Using 9.01c

[devilsadvocate]

Some umpires feel that 9.01c is useful, and some feel that is used too often.

What is your opinion? And rather than bash someone for their opinion, strengthen your argument.

I think 9.01c is useful, and combined with common sense and fair play, I see no problem with it's use. Whenever we enforce the rule interpretation that we have learned, but is not specifically spelled out, we are using 9.01c. I liked one man's suggestion that if someone didn't like your use of 9.01c, let'em protest. I think it would be intresting to find out how many protests have been upheld over the use of 9.01c by the umpire. I've never even heard of a protest over the use of 9.01c. So I guess most umpires use 9.01c appropriately.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

[bluezebra]

"Some umpires feel that (1) 9.01c is useful, and some feel that is used too often.

What is your opinion? And rather than bash someone for their opinion, strengthen your argument.

I think (2) 9.01c is useful, and combined with common sense and fair play, I see no problem with it's use. Whenever we enforce the rule interpretation that we have learned, but is not specifically spelled out, we are using (3) 9.01c. I liked one man's suggestion that if someone didn't like your use of (4) 9.01c, let'em protest. I think it would be intresting to find out how many protests have been upheld over the use of (5) 9.01c by the umpire. I've never even heard of a protest over the use of (6) 9.01c. So I guess most umpires use (7) 9.01c appropriately."


What was that rule number again?

Bob

[GarthB]

9.01(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

This rule was added late in baseball's history, 1954. Baseball managed quite well without it for years, however the powers to be assumed that it was impossible to list all the possible "legal" questions that might face an umpire. Thus, 9.01(c).

The problem with its use, often, is that it is used as an "out" by those who do not really know or understand the rules. They use it when an applicable rule of which they are unaware, is available.

In reality, there are very few instances in which 9.01(c) would be necessary. Afterall, baseball got along without just fine it until 1954.

A thorough knowledge of the rule book and current interpretations will greatly reduce reliance on this rule.



[Edited by GarthB on Oct 28th, 2001 at 01:19 AM]

[BJ Moose]

I echo Mr. G. More often than not, 9.01c is a cop out application when the umpire simply does not know. There are actually VERY FEW situations (and even less common ones) where 9.01c will apply.

Which makes a more interesting drill. What are they?

[devilsadvocate]

What was that rule number again?

Bob

I think it's 9.01c, but let me repeat. 9.01c

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by devilsadvocate

What was that rule number again?

Bob

I think it's 9.01c, but let me repeat. 9.01c

advocatus diaboli Somebody who criticizes or opposes something purely in order to provoke a discussion or
argument.

__________________________________________________ ______

Arguments -
The most savage controversies are those about matters
as to which there is no good evidence either way.
[B.Russell]

[GarthB]

devils advocate:

One who mistakenly believes he is providing a service by being insincere.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by GarthB
devils advocate:

One who mistakenly believes he is providing a service by being insincere.

L O L

R O F - L'g O L

glen

[JJ]

9.01......let's "c".....

I echo Garth's view. There haven't been many instances when 9.01c should be applied, therefore there won't be many instances of protest using it. I do not know of any in the 20+ years I've used it (wink! wink!).

9.01c....ya later!

GBA

[devilsadvocate]

Originally posted by GarthB
devils advocate:

One who mistakenly believes he is providing a service by being insincere.

I would disagree with that statement. I think that by taking the opposite side on an issue for sake of discussion "provides" a "service". The "service" that it provides is thought and understanding.

It is accepted interpretation that when a runner is forced to a base the force is removed by a touch (or pass) of the base. Now, that isn't what the rule book says. So if I question it, when the explanation is given the understanding becomes clearer. If the response "That's the way it's taught in pro schools" or "That's the interpretation of authoratative sources/opinion" is OK for you, so be it. But for alot of people, myself included, understanding why it is done that way is very important.

And if the question that I ask serves no purpose, then simply ignore the question.

To quote Tina Turner "What's sincere got to do with it?"

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devilsadvocate

But for alot of people, myself included, understanding why it is done that way is very important.

Knowing WHY is learning...................
Doing because someone else does it that way is imitating.....
I would rather learn than imitate.......

Just my opinion,

Freix

In Devilsadvocates' defense, he works mostly in the LL system which has many safety rules. The enforcement is not spelled out in the rule book but is instead is left to 9.01c to take care of it. This by Andy's direction so in LL, Jr/Sr, and BL you have to invoke it much more than in a Legion or Men's game.
Now I agree many guys that just don't know or don't care to learn over use it. DA is not one of those people. He sincerely wishes to learn.

[Skahtboi]

I never knew that Tina Turner said "what's sincere got to do with it!" Live and learn....

[Rich Ives]

Even in LL 9.09(c) is hardly ever needed.

LL safety is pretty much already in the rules.

The key ones are

Slide/Avoid - out by rule
Fake tag = obstruction - again covered by rule

And the "Don't do thats" which are covered by 9.01(b).
Catcher's gear
Full coverage helmets by all offensive players & player coaches
No on deck batter
Jewelry

And unsportsmanlike (intentional bat or equipment throws, malicious contact, etc.) which is covered by 9.01(d).

Andy Konyer has stated that bat waving is OK.

The congress voted down a rule against fake bunt & then hit.

That leaves accidental bat throwing. The LL umpire school says use 9.01(c) here, warn first. With the automatic next game suspension going into effect in 2002, you will really need to use caution on this one. It really isn't a crime worth making the kid miss the next game too.

[GarthB]

According to Bfair: Knowing WHY is learning. Doing because someone else does it that way is imitating.....
I would rather learn than imitate.......

When did that become an issue? I see nothing in this thread to discourage learning. Want to learn? Ask questions, don't pose feigned thought alleged to be contrary to your real opinion. No need to hide behind "devil's advocacy."

State your real opinion. Defend it when necessary. Adjust it when appropriate.

"To thine own self be true."