So who saw the rules screw-up in Wednesday's (4-15-09) Padres @ Mets game?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by zebra2955

unrelated but why is EVERYONE wearing 42

To honor Jackie Robinson. His number is retired in every MLB ballpark. Was it last year they started doing that for one day in the season?

[zebra2955]

Thanks

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Was Castillo a pinch hitter? That could change things.

From what I saw/heard while watching it live, Bob, no, he wasn't.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by zebra2955

unrelated but why is EVERYONE wearing 42

For the last couple seasons there was a fair amount of player/media debate over who should be wearing 42...some said only one player per team, some said, only the african americans should wear it...then MLB got smart, kept it simple and said, we're all wearing 42, even the umpires. done. best thing they could've done with JR day

[UMP25]

I agree. What Jackie Robinson did may have seemed insignificant, but when one looks back at it, it was quite important, and as his widow said at Citi Field Wednesday, he would have been both proud and overwhelmed by what happened.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I'm relaxing watching the Padres @ Mets game Wednesday night when the following happened:

Mets with a runner on base and Brian Schneider up to bat. With a 3-0 count and trying to bunt R1 over, Schneider takes a high and away pitch for ball four. As he drops the bat to go to first, Padres skipper heads to the mound to talk to his pitcher. Plate ump Paul Emmel breaks it up and we're ready to go with Castillo now up. He takes two balls, and with the count now 2-0, Padres skipper heads to the mound. Again. He gets to the foul line when Emmel puts up his hand as if to say, "Whoa! No can do."

There's a delay of a few seconds, Emmel looks at Crew Chief Gary Darling, who then waves the Padres manager to the mound and lets him continue. Padres skip briefly talks to his pitcher, then takes the ball from him as he brings in a new hurler.

They might as well re-write the rule book.

We have had the following:

A run put back on the Board some 3 innings later in the Indians O's game 2-3 yrs ago

Mets/ Braves - Botched Catch / No catch with bases juiced.
Ruling: the ball was retroactively declared dead at the time of the incorrect call - everyone up one base even though a runner passed another and all kinds of action going on.

Now this

Summary: Do not feel bad when us amateurs kick one - It happens

Pete Booth

[Durham]

I know you will probably diagree, but everything they did followed one basic tenant: "Common sense and fair play!" The objective of the game and purpose of the rules is to ensure that both teams have an equal playing field and neither team is placed at an unfair disadvantage. With that said, "Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Durham

With that said, "Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

Ask Jim Evans that. He'll tell ya.

[Durham]

Jim is a very great man and he has taught me a lot, but his voice is still only one man's. And sense you seem to know his view on the subject, please share.

[UMP25]

His voice may only be one man's, but has has stated more than once that baseball's rules ought to be rewritten in a way to eliminate contradictions, ambiguities, etc. Doing so, he explains, would result in the rules making more sense than they currently do.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Durham

I know you will probably diagree, but everything they did followed one basic tenant: "Common sense and fair play!"

Durham I hear you but we do not rule with "Common sense and fair play"

Example: F1 throws one high and inside. B1 trying to get out of the way but ball nics bat and dribbles out in front of home plate where F2 picks it up and the defense gets an easy out.

Now common sense and fair play would tell us that B1 was simply trying to avoid getting '"drilled" and the ball should simply be ruled FOUL. After all the Offense was put at a disadvantage and B1 was not trying to HIT the ball but simply protect himself.

If we rule by common sense and fair play then why have a rule-book at all.

Many rules make no sense but yet we are asked to enforce them.

"Why does the rule book need to be rewritten?"

At least 230 reasons why.

take a look at appeals. In discussing appeals ALL the KNOWN authorities use the terms "relaxed" / un-relaxed" You will NOT find those terms in the rule-book.

Pete Booth

[Durham]

Well, the NCAA continually tries to clarify their rule book and remove ambiguity and look at how much thicker it seems to get each year. And all the while the rules stay essentially unchanged. The OBR has worked for a hundred years with slight changes along the way, leave it alone.

[Durham]

I am no authority so maybe that is why I ask, "What in the world do relaxed and unrelaxed refer too?"

[UMP25]

Part of the reason the NCAA book seems to get thicker is because IMHO they're too concerned about things that may not be as critical as they believe, or because they seem to want to create new things about which to worry every year.

The coaches having to wear helmets now is one example.

[Armadillo_Blue]

The terms refer to the status of the runner upon whom the appeal is being made. If the runner is making an attempt to return to the bag after missing it then a tag must be applied. If the runner is not attempting to return then the action is unrelaxed and the base can be touched and a verbal appeal made.