"One thousand one..."

[tballump]

I believe I read somewhere long ago that a "change of direction" was considered a stop at one time. It seems like it was from a series of articles written by Nick Bremingan (who was the rules instructor at the Bill Kinnamon umpire school) for "Referee" magazine.

By the laws of physics, when there was a change of direction, there had to have been a stop, and therefor a change of direction technically met the definition of a stop for OBR. I do not know if that is the same ruling now.

You would need some of the veteran umpires to bring us up to speed from that old interpretation to whatever the interpretation is now.

Veterans chime in.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tballump

I believe I read somewhere long ago that a "change of direction" was considered a stop at one time. It seems like it was from a series of articles written by Nick Bremingan (who was the rules instructor at the Bill Kinnamon umpire school) for "Referee" magazine.

By the laws of physics, when there was a change of direction, there had to have been a stop, and therefor a change of direction technically met the definition of a stop for OBR. I do not know if that is the same ruling now.

You would need some of the veteran umpires to bring us up to speed from that old interpretation to whatever the interpretation is now.

Veterans chime in.

Change of direction was sufficient in NCAA ball until relatively recently. AFAIK, it hasn't been acceptable in OBR for many years.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by tballump

I believe I read somewhere long ago that a "change of direction" was considered a stop at one time. It seems like it was from a series of articles written by Nick Bremingan (who was the rules instructor at the Bill Kinnamon umpire school) for "Referee" magazine.

By the laws of physics, when there was a change of direction, there had to have been a stop, and therefor a change of direction technically met the definition of a stop for OBR. I do not know if that is the same ruling now.

You would need some of the veteran umpires to bring us up to speed from that old interpretation to whatever the interpretation is now.

Veterans chime in.

The "change of direction" was accepted in NCAA. This changed somewhere around 1999 (I think). UCLA professor proved to the NCAA that he could change directions without coming to a stop by simply starting close to the body, dropping his hands as normal but by moving the arms out slightly and raising the hands, there is no stopping of motion. This simple test proved what NCAA umpires were complaining about for years! Umpires were showing this same motion to the NCAA committee but because they were not "professors", no one would believe them. Either way, the rule has been changed.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by tballump

By the laws of physics, when there was a change of direction, there had to have been a stop, and therefor a change of direction technically met the definition of a stop for OBR.



Veterans chime in.

Only if the change is exactly 180 degrees.

Travelling in a circle is a constant change of direction but there's no stop. Making a small loop at the bottom of the hand drop is a change of direction but no stop.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by tballump

By the laws of physics, when there was a change of direction, there had to have been a stop,

Not a physics major, I take it.

[tballump]

Not a physics major, I take it.

Absolutely not. I'm not even a rocket scientist. I've been hit in the head one to many times by those kids in tball slinging the bat. Guess I will have to hide behind the fence till the next guy comes before putting the ball on the tee.

But, I was just trying to remember the explanation from that article by Nick Bremigan the best I could. Seems like he wrote a series of plays and situation articles years ago for "Referee" magazine and anyone who kept all their old editions could probably help me out here. However, since that interpretation is obsolete from the responses, it does not matter.