FED appeal situation

JJ · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 17, 2002, 08:48pm

FED Appeal question. Batter 2 triples with two out but misses first base. The defense does NOT appeal - instead they ask for intentional walks to Batter 3 and Batter 4. AFTER the bases are loaded BUT BEFORE THE NEXT PITCH, the defense appeals Batter 2's missing first base. Do you honor the appeal? The rule says to honor the appeal "Before the next pitch, legal or illegal", and since no pitch has been thrown they want the appeal. How do you justify NOT honoring the appeal, if that's the way you go?

Yes, I think the rule needs some "cleaning up" for 2003.

bob jenkins · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 17, 2002, 10:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JJ
FED Appeal question. Batter 2 triples with two out but misses first base. The defense does NOT appeal - instead they ask for intentional walks to Batter 3 and Batter 4. AFTER the bases are loaded BUT BEFORE THE NEXT PITCH, the defense appeals Batter 2's missing first base. Do you honor the appeal? The rule says to honor the appeal "Before the next pitch, legal or illegal", and since no pitch has been thrown they want the appeal. How do you justify NOT honoring the appeal, if that's the way you go?

Yes, I think the rule needs some "cleaning up" for 2003.

Yes, it's a valid appeal (at least under this year's rules), and, yes, I think the rule needs changing for next year.

(I seem to recall that I've heard of one state that has said that and IW neates the right to appeal.)

Alligator Bag · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 17, 2002, 11:54pm

Since we play with speed up rules and the not pitched intentional walk is just a speed up to the game, the fact that he gets 1st base because of the IW has to be considered a pitched ball in some way. I would not allow the appeal to stand. If the appeal were to stand, you cannot justify allowing the intentional walks, hence, my argument to not allowing the appeal.

HOLDTHE · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 12:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by Alligator Bag
Since we play with speed up rules and the not pitched intentional walk is just a speed up to the game, the fact that he gets 1st base because of the IW has to be considered a pitched ball in some way. I would not allow the appeal to stand. If the appeal were to stand, you cannot justify allowing the intentional walks, hence, my argument to not allowing the appeal.

You are incorrect.

From Kyle McNeely advisor to the FED rules committee.

Play 2: With the score tied in the bottom of the seventh and two outs, B3 doubles but does not touch first. The coach of the defense, being well versed in the rules, decides not to appeal the missed base immediately. Instead, he chooses intentionally to walk B4, B5, and B6, who are collectively 9 for 9 in the game. With his boosters looking for his coaching contract so they can tear it up as the apparent winning run is intentionally walked in, he then appeals the missed base by B3.

Ruling 2: LAST YEAR: The base umpire would have called B3 out as soon as playing action was over. We would have gone to the eighth inning. THIS YEAR: As long as the base umpire declares B3 out on the appeal (and it took a big set of guts by the coach to take that risk) the run by B3 would be negated. The next batter for the home team in the bottom of the eighth would be B7. In essence, the coach got through the strength of the line-up without throwing a pitch.

Alligator Bag · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 12:33am

I can understand allowing the appeal, maybe, but if the appeal is the batter who missed first, I don't understand the reasoning to allowing them, in essence, to skip over the IW'd batters. If the out is B3, what can take place after that? Those walked batters should be allowed to bat next inning. This is over punishing the offense for a missed base.

[Edited by Alligator Bag on Mar 17th, 2002 at 11:36 PM]

DrC. · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 01:47pm

That case play mentioned is just a horrible interpretation..

If you want to appeal, then do it and get it over with. In that case play, he's SLOWING up the game by using the SPEED up Rule. This game is suppose to be for kids to have fun and learn how to play baseball. What is that teaching. How to bend rules, become perhaps a LAWYER !!!

IndianaUmpRef · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 02:21pm

I know the rule might not be written at the moment. But, when it comes to appealing a play, if an intentional walk is made, I WILL NEVER ACCEPT AN APPEAL PLAY from the batter before. An intentional walk is as good as a pitch to me. I can't believe any coach would do such a thing either. Seems unsportsmanlike to me.

If the coach wants to get the rulebook out after that... then we'll have to negotiate I guess. He better find the rule quick though, because otherwise we're playing ball, and he misses out.

Roger Greene · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 03:26pm

I've read posts from umpires declaring to refuse to call accidential appeals on force plays and now declaring to ignore the Fed inteprtation of "after a pitch".

If we all decide to ignore the rules that we don't like, how long before the games decend to disorder, and we end up ejecting coaches every game because they don't like "our" rules?

Fed has been consistant and reasonably clear on what the current rule is. If you take an assignement to call using Fed rules, you should call by their rules!

Roger Greene

Rich Ives · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 04:03pm

Zach: Does Indiana allow protests? If they do, you'll get overruled.

DrC: The guys who wrote the rule says it's OK - why do you need a lawyer?

Roger: Good Post!

greymule · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 04:41pm

If the coach is sure he'll get the appeal, why not, just for fun, intentionally walk ten batters? Twenty batters? Keep walking guys until it gets too dark to play and then appeal. How does the scorer account for the fact that twenty-three guys "batted" in one inning and their team got no runs?

Yet another obvious oversight by the Fed. But I agree, with an official interpretation, you have to go along with it if you're the ump.

Bfair · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 06:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JJ
FED Appeal question. Batter 2 triples with two out but misses first base. The defense does NOT appeal - instead they ask for intentional walks to Batter 3 and Batter 4. AFTER the bases are loaded BUT BEFORE THE NEXT PITCH, the defense appeals Batter 2's missing first base. Do you honor the appeal? The rule says to honor the appeal "Before the next pitch, legal or illegal", and since no pitch has been thrown they want the appeal. How do you justify NOT honoring the appeal, if that's the way you go?

Yes, I think the rule needs some "cleaning up" for 2003.

JJ, as Kevin points out, even though the coach may feel certain this based was missed, there is no guarantee the umpire saw it. This is a highly risky move on behalf of the coach. Although it might happen, I'd feel the odds of it happening are slim to none...........

Just my opinion,

Freix

IndianaUmpRef · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 18, 2002, 08:22pm

Protests are allowed in Indiana HS baseball, and if they want to protest, then by all means, please do so. And its not like I am picking the rules I want to enforce and jt enforcing them. This one to me is just illogical. I think that allowing an intentional walk by a defensive team is forfeiting your right to any appeal on previous batter-runners. I know the rule is not in there, but its definitely a part of the book that the rules people missed and I am not going to let a team be hurt because of it.

Carl Childress · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 19, 2002, 12:58am

Quote:

Originally posted by IndianaUmpRef
Protests are allowed in Indiana HS baseball, and if they want to protest, then by all means, please do so. And its not like I am picking the rules I want to enforce and jt enforcing them. This one to me is just illogical. I think that allowing an intentional walk by a defensive team is forfeiting your right to any appeal on previous batter-runners. I know the rule is not in there, but its definitely a part of the book that the rules people missed and I am not going to let a team be hurt because of it.

Zach:

You should not be permitted to umpire a FED game with your attitude. I am not and I think and to me. Frankly, nobody cares what your opinion is.

You are hired to call by the rules. For example:

1. The pitcher in the set position swings his shoulder slowly to check a runner at first, and the umpire cries "Balk."

2. The DH hits for the second baseman, not the pitcher.

3. The pitcher balks, pitches, and the batter homers. The umpire disallows the home run.

4. A runner interferes with a fielder attempting to catch a foul pop fly, and the umpire calls out the batter!

How do YOU feel about those calls? In every case "regular" baseball is different from the FED rule.

You are the kind of umpire who gives officials of amateur games a bad name.

#14 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 19, 2002, 01:22am

Zach:
I hate to tell you but Kevin and CC, as well as others, are both right. McNeely has made that ruling nationally and that makes it the way to call it. If you refuse to call the illogical ones in FED you're missing quite a few rules that way. Carl gave you some good examples of the oddity of FED.

IndianaUmpRef · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 19, 2002, 01:28am

Carl,

I didn't make that reply to be bashed as an umpire, but I guess that is deserved.

I do make the calls according to the rules all the time. I love the game of baseball and love to officiate it. It's just THIS RULE that makes me cringe a little.

You act like I am a very opinionated umpire, which in fact I am not. I think it is that nature that has helped me to recieve good assignments over my few years of umpiring. I just made ONE opinion. And that is that a requesting and granting of an intentional walk to a batter should constitute a legal pitch, that's all. I did blow this out of proportion, I will say. And I apologize.

If I have offended anyone by doing this, I am VERY SORRY.

But, please don't question my integrity... I would never wish that upon ANY umpire. Especially one that I don't know.

Again, I am very sorry if I offended anyone on here. I love this forum and visit frequently (even though I don't post that often). I hope no one is upset with me.

Thanks, Carl, for your time and effort in this website and to the sport.