Rules We Don't Like

[greymule]

We recently discussed Fed rules that many of us do not like. But what can we do about it?

I see that some guy in California just set a Christmas tree, an American flag, and himself on fire out of outrage toward the local school district, which had voted to rename "winter" and "spring" vacations back to "Christmas" and "Easter" vacations.

Do you think if enough of us set our rule books and case books, along with ourselves, on fire, we could effect some long-overdue changes? What if a bunch of us did this outside Fed headquarters?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Good for the school district. Too bad I missed it, I would have brought some marshmellows.

[greymule]

Unfortunately, somebody nearby happened to have a fire extinguisher.

Not long ago I edited a paper about the efforts of the government of India to assist members of historically "backward" (the government's term) classes, or castes. The author told me that even today, it is not uncommon for a university student to set himself on fire upon learning that a member of such-and-such caste has been granted admission.

Imagine how much greater impact Earl Weaver's videotaped tirade would have had if Earl had simply sat down on second base and self-immolated. Question: If that happens in a game of yours, do you eject the guy for doing that?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by greymule

Unfortunately, somebody nearby happened to have a fire extinguisher.

Not long ago I edited a paper about the efforts of the government of India to assist members of historically "backward" (the government's term) classes, or castes. The author told me that even today, it is not uncommon for a university student to set himself on fire upon learning that a member of such-and-such caste has been granted admission.

Imagine how much greater impact Earl Weaver's videotaped tirade would have had if Earl had simply sat down on second base and self-immolated. Question: If that happens in a game of yours, do you eject the guy for doing that?

Of course you do. Everybody knows there's no smoking on the baseball field.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

I don't like the penalty to the rule that allows a batter-runner to carelessly throw his bat and by existing rule keep his base hit, 3-3-b.

Please note that a fake tag, 3-3-a, is deemed defensive obstruction (8-3-2) and warrants an extra base award. As harmless as a fake tag may seem, look at the stiff penalty.

Affirmative action is needed to prevent anything which may seriously injure a player or umpire. I feel BR should be declared out, and all runners should return to bases at TOP. Delmon Young would probably disagree.

Why shouldn't he get to keep his hit if he didn't interfere with the play? A carelessly discarded bat has a severe enough penalty for the second offense.


Tim.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Why shouldn't he get to keep his hit if he didn't interfere with the play? A carelessly discarded bat has a severe enough penalty for the second offense.
Tim.

That severe penalty applies to bandannas and jewelry, playing pepper or electronic equipment. All are allowed at the MLB level behind the Cardinals dugout.

Usually a bat goes flying into the stands and the batter is not warned. He already knows that he should HOLD on to the bat. Players that carelessly tossed bats or helmets out of misplaced anger have already been declared OUT. This is usually followed by an immediate ejection. It happens every season.

Why allow the clown who happens to reach base safely to engage in dangerous behavior? Again I understand the current rule. It is a rule I don't like and a rule I would amend to read, "The ejected player is declared OUT, unless he has already scored." Rules do not protect a dangerous runner that way, so why shoud rules protect a dangerous hitter?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

That severe penalty also applies to bandannas and jewelry, and playing pepper or electronic equipment during a game. All of those are allowed at the MLB level behind the Cardinals dugout.

Professional players are adults who really don't need to be protected. The NFHS, along with most other organizations that govern youth baseball have decided that wearing jewelry is a safety hazard, and in order to protect the games participants they've implemented safety rules that disallow players from wearing any. I don't know of any umpires in my area that will eject a player for wearing jewelry unless after being asked to remove it they refuse.

Originally Posted by SAump

Usually a bat goes flying into the stands and the batter is not warned.

I've never seen a bat go flying into the stands in a high school game. But if I did you can bet there would be a warning issued.

Originally Posted by SAump

He already knows that he should HOLD on to the bat. The majority of players that carelessly tossed bats or helmets out of misplaced anger have already been declared OUT. This is usually followed by an immediate ejection. It happens every season.

A bat thrown out of anger or frustration is not a carelessly thrown bat, so of course they should be ejected immediately.

Originally Posted by SAump

Why allow the clown who happens to reach base safely to engage in dangerous behavior? Again I understand the current rule. It is a rule I don't like and a rule I would amend to read, "The ejected player is declared OUT, unless he has already scored." Rules do not protect a dangerous runner that way, so why should rules protect a dangerous hitter?

I'm still not sure why you'd like to see a more severe penalty for an inadvertant action on the part of a batter that doesn't effect the play. He's done nothing malicious or intentional. When I think of a carelessly discarded bat I think of a bat that accidentally slips out of a players hands on his follow swing, not some overt act to injure someone.


Tim.

[SAump]

You make it sound so simple and innocent. I wish it were true. A carelessly thrown bat happens. The catcher is the one who is often hit with the bat. There are times when a bat sails over or by the catcher and squarely hits the plate ump.

There was a time when a DUI was a slap on the wrist. Times have changed. When I think of a bat that has been carelessly tossed, I visualize one both flying and spinning in a large parabolic arc. Now you may allow slips, accidents, and inadvertant footsies; but I have learned not to listen to those who use them excuses.

If bat doesn't sail near anyone, I got nothing.
If bat sails near someone or barely hits anyone below the pelvis, I have a warning to issue.
If bat hits anyone above pelvis, I have an ejection report to write up.
A substitute will soon enter the ballgame.

It would be on defense if I had the ability to influence the rules committee. Action by those who do re-write the rules in this case would serve a much needed purpose. It would tell the rats, "Don't bring that cheese in here."

[PeteBooth]

There will always be rules that we do not like.

My biggest "beef" with the rules is that IMO too much is placed on blue with respect to safety and controlling the game compared to when I played.

When I played, the participants "policed" themselves. Blue simply had to call the game. Not so today. In addition to knowing the rules etc. we have to stop games because of "trash talk" etc.

In my day we didn't have to worry about trash talk. It was taken care of on the field of play and was accepted. Today you have riots.

Then we have all this "safety business" to worry about because of the Liability factor. Someone is looking for that easy "big pay day" etc. As it stands now, we have to get to the game site early to check hats / bats. IMO, that should be the coaches job not ours. If a kid does come to bat with an illegal bat, then we simply enforce the rule which in FED is an out. However, the original checking etc. should be on the coach.

The other issue is the on-deck batter. Because of the incident in the Witchita St game, we are told to strictly enforce the rule and make sure the on-deck batter is on his/her own side.

The Catcher's equipment. If a kid is squatting down then he needs to have a helmet / mask on. Also, the proper throat guard. etc.

In a nutshell, the Safety Requirements should be the responsibilty of (1) The parents. When my kids played I made sure they had the proper equipment and (2) the coaches.

Our job is to call the game, however, in todays; environment not only do we need to be umpires but psycologists and policemen as well.

Pete Booth

[greymule]

we have to stop games because of "trash talk" etc.

The psychology has changed since I played in the 1960s and early 1970s. There was plenty of "bench jockeying" and wisecracking from the stands back then, but the worst thing you could do was be a "rabbit ears" and react to jibes from the other team or hecklers in the stands. Anyone who let somebody's mouth get to him was "bush league." But today, it's almost as if the players feel obliged to retaliate with more than words out of fear of being considered cowards.

(I will admit that in the "old" days, the players and even the loudmouthed fans usually stayed within unwritten but understood boundaries. No using the player's name, no obscenities, and so on. And the remarks were supposed to contain some degree of cleverness, however crude.)

[etn_ump]

I will probably get trashed here for mentioning this, but, the Fed rule I dislike the most is the FPSR and contact rules, particlularly players not being able to break up a double play or roll the catcher.

I was a HS and later a D1 catcher (in the '70's) and I really don't understand the rules regarding contact. Catchers and middle infielders both learn how to protect themselves, it's part of baseball.

Don't roast me too hard on this one, you asked which rules I didn't like!

[Justme]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

There will always be rules that we do not like.

Ain't that the truth

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Our job is to call the game, however, in todays; environment not only do we need to be umpires but psycologists and policemen as well.

I agree with you once again. I wonder if the additional umpire responsibilities, and the hassles associated with enforcing them, aren’t a major reason that recruiting young umpires is so difficult. I’m sure it adds to the number of veteran umpires who walk away from the game too.

My siblings and I grew up in the 50’s & 60’s; I wonder how we survived without all of the rules to protect us from ourselves.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by etn_ump

I will probably get trashed here for mentioning this, but, the Fed rule I dislike the most is the FPSR and contact rules, particlularly players not being able to break up a double play or roll the catcher.

Ditto.....

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Ditto.....

I don't understand why either of you would preferr to see a runner allowed to crash the catcher or make contact on the pivot man at second in a high school game. These are young men playing and should be afforded the protection that the FPSR rule provides.


Tim.

[DG]

I don't understand why any rule set would allow a runner to maliciously contact a catcher.