whats the rulebook say

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner. No warnings and no ADDITIONAL OUTS are allowed by rule (EX: Out on called 3rd strike and another out for throwing both helmet and bat in dispute of bad call).

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.

[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.

[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.

[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"?

[SAump]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump
A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner. No warnings and no ADDITIONAL OUTS are allowed by rule (EX: Out on called 3rd strike and another out for throwing both helmet and bat in dispute of bad call).

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.

My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat. Your HR rule does not address any issues in this thread. It is so far off base, it has no bearing on this thread at all, and is the ONLY example obsolete to the play at hand. You are grasping at straws out of thin air, Tim. May I suggest if the HR shoe doesn't fit, you must NOT BUY INTO IT. Please delete your stupid opinion before anybody else reads it and thinks we are discussing RUNS. I can breath easily about my opinions on OUTS.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by SAump

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAump
A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner. No warnings and no ADDITIONAL OUTS are allowed by rule (EX: Out on called 3rd strike and another out for throwing both helmet and bat in dispute of bad call).



My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat.

This rule you "quote" isn't about a "carelessly" discarded helmet or bat, it's about an intentionally discarded helmet or bat. Don't get your rules mixed up.


SAump [quote=Rich Ives] Quote:

Originally Posted by SAump

1) You are quoting a FED rule for an OBR game.

2) If there's no play, there is nothing to interfere with now is there?

--------

1) Out for Interference, MLB 6.05.h.
2) Ejected for MC.

What in the hell does this have to do with the situation at hand?! The bat never hit the ball a second time. Do you actually read the rule before you quote it? On topic my pa-tootie!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SAump
"A rule also allows for the immediate ejection of a batter or runner who intentionally throws his helmet or bat down at the ground or at a fence or wall in a violent manner."
Originally Posted by SAump
"My subject is on the topic of a carelessly discarded helmet or bat."
-------------------
Originally Posted by NFump
This rule you "quote" isn't about a "carelessly" discarded helmet or bat, it's about an intentionally discarded helmet or bat. Don't get your rules mixed up.
-------------------
Thank you for the RE-clarification back to my first quote.
Hopefully YOU wil recognize a similarity with the original TOPIC.
I hate when my words are twisted around.
I was going nuts looking for a HOME RUN ball.
Some ONE else is guilty of using of flawed logic.
What does a HR rule have to do with any of this?

[NFump]

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.

Does this help? His was a sarcastic example, yours was just......wrong.

Next, the intentionally thrown bat rule you quoted has no similarity to the original sitch, as there isn't an intentionally thrown anything in it.

No, I twisted nothing. I quoted you. Hopefully, you can see that.