Obstruction?

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

I love this Right to post BS.

Other people read this forum to LEARN, you post something that is WRONG, we Point it out, you continue to argue, we continue to Say no, NOT for you! We understand you are either A) a Lost Cause, or B) in a stupid association.
But we post what is right so others can learn.

We Don't go after Blue 37 because he does not repeatedly come on here arguing that he is right. He also says his STATE Rule guru told them and where, Yours is from a guy with 1 years experience 54 times. Then you try to take a run at well respected people on this forum with the tripe you have been spitting.

My comments said you can possibly argue your point with the use of the judgement terms, but once you mention the Ball not being there, the FED casebook says YOU ARE WRONG! and you are then protestable.

You have a right to post, but we don't have a right to point out your flaws?? I'm sorry, but you missed the boat. The terms are up for judgement, but the only thing they have said FIRMLY is that not having the ball does not make the play NOT imminent. So for someone who was searching for SOME GUIDELINE, there it is the ball has to be somewhere between Caught and Hit. Now find and use some judgement to help officiate the game.

Have I ever once in the whole ridiculous thread ever said that I was right? I stated the way it was interpreted to our organization and the logic behind it. Just because all of you have told me I'm wrong doesn't mean I am. It just means that I have been given another interpretation which happens to conflict with yours. Don't try to read anything else into this because it isn't there. You are the ones who have taken exception to EVERYTHING I have said, taken if out of the context and twisted in into some sort of beast. Suffice to say we have differing opinions and let it go at that.

[Rich Ives]

Big:

Why do you keep pointing at Blue 37? You ask why we're not on his case? Maybe it's because he only posted once and he said:

Our State rules guy has stated in our rules meeting the past two years that the "player must have the ball" or it is obstruction. I disagree with that interpretation, but I will do what I am told to do.

Or maybe it's because he doesn't keep come back again and again and again trying to justify the call.



If you want to "go with the flow" in your area, go ahead, but don't be surprised if something bad comes of it some day.

Darn, if you can't take a bit of heat, how/why do you umpire?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Have I ever once in the whole ridiculous thread ever said that I was right {What, }? I stated the way it was interpreted {Delete: to our organization} and the logic behind it {Sure, }. Just because all of you have told me I'm wrong doesn't mean I am {Hmmm, }. It just means that I have been given another interpretation which happens to conflict with yours {Okay, }. Don't try to read anything else into this because it isn't there {Good, }. You are the ones who have taken exception to EVERYTHING I have said, taken it out of the context and twisted in into some sort of beast. Suffice it to say we have differing opinions and let it go at that {Cannot, }.

I remember a good laugh I had over the meaning of consistent a while back. Now "they're" back at it while using the word imminent. They do do it and it is consistently alright with them. Do it back and have fun with it too. If it was easy, there wouldn't be a need for NEW umpires.

For example, there is obstruction, interference and "tangle or untangle" to consider in most of these judgement cases. One umpire's correct judgement call may often become another's interpretation nighmare some other place and time.

Some lessons are painful and some are painless. I find the painful lessons are often the most hilarious or long-lasting after the years have gone by. My high school years weren't my very brightest either. It is all part of life. A fighting spirit may hurt; but what if it keeps you feeling young and healthy? Walk away, learn and relive. After all, an umpiring lesson over the internet really can't be too painful.

Originally Posted by SAump

I remember a good laugh I had over the meaning of consistent a while back. Now "they're" back at it while using the word imminent. They do do it and it is consistently alright with them. Do it back and have fun with it too. If it was easy, there wouldn't be a need for NEW umpires.

For example, there is obstruction, interference and "tangle or untangle" to consider in most of these judgement cases. One umpire's correct judgement call may often become another's interpretation nighmare some other place and time.

Some lessons are painful and some are painless. I find the painful lessons are often the most hilarious or long-lasting after the years have gone by. My high school years weren't my very brightest either. It is all part of life. A fighting spirit may hurt; but what if it keeps you feeling young and healthy? Walk away, learn and relive. After all, an umpiring lesson over the internet really can't be too painful.

Thank you for your refreshing perspective. I'm sure in 10 years I'll be laughing my head off. I can take the criticism - the personal insults are a different matter because they really don't belong here, but I'll get over it.
My 16 year old son wants to get into it as soon as he turns 17, probably just doing park district games for $50/game but it will be a good lesson for him as he needs to get some thick skin. Being an umpire will do that to you. Thanks again.