LL Bat Question

[BigUmp56]

Well, he doesn't speak for all umpires working LL, I can tell you that. I don't know of any of the umpires in the LL association I belong to that would subscribe to his ideaology. If a situation were to arise where a question about a players eligbility needed to be addressed the most we would do is advise them of the appropriate rule. I'm not checking birth certificates any more than I would do a freaking cup check.



Tim.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Well, he doesn't speak for all umpires working LL, I can tell you that. I don't know of any of the umpires in the LL association I belong to that would subscribe to his ideaology. If a situation were to arise where a question about a players eligbility needed to be addressed the most we would do is advise them of the appropriate rule. I'm not checking birth certificates any more than I would do a freaking cup check.

Tim.

We almost agree. I think the Little League umpire should advise the manager of the appropriate rule; you admit that an umpire might do so.

I explicitely don't think that umpires should be checking birth certificates or cups.

And, of course, I don't speak for anybody but myself, though I'm relaying rules and responsibilities straight from the Little League book.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

We almost agree. I think the Little League umpire should advise the manager of the appropriate rule; you admit that an umpire might do so.

I explicitely don't think that umpires should be checking birth certificates or cups.

And, of course, I don't speak for anybody but myself, though I'm relaying rules and responsibilities straight from the Little League book.

Good Lord, you can't read.

What you said: "I think the Little League umpire should advise the manager of the appropriate rule; you admit that an umpire might do so."

What BU really said: "If a situation were to arise where a question about a players eligbility needed to be addressed the most we woulddo is advise them of the appropriate rule."

You have done the impossible. You got me to defend BU.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Good Lord, you can't read.

What you said: "I think the Little League umpire should advise the manager of the appropriate rule; you admit that an umpire might do so."

What BU really said: "If a situation were to arise where a question about a players eligbility needed to be addressed the most we woulddo is advise them of the appropriate rule."

You have done the impossible. You got me to defend BU.

Sorry for the public message, but you seem to have PM turned off.

Given a situation where a protest is imminent, the facts are not in dispute, and it's about player eligibility, I think the umpire has three choices:

1. He should feel required to know the rules and communicate them before the offending play happens (LL)
2. If he knows the rules, the most he would do is communicate them before the offending play happens (BU)
3. He shouldn't know the rules, and he certainly shouldn't communicate them. (RF)

In my judgement, positions 1 and 2 are almost in agreement, at least when compared with 3. That is all I was saying.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

Sorry for the public message, but you seem to have PM turned off.

Given a situation where a protest is imminent, the facts are not in dispute, and it's about player eligibility, I think the umpire has three choices:

1. He should feel required to know the rules and communicate them before the offending play happens (LL)
2. If he knows the rules, the most he would do is communicate them before the offending play happens (BU)
3. He shouldn't know the rules, and he certainly shouldn't communicate them. (RF)

In my judgement, positions 1 and 2 are almost in agreement, at least when compared with 3. That is all I was saying.

Okay, I stand corrected. It's not your reading skill that's impaired. It's your reading comprehension skills that's impaired. BU did not state #2 as you claim. At least is his post above, nowhere does he say "IF" the umpire knows the rule. All he says is that they (umpires in his association) would advise of the rule.

Unless you are running for opffice, it's always better form to not change the statement you are debating.

[BigUmp56]

Thank you, Garth. Let me give you an example of how a potentially protestable situation should be handled by an umpire.

Coach of team A decides to enter Little Snot Nosed Billy in the top of the third inning. He brings the changes to the umpire who in turn gives the change to the coach of team B. B-coach looks at the name of the substitute and informs the umpire-in-cheif that the sub is ineligible because he was ejected in their last game and now has to serve a one game suspension. Now, the umpires duty is to go to coach A and inform him that the other team feels the sub in ineligible, explaining why, and that's it. The umpire isn't going to look for an ejection report or look over the book from team A's last game. He's not going to get involved beyond letting them know the player is potentially ineligible. If the coach of team A feels his player is eligible and goes ahead and enters him, the other coach needs to lodge a protest in the book, and we get the game going.

This is from the LLRIM.

Little League officials are urged to take precautions to prevent protests. When a protest situation is imminent, the potential offender should be notified immediately.


Tim.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Okay, I stand corrected. It's not your reading skill that's impaired. It's your reading comprehension skills that's impaired. BU did not state #2 as you claim. At least is his post above, nowhere does he say "IF" the umpire knows the rule. All he says is that they (umpires in his association) would advise of the rule.

Unless you are running for opffice, it's always better form to not change the statement you are debating.

You are, of course, correct. I was careless, and I apologize to Tim and you.

With your correction, I still believe that point 1 and position 2 are more in agreement than position 1 is with position 3.

(I could make an argument that adding the phrase didn't alter the logical value of the statement, but you have already rejected my mathematics credentials, so it would be a WoBW. And, of course, you were right.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Well, he doesn't speak for all umpires working LL, I can tell you that. I don't know of any of the umpires in the LL association I belong to that would subscribe to his ideaology.

Am I the only one here that knows that LilLeaguer is a woman?

[briancurtin]

thats news to me

[SanDiegoSteve]

Yes, and it's twice I've mentioned it now.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Am I the only one here that knows that LilLeaguer is a woman?

I think I signed a few of my earliest posts Lil, but to the extent that it matters, or that you should believe a stranger on the internet, I'm:

Russ Paul-Jones (M)

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

I think I signed a few of my earliest posts Lil, but to the extent that it matters, or that you should believe a stranger on the internet, I'm:

Russ Paul-Jones (M)

How strange......she has male names.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

BigUmp56 wrote:

"Coach of team A decides to enter Little Snot Nosed Billy in the top of the third inning. He brings the changes to the umpire who in turn gives the change to the coach of team B. B-coach looks at the name of the substitute and informs the umpire-in-cheif that the sub is ineligible because he was ejected in their last game and now has to serve a one game suspension. Now, the umpires duty is to go to coach A and inform him that the other team feels the sub in ineligible, explaining why, and that's it. The umpire isn't going to look for an ejection report or look over the book from team A's last game. He's not going to get involved beyond letting them know the player is potentially ineligible. If the coach of team A feels his player is eligible and goes ahead and enters him, the other coach needs to lodge a protest in the book, and we get the game going."

I would contend that even "Old Tee" would "kinda sorta" do this:

Common sense would lead me to believe that IF the offended team, in my example, came to me to protest that I would be required to give that information to both the official score book AND the offending team.

The Oregon School Activities Association agrees with be by precedent:

This spring we had the following occur:

In a game between Valley High and City High the Valley high coaching staff noticed an assistant coach in the dugout. While that was not an issue in itself the issue got deeper. That assistant coach had been ejected from a game the day before. The OSAA requires a one game suspension for ejections.

The Valley High coach went to the umpire to "protest" the coach in the dugout.

Our umpire informed the coach that the OSAA does not accept "protests" and that the coach in the dugout was a league or state level issue.

The game went on and Valley lost the game (BTW, a critical game in the league standings) however the Valley High Athletic Director contacted the OSAA the next day.

The Head Coach of City High called the OSAA the next morning to admit freely that he had allowed the assistant coach in the dugout.

The Executive Director of the OSAA declared a forfeit of the game by City High School.

In the letter it noted: "Although the OSAA does not allow protested games, and the umpires correctly refused to file the protest, the OSAA is responsible for the eligibilty of all participants."

So, in essence, I believe all umpires "nearly" follow the process that you have quoted above. It is, in big boy ball, an act of common sense rather than a directive from a rule book or umpire manual.

Regards,

Like I said, I would take the protest. Part of that process is bringing it to the attention of the other team and letting them deal with it, if they so choose.

Where I differ with LLer is this: I will not offer my opinion on eligibility rules nor will I answer such a question, if asked. I'll tell the coach that eligibility rules are HIS concern and it's up to him how he wishes to address the protest. Then, we play.

I don't see it as being helpful if an umpire jumps into the middle of something where he has no place.

[LilLeaguer]

OK, let me break tradition and ask Rich (and Tim C too, if he wants to unignore it) an OBR question in a LL thread.

I don't know much about real umpiring, as you all make clear. And I know that you're tired of me (though I miss the date requests I used to be getting ) Carl Childress has an article somewhere in cyberspace about the intricacies of the NCAA DH rule, where he makes it clear that he would explain a rule to a manager.

Situation 1: In the fifth inning, a manager wants to move his DH into a position on the field. He asks you how this affects his lineup. Do you tell him?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

OK, let me break tradition and ask Rich (and Tim C too, if he wants to unignore it) an OBR question in a LL thread.

I don't know much about real umpiring, as you all make clear. And I know that you're tired of me (though I miss the date requests I used to be getting ) Carl Childress has an article somewhere in cyberspace about the intricacies of the NCAA DH rule, where he makes it clear that he would explain a rule to a manager.

Situation 1: In the fifth inning, a manager wants to move his DH into a position on the field. He asks you how this affects his lineup. Do you tell him?

I would answer with another question -- "What do you want to do?" Then, when he gives a specific answer (e.g., "That's all -- keep F1 pitching and remove F7") I'd give a specific ruling ("Then F1 will bat in F7's spot and you have no more DH")

I clearly make a distinction between "game" issues / rules and "roster" issues / rules.