Failure to Slide

[Interested Ump]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

I do not like the wording "seek to avoid contact"

Baseball contrary to popular belief IS a contact sport. The rule is vague and can cause all kinds of problems the way it is worded.
Pete Booth

"All kinds of problems" for whom? Umpires? So what?

The rule is there to meet insurance regulations/guidelines and if this makes your life difficult, then go call MiLB. I tire of hearing the constant whine from umpires about how rules interps makes tier lives soooooo troblesome. I have a clue for all of you.

It's going to get worse than better.

Best you GTF up and deal with the realities, adults for many years tauaght kids to play baseball like football. The injuries and fatalities mounted until there haad to b something done. Now that these rules are being implemented, Pete here claims they create "all kinds of problems".

The problems are not the rules, they are Pete Booth.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

I have a clue for all of you.

It's going to get worse than better.

I don't disagree with that.

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

Best you GTF up and deal with the realities, adults for many years tauaght kids to play baseball like football. The injuries and fatalities mounted until there haad to b something done.

I don't if the problem really is Pete Booth, as you go on to say, but I wonder about that last sentence.

I've only been back in the States for about 14 months, now, but "fatalities mounted" ??? What, was there some kind of Jericho-like apocalypse I didn't hear about?

Kids have been killed, this much I know, but from line drives to the chest and head, usually. Is that somehow the fault of Evil Coaching? "Hit that ball in this way, son, so it stops his heart on contact."

Have you got numbers or anything on this subject?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Have you got numbers or anything on this subject?

Just consider the source...

[Rich Ives]

Example: R3 heading home, a tag play is evident HOWEVER, the ball now sails over F2's head or gets by F2. According to the way the rule is written R3 MUST slide even though there is no need to.

How can a tag play be evident if F2 doesn't have the ball?

[PeteBooth]

The definition of evident is not "F2 has the ball". By evident I interpret to mean the old FED terminolgy "imminent in nature" If the USSSA houserule did mean "A fileder has possession of the ball" then that's how they should have worded it.

Also, a runner does not have only 3 choices as was mentioned in the USSSA rule. They can come in "standing up", however, if you go by their "house rule" that is not one of the options.

Personally (and FED is now doing this somewhat) is go by the NCAA ruling concerning collisions. Collision un-avoidabe - play on Collission avoidable then penalize. IMO, FED will also adopt this type language in the years to come.

You cannot take "contact" out of baseball.

Pete Booth

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The definition of evident is not "F2 has the ball". By evident I interpret to mean the old FED terminolgy "imminent in nature" If the USSSA houserule did mean "A fileder has possession of the ball" then that's how they should have worded it.

Also, a runner does not have only 3 choices as was mentioned in the USSSA rule. They can come in "standing up", however, if you go by their "house rule" that is not one of the options.

Personally (and FED is now doing this somewhat) is go by the NCAA ruling concerning collisions. Collision un-avoidabe - play on Collission avoidable then penalize. IMO, FED will also adopt this type language in the years to come.

You cannot take "contact" out of baseball.

Pete Booth

My interpretation would be that it isn't about "evident", it's about "tag play". No ball, no play. Similar to the LL rule that only kicks in if the fielder actually has the ball.

[PeteBooth]

Rich your answer is the point. Your interpretation would be different from mine so on an so forth.

At least LL's rule is SPECIFIC the USSSA rule is not it's vague in nature

Pete Booth

[Rich]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The definition of evident is not "F2 has the ball". By evident I interpret to mean the old FED terminolgy "imminent in nature" If the USSSA houserule did mean "A fileder has possession of the ball" then that's how they should have worded it.

Also, a runner does not have only 3 choices as was mentioned in the USSSA rule. They can come in "standing up", however, if you go by their "house rule" that is not one of the options.

Personally (and FED is now doing this somewhat) is go by the NCAA ruling concerning collisions. Collision un-avoidabe - play on Collission avoidable then penalize. IMO, FED will also adopt this type language in the years to come.

You cannot take "contact" out of baseball.

Pete Booth

God, I read that and I wonder how I cope year upon year.

I know: I just call the freaking games and I don't worry about it.

Saturday I had my first games. Pitcher licks hand, goes to the ball, steps on the rubber. Ball 1. Easy.

Obstruction? Even easier this year than before. I'll call it just how they want it.

Why wring your hands over it? Just call the game.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

I don't disagree with that.



I don't if the problem really is Pete Booth, as you go on to say, but I wonder about that last sentence.

I've only been back in the States for about 14 months, now, but "fatalities mounted" ??? What, was there some kind of Jericho-like apocalypse I didn't hear about?

Kids have been killed, this much I know, but from line drives to the chest and head, usually. Is that somehow the fault of Evil Coaching? "Hit that ball in this way, son, so it stops his heart on contact."

Have you got numbers or anything on this subject?

Sure did. Posted in a new thread, got deleted. Take it up with the mystery deldeter since Jenkins isn't doing it.