The Official Forum
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Starting, then stopping, the windup. (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/32824-starting-then-stopping-windup.html)

bob jenkins Sun Mar 18, 2007 04:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG
Here it is:

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. BALL

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber and set, both hands in front of his body. Goes to mouth. BALK, not for going to his mouth but for separating his hands after being set.
I agree with your second interp. I do not believe your first is correct *IN IL* (I don't know what state you are in).

DG Sun Mar 18, 2007 04:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
I agree with your second interp. I do not believe your first is correct *IN IL* (I don't know what state you are in).
North Carolina

justanotherblue Sun Mar 18, 2007 07:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctblu40
But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.:rolleyes:

I would suggest using the rule and case book on that one. Both have it right. That is... it's illegal while in contact with the rubber to go to the mouth regardless with runners on or not, balk with. Look at 6-2-1A in the case book. Those wonderful Fed interps or is it twerps... have it wrong. This will also keep you from pulling out your teeth and hair tying to figure out how they could come up with such a ruling. I also keeps it in line with all other rules sets. That was their intent IMHO.

ctblu40 Sun Mar 18, 2007 08:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherblue
I would suggest using the rule and case book on that one. Both have it right. That is... it's illegal while in contact with the rubber to go to the mouth regardless with runners on or not, balk with. Look at 6-2-1A in the case book. Those wonderful Fed interps or is it twerps... have it wrong. This will also keep you from pulling out your teeth and hair tying to figure out how they could come up with such a ruling. I also keeps it in line with all other rules sets. That was their intent IMHO.
If they want this rule to be inline with other codes, that's great. Then why don't they just adapt the wording exactly like the other codes? It doesn't make any sense, if they think they made a mistake, just change it back and be finished.

BTW- any of you older guys remember if FED ever had the rule book even remotely close to OBR as far as wording and layout? I've been doing this for about 9 years, and the first time I read the FED book, I was blown away.

Gmoore Mon Mar 19, 2007 08:01pm
Illinois requires a coach attend the rules meeting so they have heard the same thing we have, and should not have to deal with that of a coach saying but in the book it states.......




Quote:
Originally Posted by ctblu40
This is a major problem. Often times we are told by assignors or interpretors (either association or state) that some rules are subject to more lenient enforcement.

But what happens when you don't call whats written in the book and are questioned by a manager as to why you're ignoring a certain rule? Is there going to be a protest that will be upheld?

For this example, "Blue, that's a balk! You gotta call that!" In response, the umpire steps in it and says, "I know that's what's written, but I was told to let it go."

Are we going to be backed up? I would hope so, but there are no guarantees. This, IMO, is hanging the officials out to dry. Why not just follow OBR in this case? I see no safety issue, so is the NFHS just being stubborn?

ctblu40 Mon Mar 19, 2007 08:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmoore
Illinois requires a coach attend the rules meeting so they have heard the same thing we have, and should not have to deal with that of a coach saying but in the book it states.......
I am familiar with a coach who knows just as much, if not more, about the rules than a lot of umpires. Try sneaking that by him in a game and I'll bet he'd call you on it.

Any comment JM?

Gmoore Tue Mar 20, 2007 08:05am
I was not implying sneaking anything past any one I was just stating that Illinois has the coaches’ attend the rules meeting.

The umpire would not have to tell the coach that it states one thing in the rule book and the umpire is calling it another way.

By state association they have adopted a different interpretation of the current rule.

blueump Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:08am
It would be interesting to see how the FED responds to a written statement from IL that they refuse to call this.

justanotherblue Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:26am
Just got my latest Referee. They're publishing that the pitcher can go to his mouth while on the rubber anytime before he commits to pitch. That is, in the wind up, he can go to his mouth after stepping on the rubber before bringing his hands together, as long as he wipes. From the set same thing. ON the rubber, takes his sign, brings his hand up and goes to his mouth, wipes, then comes set, legal. Of course this is in direct violation of 6-2-4-D. Just a terrible rule no doubt. Of course, we have a rules committee member in our association, however, he will not return emails or calls. Imaging that. So, call it as you see best. Good luck

BigGuy Tue Mar 20, 2007 04:13pm
At my rules interp meeting we got the following

Off the rubber - wipe - NO PENALTY
Off the rubber - no-wipe - BALL
On the rubber - no runners - either way - BALL
On the rubber - runners - either way - BALK

They have basically said they are ignoring the rule change and reverting to last year.

These interpretations came off of the IHSA rules interpretation powerpoint presentation.

bob jenkins Tue Mar 20, 2007 04:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGuy
At my rules interp meeting we got the following

Off the rubber - wipe - NO PENALTY
Off the rubber - no-wipe - BALL
On the rubber - no runners - either way - BALL
On the rubber - runners - either way - BALK

They have basically said they are ignoring the rule change and reverting to last year.

These interpretations came off of the IHSA rules interpretation powerpoint presentation.
If that's from the meeting at the UMPS clinic, then the IHSA ruling has been changed since then.

ctblu40 Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:41am
How much more ridiculous could it get?
 
Here's the interpretation given by our rules interpretor last night:

Off the rubber
With or with out runners
Wipe- nothing
No wipe- ball

On the rubber
With runners, in the stretch position
Wipe- nothing
No wipe- ball
With runners, wind up position, if both hands are at F1's side
Wipe- nothing
No wipe- ball
If glove is in front of body, pitching hand at side
Wipe or no wipe- balk

What is going on here? Is there a good reason for FED to not just use OBR rule in this instance? :confused:

bob jenkins Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctblu40
Here's the interpretation given by our rules interpretor last night:
In what state was that?

ctblu40 Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
In what state was that?
Connecticut...

Is it me, or is this getting out of hand?

bob jenkins Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctblu40
Connecticut...

Is it me, or is this getting out of hand?
It depends on what you mean by "this." :)

I don't remember the specific issue, but a rule change a few years ago was treated the same way -- different states had different interps for the first year.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55pm.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1