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

[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.

[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.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by 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.

If this is correct, and I do not believe it is, then why do we allow the live ball appeal of a runner leaving early to be decided by the ball simply being returned to the base ahead of the runner? Per your ruling the defense would be required to tag the runner and not just return the ball to the base.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by 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.

OBR. This is only true at home plate. If R1 misses second as he rounds it, he can be out on appeal by the fielder simply saying "he missed the base" and then tagging the base regardless if the runner is trying to get back or not. Pro interpretations do not recognize J/R's interp of "relaxed/unrelaxed" for missed base appeals.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's because they stick all of the stuff they pull out into the DH section. It's huge enough that they think no one will notice.

Originally Posted by UMP25

Someone tell those announcers to just SHUT UP. THEIR ignorance isn't helping things, either!

If you're going to call someone ignorant, do it without making yourself look ignorant as well.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

If you're going to call someone ignorant, do it without making yourself look ignorant as well.

It's called a typo. It happens. I know full well the difference between "there," "they're," and "their," as well as "lose" and "loose."

Trust me; you don't want to pick a grammar fight with me.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

It's because they stick all of the stuff they pull out into the DH section. It's huge enough that they think no one will notice.

:

yea those 4 pages make a big difference, the NCAA rule book is great, and does not need to change.

[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