Following the Rules

[harmbu]

Once again I will apologize to all who I offended by my "reaction" to the first few posts. Had I thought about it first, I would not have responded the way did.

As has been pointed out, I should have been more clear on what happened. Here is my attempt to do that:

--The pitch was a fastball and the batter just stood there.

--I did not come out of the dugout with the rulebook in my hand. I had it in my pocket and asked if I could show him before taking it out. Had he said "no", I would have never taken it out.

--My issue was not with the call as much as with the way it was handled after the fact. This has been addressed by some of the replies. I am glad to hear that I am not alone in feeling that he shouldn't have brought the interpreter into the discussion.

[shickenbottom]

Originally Posted by harmbu

Once again I will apologize to all who I offended by my "reaction" to the first few posts. Had I thought about it first, I would not have responded the way did.

As has been pointed out, I should have been more clear on what happened. Here is my attempt to do that:

--The pitch was a fastball and the batter just stood there.

--I did not come out of the dugout with the rulebook in my hand. I had it in my pocket and asked if I could show him before taking it out. Had he said "no", I would have never taken it out.

--My issue was not with the call as much as with the way it was handled after the fact. This has been addressed by some of the replies. I am glad to hear that I am not alone in feeling that he shouldn't have brought the interpreter into the discussion.

I will preface by saying the umpires made their call based on the information they were supplied. This information is based on the "Intent" of the rule, not necessarily the "Letter" of the rule.

Your response to question based upon the letter of the rule may be correct, however, the umpires bungled their response due to lack of understanding for the intent of the rule.

A more appropriate response would have been, "Coach, it was a (describe whate ever type of pitch it was), that froze the batter in their tracks. Barring an "intentional" act to get hit with a pitch, they are being awarded first base. End of story.

Now, based on this hypothetical response, would you question this any futher?

[harmbu]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

this is how it would go if i were the PU

You: Can I show you what I have found?

Me: If you don't put that book away and return to the dugout NOW, you're done.

What if the coach had filed a protest at the point of the misapplication of the rule? Then would you have ejected him for getting out his rulebook?

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by harmbu

What if the coach had filed a protest at the point of the misapplication of the rule? Then would you have ejected him for getting out his rulebook?

You can protest the game without bringing the book onto the field, so yes, I would have ejected him. No need to try to show the umpire up, regardless of whether he is right or wrong.

[harmbu]

Originally Posted by umpduck11

You can protest the game without bringing the book onto the field, so yes, I would have ejected him. No need to try to show the umpire up, regardless of whether he is right or wrong.

I should have clarified. Here in Missouri, when a protest is "filed", the coach is given ten minutes to get out his rule book and show the umpire that he has misapplied the rule. I don't necessarily like this procedure, but this is what we are presented with in Missouri.

[PeteBooth]

Now you are "pulling our leg"

We all know or I should say most of us know that Missouri is called the "show" me state, so IMO, you are making a Pun on Missouri.

But even In Missouri there is still umpire Judgement

Pete Booth