The Official Forum - FED 2002 Baseball Casebook

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - FED 2002 Baseball Casebook (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/3810-fed-2002-baseball-casebook.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
Papa C, you say, "When a runner leaves too soon, he is off with the pitch." Of course, he COULD be off with the pitch, and maybe everybody in the park knows he has to get back. But it's also leaving too soon if he goes back to tag at 1st and then leaves a split second before the catch, and maybe with everybody watching the center fielder, the ump is the only one who sees the infraction. Teams often neglect to appeal when the ump would have called an out. Do the rules differentiate between an obvious leaving too soon and a non-obvious one?

Should we all chip in and pay to have Kennedy, Breyer, Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and O'Connor weigh in? I would predict another 5-4 ruling.

All right. Whatever you say, Bubba!

I apologize to everyone. I didn't realize my chain was being yanked. My bad!

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jan 21st, 2002 at 03:12 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to read the rules, Childress

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B]

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

FED 8-3-5b: "When a runner, who is returning to touch a base after a batted ball has been caught, is prevented from doing so because a thrown live ball has become dead, his award shall be from the base he occupied at the time of the pitch."

Now, here's a play:<ul>R1 leaves early, touches second, nears third, and stops when he realizes the ball was caught and he has no chance to return safely to first. But the outfielder overthrows first, and the ball goes dead.</ul>Are you telling the world that FED rules require the umpire to award R1 HOME PLATE?

The rule says "when a runner, who is returning"..........
Does your example have a runner returning.....NO.
Does this apply..............NO.
Your example shows a runner "who is required to return" and not a runner "who is returning".
Have you supplied any rule, ruling, or caseplay to the contrary.......NO

Childress, you stated 12/29/01 at eTeamz

Quote:

Of course, it's necessary to infer intent on the part of batters, runners, and fielders, else we couldn't do our jobs. It's dangerous, as you show, to add that to our reading of the rules.
 [my emphasis]

Now, we know what you believe is not written in the rules.
To accept what you say, one must read into the rules the Fed's intent.

So my question is..............
Which Childress do we listen to:
<ol><LI>The one that says at eTeamz not to read things into the rules that aren't there, or
<li>The one at eUmpire that reads into the rules the Fed means "a runner required to return" when, in fact, their words say a runner "who is returning"</ol>
Inquiring people want to know.................Lah, me.
You seem to be a victim of your own writings.......

Just my opinion,

Freix{/B]

Freix:Quite simply, you are the stupiest person I've ever run into, short of an institution.

"Who is returning" means very simply that a runner has by rule been required to go back but cannot because the ball has become dead. It has not one thing to do with the direction of the runner.

Ask somebody in Ft. Worth. Try to find one who can read.

Ask Hensley.

Geez!

Carl Childress, Papa C: I'm new in this site, so I don't know what history you have with other posters and therefore what might be setting you off, but I'm not yanking your chain. All I want to do is understand how to apply certain rules in various situations. The posts have partly answered my questions but are still conflicting and confusing.

The FED book apparently contradicts itself, or is at best very ambiguous. The proof is that several obviously knowledgeable umpires would rule differently on certain variations of the play I brought up.

I thought the reference to the SCOTUS might lighten things up a bit, that's all.

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
Carl Childress, Papa C: I'm new in this site, so I don't know what history you have with other posters and therefore what might be setting you off, but I'm not yanking your chain. All I want to do is understand how to apply certain rules in various situations. The posts have partly answered my questions but are still conflicting and confusing.

The FED book apparently contradicts itself, or is at best very ambiguous. The proof is that several obviously knowledgeable umpires would rule differently on certain variations of the play I brought up.

I thought the reference to the SCOTUS might lighten things up a bit, that's all.

Look, ANYONE who registers gets to post "Just my opinion." There will ALWAYS be conflicting answers on any subject of merit.

Freix, for example, is a particularly annoying person because he doesn't understand baseball -- but thinks he does.

My resume is available. I would suggest you choose between a JV official (like Freix) and someone who's been writing on the rules for a quarter of a century.

Take it or leave it: I've done my last word on this subject. Hell, it's something any first-year official knows, and the language of FED is perfectly plain.

Childress, while I'll not lower myself to your level of insult or namecalling, I'll just again highlight that your self-professed success of 50% accuracy in making interpretaions has dropped immensely over the last 6 months with the many "misses" that you've had lately.
If you like, let me know and I'll list them for everyone.

Your record that was once no better than a coin flip at getting interpretations right is now far below that. Most would be more accurate in leaving their coin at home and just accepting any position against yours. The odds would be in their favor of being correct on any new interpretation (and, unfortunately, even some old ones). Worse, we've seen you support issues as ridiculous as a fielder's need to chase a runner throughout the outfield to get close enough to touch him before you'd call him for leaving the basepath.

While Babe Ruth was once a great home run hitter who ended his career with many strike outs, he was remembered for what he gave to the game. Please take it as a compliment, Childress, that you also will be remembered among officials for the same. I mean that sincerely. It's just a shame to now watch you strike out so frequently and try to hide it with your insults and inuendos. Wouldn't it be better to be remembered as having just a little bit of class?

Think about it as you go back to correcting the BRD again.

Just my opinion,

Freix

Re: Re: You need to read the rules, Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Here are the only points I made about FED:

1. If a runner leaves a base too soon, when the ball goes dead his award will be two bases measured from the time of the pitch.

2. If the runner's position is beyond a subsequent base and the ball goes dead, he is in jeopardy of an out on appeal after he receives his award.

Do you agree those two sentences accurately reflect NFHS rules?

Whether the runner has started back or is still running forward is absolutely irrelevant to any award.

Carl, it appears your point #1 and your final sentence quoted are incorrect.
For the record, this issue was discussed with Tim Stevens in a private forum.
Tim, I believe, is a writer for eUmpire and a Fed interpreter for state of Washington.

Tim advised:
<ol><li>The Fed award rule is written the way the Fed wants it
<li>The award on a runner needing to retouch a base is, indeed, 
based on the runner's actions at the time the ball goes dead, that is<ul><li>If the runner is attempting return, the award would be 2 bases from time of pitch<li>if the runner is not attempting return, the award would be 2 bases from runner's location at time of throw.</ul>
<li>This would still be an appeal play if the runner were on or beyond his advance base yet still returned illegitimately to retouch 1B before accepting his award
<li>If not appealed, the correct award would stand<li>Any illegitimate return should result in the appeal being upheld and the runner declared out<li>If the fielder were to "intentionally" throw the ball to dead ball territory while R1 was beyond his advance base, then R1 would still be required to return and retouch 1B, but his return is now legitimate and any appeal should not be upheld.
<li>While the Fed is aware of some errors needing correction for next year due to being overlooked in this year's changes, the award is not one of those</ol>

Hmmmm..............
So it seems at least for this point in time that Tim has provided us the proper way to determine making an award in Fed, and it is, indeed, based upon the runner's actions at the time the ball becomes dead, as I earlier reported.

Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:06 PM]