good night, Tim. My son gets in at the airport at 8:00 tomorrow morning so I'm heading off to bed.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Psssst.......you guys........shhhhhh!!!!! Gather around close......SA is pulling everyone's leg here. I firmly believe he says this crap just to get us going.

Look at this 3 page thread, which was started by some toothless redneck illiterate umpire basher who had been out in the gulf breeze too long, and the rest of it is all SA trying to be a low-budget Lance Cokalinski. At least Lance is funny and entertaining. I get physically ill reading most of SA's stuff. And then there is the occasional moment of clarity, which leads me to believe even more, that the rest of the time he just jerkin' us around.

[bossman72]

You guys gotta realize who you're arguing with here... I mean i remember reading before that this is the same guy who will call a balk on a pitcher for not doing the same motion every time he pitches... *roll eyes*

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I get physically ill reading most of SA's stuff. And then there is the occasional moment of clarity, which leads me to believe even more, that the rest of the time he just jerkin' us around.

Why not join those of us who are enjoying life more thanks to the "ignore list"?

[BigUmp56]

I thought about putting him and one other member on my ignore list but decided not to. My decision was made because in the past few months there have been less and less posts made by the higher quality umpiring minds on this board. We don't hear from Carl at all and Tee, Bob J, Garth, Sal, Ozzy, LDUB, and several others are posting more infrequently. Windy seems sort of engulfed in the AMLU issue so he doesn't say much outside of those threads either. This leads to erroneous information being left on the board by a few individuals. I figure that if we all put them on ignore then the only ones who'll see this garbage are newbies. This is a quality site where people come to get correct rulings or at least get pointed in the right direction. These tenents will be lost if there is no one left to dispute this nonsense.


Tim.