There are RULES and there are RULES

[PeteBooth]

We just had a lengthy discussion concerning FED and a runner going into right field. Some will call it by the book and some will say - That ain't baseball and either stop it and give the coach a warning or even call the runner out.

The aforementioned leaves me to the point of my thread.

Which rules do you enforce and which ones do you ignore or do you simply call everything by the book?

Example, FED rule 3-2-1

While occupying a coach's box, he / she shall be in uniform of his / her team.

I do not know about you, but at the modified, Freshman and even some JV Teams, there are many coaches who don't have uniforms. We all come from different parts of the country so my statement could be true or false depending upon location, but I am speaking of my area.

Do you refuse to allow a coach to be in the box? or ignore?

The point I'm getting at is that there are rules in the book known as Nit-pick'n The 2 most common are:

1. Uniform Rules
2. 20 second rule for F1

In addition, I know of some veteran FED umpires that simply refuse to call the shoulder Turn (while on the rubber) balk in a FED game.

Therefore, what criteria do you use for determining which rules you will enforce from those that you don't? Does it depend upon the knowledge base of the coach involved? or do you have a general criteria? or Do you simply call everything "by the book"?

Pete Booth

[Rich Coyle]

I try very hard to not be overly officious. I beleive it was on this board that somebody suggested that we "not look for boogers" -- I couldn't agree more.

There are RULES that directly affect the outcome of the game. Three strikes are an out, a ball in flight leaving the field is a home run, interference, obstruction, etc.

There are rules that do not directly affect the outcome of the game. In sub-varsity play, many schools do not budget for coach's uni's -- I always tell the new guys to judge whether the guy is trying to look like he's with the team (school colors, etc.) or whether one of the three coaches is just an ***.

Similarly, I don't stand with a stop watch on the 20sec rule --- rather, I've developed the sense to know when somebody is delaying the game and I'll talk with the coach between innings.

While is should go without saying, safety rules are always enforced as are sportsmanship rules at all youth levels. When I work adult ball, my tolerance for some verbal stuff is a little larger.

I guess the analogy is this: the speed limit is 65 mph on the highway; I don't think I know of anybody who has gotten a ticket for 67. They were breaking the law but it was not worth enforcing.

Just my 2 cents worth...

[greymule]

Last summer I agreed to do a game in a tournament sponsored by a local minor league team. The entries were ostensibly from "city" environments, and the players were up to 16 years old. We were to play under Fed rules. I'd say the overall level was like good high school Junior Varsity.

When I arrived at the complex, the director told me to go do the plate on field number whatever. Then an ump I had worked with in school ball said, out of the side of his mouth, "You'll love working with Letterlaw. He overofficiates like crazy."

Sure enough. Eddie called time on the first batter and came in to inspect the bat. (It was legal.) At the end of the first half-inning, he came in and told me that a batter had stepped out of the box and I didn't bang a strike on him. Throughout the game, he chastised me between innings for not calling those strikes. I said, "As long as the game keeps moving, Eddie, I'm not going to worry about it." That afternoon, Eddie called six balks on one pitcher for failing to come to a complete stop.

In the sixth, R1, a rather heavy kid, was on second with two outs. B2, another husky boy, got a base on balls. As B2 literally walked to 1B and R1 stood with both feet on 2B looking out to right field, the offensive coach began to walk out to the mound and asked for time. So I said, "Time out!"

"No time!" screamed Eddie. Everybody in the park (including me) looked at him wondering what was going on. Two seconds later, B1 stepped on first. "Now time," announced Eddie.

On the one hand, Eddie was right on every particular. On the other hand . . .

[GarthB]

Since I don't hail from Texas, I'll try to explain my thoughts without writing a major thesis. {

As the thread began, there are rules and there are rules.

I try to follow part of the Hippocratic Oath, "First, do no harm."

In my work, that means first of all, I will not rule something illegal that is, in fact, legal. (This was the thrust of many of the posts on the "other" thread)

Other than that, I will do my best to let the players, within a consistent interpretation and application of the rules, play the game.

Having been a cop, I also never ticketed for 2 miles over the speed limit. But seven? Watch out!

On the other hand, one time when I knew I was dealing with a local burglar on a carstop, I did trick him into giving me "permission" to search his trunk. The maneuver withstood a court challenge, and we removed, at least temporarily, one "bad guy" from the street.

[greymule]

I admit that I often overlook the jewelry rule in ASA slow pitch (never in Fed or fast-pitch). I was once sent 20 miles into the backwoods to do some league's "championship game," only to find a field with (a) four-foot-high solid wood foul poles firmly in the ground about 180 feet down each line (the outfielders played FAR behind the poles), (b) piles of scrap wood in left field (deep but reachable), (c) a large swing set in left-center field (d) a huge tree easily within reach in right center, (e) in right, about 250 feet out, a steep hill that sloped down to a thicket, (f) on the first-base side, a permanent, unmovable players' bench at a 45 degree angle to the line and within 8 feet of it, (f) movable bases with no two at all alike. (The ground rules took awhile.) The opponents were the "Junk Yard Dogs" and the "Bad Boys," each team identified by black homemade T-shirts with silver lettering. Earrings, nose rings, tongue rings, tattoos, bandannas, and studded paraphernalia abounded. For safety reasons, the Harleys were parked behind the backstop.

"Sorry guys, you have to take off all that jewelry. In addition, I find the field to be unsafe, so I cannot let this contest begin. Good-bye, everyone!"

Good-bye indeed!

[bluezebra]

"While occupying a coach's box, he / she shall be in uniform of his / her team."

In California (CIF) it was decided that "neutral" colors would be legal: white, black, tan, gray. No jeans. I don't think anyone, even walk-on coaches, should have a problem with this.

Bob

[Bfair]

Although internet discussions can help, Pete, the answer to your question is mostly gained through experience, and the decisions that are made can impact one's progress significantly. An overofficious umpire will be left behind. An official not calling what should be called risks being viewed as incapable or lacking knowledge.

Most officials don't pick boogers on things such as keeping coach's in their boxes, or guaranteeing F3 is in fair territory as the rules may require him to be. Timing issues of getting batters into the box and pitchers to pitch are relative to the overall flow of the game. These, however, are not the difficult decisions.

Greater difficulty comes in when deciding to overlook situations that occur during playing action. Carl has cited a situation whereby a pitcher is in the windup position and desires to change to the set position. When all are aware F1 is NOT starting his windup, he mistakenly steps back off the rubber with his nonpivot foot. While many say call that balk, the intent of the rule has not been compromised. I agree with Carl here, that it's something I am not going to see unless immediately accompanied by a pickoff throw, or unless so obvious that the people in Cleveland saw it. It's a technical infraction that is borderline booger pickin in my book. My experience in being alert to the other happenings at the time key me as to whether I call it or not.

I had a situation a week ago in a Fed game where, with R1 only, batter hits a high pop-up toward F4. R1 had taken a quick step or two toward 2nd, but immediately reversed his direction---chesting F3 twice in his attempt to return to 1B. Obstruction---yes, by the book. Did I call it? NO.

While the runner was a mere 10 ft from 1B, the ball had not yet reached it's apex, which was very high. The runner, despite the obstructive act, had easily returned to 1B. To complicate this matter, F4 blew the catch, thus causing R1 to be toast as a force out at 2nd. The offensive coach came out to question the no-call, and I advised him I didn't judge it to have hindered the runner. The coach put up little opposition, knowing he was merely begging for something he didn't earn.

Calling obstruction was likely the correct call per the book, yet the wrong call for the situation. It would have altered the play significantly from what would have normally occurred. Although there was definite, hard physical contact---it did not hinder the runner in accomplishing what he was trying to do. While some may think this obstruction should have been called, I felt it should not.

When advantages are gained, the rules should not be overlooked.
No advantage was gained due to the obstruction, thus--no call. Learning intent of the rules, and being able to quickly recognize advantage/disadvantage in certain situations is learned with experience. It's not an easy road, and mistakes will be made along the way. Honestly critique yourself after each game as to what you may have done right or wrong, and what you may have done differently to be better. Remember, however, making an unpopular call is not a wrong decision if it nullified an advantage that was illegally gained.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[jicecone]

Heck are schools are so poor they don't even have coaches boxes, let alone uniforms.

[etbaseball]

Pete ...

"When in Rome, do as the Roman's do," even though Roman baseball is not very good.

My point is this: ADVANTAGE / DISADVANTAGE ..is the real question. Some of us are minimalists. Some maximalists. One umpire will over officiate, while another will only act when absolutely mandatory. Both seem to miss the point of balancing their respective performances, so that the game may be played with 'proper' jurisprudence (the science or philosophy of law). Are we not arbiters? Shouldn't all of our decisions be weighed for 'balance.' It's so obvious. BALL / STRIKE ... FAIR / FOUL ... CATCH / NO-CATCH ... SAFE / OUT. They all require judgement, good judgement!

I advocate being flexible on 'non-critical' elements of the game. Yes, "let the kids play." All rules concerning safety and fairness shouldn't be overlooked, all else requires good subjective (that's what it is) judgemnet. We all work in a very subjective environment. Our differences vary from slight, to "WOW, I'd never do that." Find some balance to all that you do. You know the expression "we should all cry, and laugh too, each day."

Adapt to the game within the game. Weigh everything, but keep the product you deliver balanced with what may be necessary or needed. Nothing more, nothing less, except do the very best you can. If you short-change the participants of the game, remember that means you short-change yourself as well.





[Edited by etbaseball on Mar 11th, 2002 at 04:15 PM]

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Jim Mills

I know I'm not going to change your mind. The foregoing is food for thought for those who may be "on the fence."

Jim I know you said you do not want to change our minds but let me offer "this" to you and get your opinion.

As umpires we are asked to use good sound judgement on every play. Whether a pitch is a strike / ball, whether a runner is out / safe and we also have to judge intent on plays dealing with interference on a thrown ball.

The point I'm getting at is: Why shouldn't we be afforded the same luxury concerning these technical type rules?

Here's another sitch for you: Game tied last inning 2 outs bases juiced - full count. F1 while on the pitcher's plate (FED Game) or in the 18 ft. circle (OBR) goes to his mouth and does not wipe the ball clean before delivering the pitch.

Are you going to call Ball 4 - Game over?

As a player I have been on both the winning / losing end of games that ended on a technicality and in either instance it didn't feel good. Yes when we won a big game we celebrated, but deep down inside we knew we didn't earn it. Same was true when we lost. We said that team did not beat us.

IMO, there should be a section or at least an UMPIRES ONLY Section dealing specifically with technicalities and allow us to use Our judgement as to when these should be enforced.

As I said, if I have to use my judgement on just about every other aspect of baseball why not the Technicalities as well.

As far as your example of r1 not being able to score on a double by B1 because he wasn't on second IMO, is not a good one. R1 gets on second by either stealing the base meaning he /she beat F1 or F2 or by getting F1 to Commit a "real" balk, like causing him to quick pitch or feint a throw while on the pitcher's plate.

When r1, r2 or r3 are just standing on their respective bases - going nowhere and F1 changes positions illegally - IMO, I do subscribe to the theory Advantage / Disadvantage This is probably cause for a different thread altogether but the Balk rules should be simplifyed and someone should go over these Technical Type Balks with a fine tooth comb to see if they are in fact valid.

Now if F1 while doing something illegally trys to suddenly gain an advantage that's a horse of a different color

I'm not trying to change your mind either but simply point out that as umpires we use judgement all the time and we should be able to use that judgement when enforcing some of these technicalities

Pete Booth




[Edited by PeteBooth on Mar 12th, 2002 at 01:16 PM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jim Mills

Play 1: First inning, no outs, R1. Pitcher assumes the windup position. "Jason, go from the set!" yells his manager.

Me: "Time" (or hold up my hand).

Play 2: same game, fifth inning, one out, R1, no score. Pitcher assumes the windup position. "Jason, go from the set!" yells his manager.

Me: "Time" (or hold up my hand)

[/quote]Play 3: seventh inning, two outs, Jason's team winning, 1-0, R1, R3. Jason pitches properly from the set until the count is 2-2 on the batter. Then he forgets and assumes the windup. (I've seen it happen many times.) "Jason, go from the set!" yells his manager. [/QUOTE]

Me: "Time" (or hold up my hand)

[JJ]

"Time". I'm with Bob. Good preventive officiating which puts no one at a disadvantage (especially on lower levels of ball).

[etbaseball]

Bob J. ....


Sure sounds like 'aiding and abetting' to me ...

I THINK I WOULD DO THE FOLLOWING:
If it were a JV game as soon as it happened the first time I would call "time" - then let F-1 know what he did wrong. At the inning break share the same info with the coach, and then call 'balk' from that moment forward.

Now if it were a varsity game. From pitch one untill the end of the game ... SEE A BALK - CALL A BALK ! I personally think a lot of umps are somewhat timid about calling balks. However, for those of us who are formere pitchers it's a different story. Even thought some may argue that the pitching rules need to change, they are what they are and should be enforced.

Through experience I've discovered that if you call that 'balk' the very first time it happens ... more often than not, the problem is solved for the remainder of the game. Once teams and pitchers know that you will enforce the balk rules they somehow deminish or completely dissappear.

[Patrick Szalapski]

I can't go for calling time in that situation, either. There is no good reason for it other than we want to avoid making a tough call. The manager is allowed to yell at his players, and we have to deal with the consequences. I realize, though, this is a judgment/experience decision on your part, but I just can't hop on board.

P-Sz

[Bfair]

Jim............
You seemed to have jumped to Carl's old play from "51 Ways to Ruin a Game". If you will note, I did not reference that specific play, but rather, I merely referenced the concept. I'm not sure if I would agree with Carl in that specific play, but I would agree with Carl in the concept.

Jim, look again at what I originally wrote:

When all are aware F1 is NOT starting his windup, he mistakenly steps back off the rubber with his nonpivot foot. While many say call that balk, the intent of the rule has not been compromised. I agree with Carl here, that it's something I am not going to see unless immediately accompanied by a pickoff throw, or unless so obvious that the people in Cleveland saw it. It's a technical infraction that is borderline booger pickin in my book. My experience in being alert to the other happenings at the time key me as to whether I call it or not.

In Carl's play, the coach yells out to his pitcher to change pitching positions. IMO, this has drawn attention to him, and now makes him the focus of the people watching from Cleveland. While it's possible I might balk such a pitcher for improperly disengaging, I'd have to weigh other factors. Certainly if R3 were standing on 3rd base, I'd not consider a pickoff move likely, and thus I'd not be apt to balk F1 UNLESS I felt those in Cleveland saw the improper disengagement. That's my choice as an official, or as an overly officious official---depending on how I see the situation. I'm not afraid of taking some heat from the offensive coach if that's what it means. I've learned to handle such situations.

OTH, taking the concept of overlooking technical infractions where no advantage is gained and those in Cleveland don't see it.................

With R3 only. Ball is live and pitcher is in windup position and appears ready to pitch. As he looks to the plate, B5 has not entered the box, and F2 hasn't yet put on his mask. F1 elects to disengage rubber, but does so by stepping back with his nonpivot foot.

It seems to me that F1 may have just been a little ahead of the action and didn't want to stand on the rubber while others were preparing to continue. He may even have felt the ball was dead at the time even though it wasn't. He has made no attempt to deceive R3 nor to make a pickoff there.

So.......just between you and I, Jim, I'm sure not gonna ring F1 for a balk and send R3 home to DisneyWorld with this freebie of a technical infraction. It is not the spirit and intent of the rule. Furthermore, Jim, in amateur ball I see this type occurrence happen more than one might think. I'll also see a pitcher engaged ready to stretch, but when he looks to the plate (during a live ball situation) the others are not ready. Rather than stepping back off the rubber, he may disengage forward or to the side. I don't balk it.

The decisions of whether or not to enforce technical infractions are made by the official for the specific play involved and encompass many varying factors. Those are decisions that will be made differently by different officials. Some will overlook more than others. Some will make mistakes by unnecessarily calling infractions that do not violate the intent and spirit of the rule, while the mistakes of others may be in overlooking too much that should not be overlooked. It's a learning curve that will improve (hopefully) with experience of the official. As stated earlier, mistakes will be made along the way---but learn from the mistakes. An official's ability to make the correct decisions in such instances can have a significant impact on his progress as an official.


Just my opinion,

Freix