LL Bat Question

[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)

[SAump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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

Or are you making up this crap? Sorry, I lost my water laughing so hard.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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

I noticed he used feminine pronouns in one of his post, speaking of a hypothetical umpire. I guess you saw that post as well and assumed that made him a woman. It appears that is not the case.

[jxt127]

Saw a lot of wood bats this weekend in a youth tournament.

Black, brown, ash. Even one with tape wrapped all around the barrel. Of course there were a lot less bats left at the end of the tournament than at the start.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Once again a thread has gotten wayyyyyyyyyyyy out of hand. Back to the dicussion of wood bats.

[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.)

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Rich:

Obviously we agree on this 100%.

Regards,

Tee,

I also refuse to give the count from the bases. I'm so unhelpful sometimes

--Rich

[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.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It would appear not. All this time I have been attributing his rants to hormones. I think the pronouns and signing his posts "Lil" had something to do with it. I now have Roper/Furley syndrome, however. Why would a man use feminine pronouns speaking of hypothetical umpires anyway?

I put myself in the habit of occasionally using the feminine pronoun in the general case in the late 70's. At the time, I suppose, I felt that it was a way to challenge assumptions of gender roles and help folks break free of their prejudices.

Thanks goodness that isn't necessary anymore , but I have kept the habit.

[LilLeaguer]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Thanks.

I'm not sure that the line is completely bright, but I think that this is the same boundary other folks are talking about.

For example, I believe we've had threads in the past on this site that dispute the role of Real Umpires in the game issue of illegal substitution.

(LL-specific content follows)

At the extreme end, I also don't involve myself with roster issues; I trust that the roster handed to me by the manager or Tournament Director is correct, and I don't hire a private detective to scrounge up real birth certificates or anything.

But LL has some rules that push against that boundary (e.g. weekly inning counts per pitcher, though that may be going away), and I do feel that I'm helping the game along by just explaining the rules when asked.

And besides that mantra that Real Umpires umpire, I don't understand the reason not to explain the rule, again if asked.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by LilLeaguer

And besides that mantra that Real Umpires umpire, I don't understand the reason not to explain the rule, again if asked.

If I'm acting in my role as umpire, I answer umpire questions only. I "know" some of the IHSA suspension / eligibility rules, but I won't give an answer to those questions on the field. I won't give a pitching clinic, or a rules clinic, or umpiring philosophy, ... on the field either. I have, and will, talk to groups during scrimmages (and I understand that word means different things in different areas -- here it's really just another practice) about almost anything related to the sport.