Daryl,

Once again, a thoughtful and thorough answer. Though I've never seen you work a game, I am inclined to believe that you would not commit this faux pas.

I came to the same conclusion you did regarding what the proper application of the rules would be in the situation I posed. My ulterior motive in posing it was to question whether the FED rulesmakers had considered this particular implication of their "correction" of 2005's rather absurd interpretation that stated that a batted ball which was legally caught was made foul and dead solely by virtue of an umpire (erroneously) calling it foul.

Now, in my experience, the notion that a foul tip remains live and in play (and that runners need not return or retouch) is a concept that remains elusive to many coaches, players, and even a few umpires. In my experience, it is also a significantly more common occurrence (not that it happens a lot, but it does happen) for an umpire to incorrectly declare a foul tip "Foul" than it is for an umpire to incorrectly call an in-flight batted ball near the line "Foul".

So, I wonder if the "unintended consequences" of this clarification will end up producing more unpleasant situations than it will prevent.

On another note, while Tim C. can be terse, cryptic, antagonistic, and arrogant in his posts, I believe he knows what he is talking about and generally find reading his posts (as well as his articles) to be worth my while.

Oh, and he doesn't seem to be especially receptive to constructive criticism offered in this forum either.

Some things we can change, some things we can't. Not recognizing the distinction can result in a lot of wasted time. Is your pig an alto or a soprano?

JM

Because Tee has standards.

Double standards.

At times, don't we all, here and in private lists.

But in this case, I don't think that was in play.

Tee provided the correct and to those who know the history of this issue, blatantly obvious ruling. He also provided some of the history of the correct interps to back it up. He then indicated it would take a specific citation to disprove it.

In this case, that's like one saying "the sun will come up tomorrow and I provide past history as my evidence. If you think it won't, give me some reasons."

As for Tee saying he doesn't provide citations, I believe he was exaggerating slightly. I've seen him do so in the past. Perhaps he was announcing a new philosophy.

I don't think the earth will stall on its axis of he has. Even most on this board will probably continue as they have in the past. There's not much any of us can or will do to change the perceptions that have been established. It happens, but not often.

Bruce, is your last name Kelso, or what?:p

Fez....... :D

I still dont see a response to Pete's point, that being that you cannot just 'ignore' J/R, Evans, customs and usage, etc if you aim to be a quality umpire.

The statement 'if it aint in the rulebook I dont recognize it' is LLDan-esque in the extreme, and no real umpire truly believes that. Calling only by the rulebook is what the kiddies do.

I don't know about anybody else, but I didn't respond to Pete's post because I agreed with him completely. You are right, you can't just use the book, because the book's full of errors.

In OBR rule discussions, my association would seek out the current pro interpretation to a given rule, and that is how we would call it, regardless of what the book said. For FED rules we would abide by whatever correspondence came from the state interpreter, as well as the case book.

Nowdays, with all the different resources available, there is no reason not to take advantage of them.