OBR Ambidexterous pitcher

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

Default condition in Baseball: if it is not, by Rule, prohibited - it is permitted. There are darn few exceptions to this principle: can't think of one, off-hand.

Sorry CB, have to disagree here: plenty of things are neither explicitly prohibited nor permitted in the rules. R2 may not dig a moat around 2B, for example. Neither can R1, for that matter...

Examples like that seem dumb, of course, but the point is that the rules are NEITHER an exhaustive list of what is prohibited in baseball, NOR an exhaustive list of what is permitted. No sound argument deploys reasoning of the form "Since the rules don't explicitly forbid/permit that, it must be permitted/forbidden."

The rules are rough guidelines to how the game should be played, and they must be interpreted with wisdom, experience, and good sense. An umpire lacking any one of these will err.

And a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sorry CB, have to disagree here: plenty of things are neither explicitly prohibited nor permitted in the rules. R2 may not dig a moat around 2B, for example. Neither can R1, for that matter...
Examples like that seem dumb, of course, but the point is that the rules are NEITHER an exhaustive list of what is prohibited in baseball, NOR an exhaustive list of what is permitted. No sound argument deploys reasoning of the form "Since the rules don't explicitly forbid/permit that, it must be permitted/forbidden."

The rules are rough guidelines to how the game should be played, and they must be interpreted with wisdom, experience, and good sense. An umpire lacking any one of these will err.

And a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either.

Not to pick an argument when we don't, on anything that matters, disagree....

However: name me ONE actual game sitch [ie: no moats around the bases, please] where the accepted or correct ruling does not fit the condition I have proposed - IOW, where something is prohibited or penalised based on the absence of a rule PERMITTING it. I don't think you will find one.

Even the "example" you have given [unauthorised landscaping of the infield] fits if you then ask the question: so what's the penalty? Let's us just assume that R2 begins excavation of that moat we both agree he ain't gonna be permitted to construct....he's, what? Out for interference [oops, that's a rule (against offensive interference) that explicitly PROHIBITS the action in question]? Ejected for disregarding an umpire's directive per 9.01b (please note, NOT "c") - [oops - prohibitory Rule, again]? WHAT?! What's the penalty? Where does it [the penalty] come from?

I admit that my outlook on this is somewhat colored by a principle from my day job: a "crime" with no penalty is no crime at all.

In general, when someone goes at a baseball problem looking for "what rule permits 'em to do X...", or "reasons" that because they can't find a rule permitting something, that it is or ought to be prohibited/ penalised - they are on the wrong track, and they often err by inventing "Rules" and rulings which are unsupported by anything other than their own whim and fiat [no, not the car].

Originally Posted by mbyron

The rules are rough guidelines to how the game should be played, and they must be interpreted with wisdom, experience, and good sense. An umpire lacking any one of these will err.

And a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either.

THAT part I agree with and endorse wholeheartedly.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

However: name me ONE actual game sitch [ie: no moats around the bases, please] where the accepted or correct ruling does not fit the condition I have proposed - IOW, where something is prohibited or penalised based on the absence of a rule PERMITTING it. I don't think you will find one.

By "actual game sitch" do you mean some action explicitly provided for in the rules? Petitio principii.

Originally Posted by cbfoulds

Even the "example" you have given [unauthorised landscaping of the infield] fits if you then ask the question: so what's the penalty? Let's us just assume that R2 begins excavation of that moat we both agree he ain't gonna be permitted to construct....he's, what? Out for interference [oops, that's a rule (against offensive interference) that explicitly PROHIBITS the action in question]? Ejected for disregarding an umpire's directive per 9.01b (please note, NOT "c") - [oops - prohibitory Rule, again]? WHAT?! What's the penalty? Where does it [the penalty] come from?

You're making my point: umpires have escape clauses like 9.01b (and c) in order to catch things that are NOT EXPLICITLY prohibited by rule. And as we all know, that opens those rules to abuse by the officious.

At least we agree about the important points.

[kraine27]

Creighton University just this past season had a pitcher who wore a five fingered glove and would regularly switch left handed to right handed pitching depending on the batter. As has previously been stated in this thread, the pitcher does have to declare what side he will be pitching from AND has to remain that way for the entire at bat. The batter, on the other hand may switch boxes between pitches as long as he is not making a travisity of the game.

[Tim C]

A "travesty" of the game can only occur, by rule, if a player runs the bases in reverse order.

A "better" term in your post would have been "cause undo delay."

Regards,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

The words "travesty of the game" are actually twice used in the FED rule book.

The first time is 8-4-2-n. (the easy one)

Can anyone name the second?

Actually, 8-4-2n is the second time the words are used. The first time they are used is in Rule 8-2 APPEAL PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES, #6 - More Than One Appeal. Multiple appeals are permitted as long as they do not become a travesty of the game.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by PWL

We have a winner. People always get so fixated that the words "travesty of the game" is only used for running the bases in reverse order. They seem to forget the multiple appeals on every play and what a "travesty of the game" it makes alslo.....................

Yeah, it really gets annoying with all those multiple appeals on every play...happens every time I turn around...what a travesty indeed.

[JJ]

[QUOTE=kraine27]Creighton University just this past season had a pitcher who wore a five fingered glove and would regularly switch left handed to right handed pitching depending on the batter. QUOTE]

This is the pitcher I saw this summer in several games. He was the 2nd ambidexterous pitcher I've ever seen, and the first who was equally as fluid and effective from the left side as the right. His glove was custom made.

JJ

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by mbyron

By "actual game sitch" do you mean some action explicitly provided for in the rules? Petitio principii.

Noooo...
Nice try. You know that I mean something that actually happens in real games. Not "How many umpires can lobster-claw an out on the head of a bat.." -style TWP "examples".

Can you name one real-world baseball situation where there is a prohibition based on the absence of a rule permitting the action?

FWIW my teenage son thinks that "fortifying one's position" on the bases would be "cool".