“Coach Dad” Shenanigans

[David B]

Originally Posted by mbyron

"No it isn't. Rule 8.05."

Exactly, the best way I handle coaches is with the actual rule. Since they don't know the rules it puts them obviously on the defensive.

Thanks
David

[cc6]

Originally Posted by David B

Exactly, the best way I handle coaches is with the actual rule. Since they don't know the rules it puts them obviously on the defensive.

Thanks
David

Tim_C would say to never cite a specific rule in an argument.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by cc6

Tim_C would say to never cite a specific rule in an argument.

I would agree w/ TimC on that one. No need to show him up...he'll probably look it up anyway...or ask one of his buddies at work the next day who "umps" and he'll let him know.

[David B]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I would agree w/ TimC on that one. No need to show him up...he'll probably look it up anyway...or ask one of his buddies at work the next day who "umps" and he'll let him know.

Come on guys - this is not rocket science. We are not talking about quoting verbatim rules to a coach, that would be as Tim would say OOO.

We're talking, coach comes to discuss rule, (with some dumb observations or other comments as was discussed in OP above). Coach, the rule states that (and we give a very quick but concise rule statement) and then we move on.

This gets the job done, without sounding OOO, and definitely puts the coach on notice, I know what I'm doing and that's what we going to adhere to in THIS game today.

I don't spend much time talking to coaches during a game, just my style.

Maybe I made it sound like we going to be quoting rules etc., or as some would do, pull their rule book out .... just kidding!!!


Thanks
David

[DG]

I just read 8.05 again and I don't see anything on this "move". However, J/R says it is a balk if a pitcher "throws to first baseman who, because of his distance from the base, is (or would have been) unable to try a tag against a runner at first base."

I can envision a possible attempt at a tag in this situation if F1 is catching the ball 5 feet from the bag while moving toward the bag.

If memory serves this "move" is covered in the Evans Balk video as well.

[JR12]

The MLBUM says a throw to F3 not near the bag is a balk, however a throw to a middle infielder or third baseman, not near 2nd or 3rd is NOT a balk!

[DG]

Originally Posted by JR12

The MLBUM says a throw to F3 not near the bag is a balk, however a throw to a middle infielder or third baseman, not near 2nd or 3rd is NOT a balk!

It also says "and is obviously not making an attempt at retiring the runner at first base". In this situation "F3 breaks toward the bag (timing play) and F1 throws the ball to him five feet away from 1B."

[btdt]

On the Jim Evans balk video, he specifically shows this play and proclaims it legal. I will go with Jim Evans ............. it's legal

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

It also says "and is obviously not making an attempt at retiring the runner at first base". In this situation "F3 breaks toward the bag (timing play) and F1 throws the ball to him five feet away from 1B."

5 feet is pretty near the effin bag. I agree with those that have "no balk" on the play as described.

[dileonardoja]

Don't really see the problem with this play. It isn't a balk. See the Evans video. If F3 is breaking toward the bag and receives the ball 5 ft away he can easily apply a tag with the next step and in doing so is making a play. What is the problem?

[Kevin Finnerty]

On Friday, I had a coach tell me that he played pro ball for four different organizations, and that he's never seen a player ejected for doing a pop-up slide and knocking a fielder down.

I said, "Well, that's great. What's your experience with high school baseball? That's what we're playing here."

Originally Posted by cc6

Tim_C would say to never cite a specific rule in an argument.

Why not? It ends arguments almost instantly and prevents subsequent arguments. Follow that advice if you like prolonged and frequent arguments. A quick partial quotation of the wording of an applicable rule has always resulted in a quick and favorable end to an argument.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Why not? It ends arguments almost instantly and prevents subsequent arguments. Follow that advice if you like prolonged and frequent arguments. A quick partial quotation of the wording of an applicable rule has always resulted in a quick and favorable end to an argument.

If you quote a rule number it makes you sound like a smart a$$, number 1, and also you may be off by a number or get them confused so you'll look like a moron if the coach looks it up.

You should use RULE BOOK LANGUAGE if you feel like quoting a rule number.

"Coach, since his throw was the 2nd play by an infielder, by rule, it's 2 bases from where they were when the throw left the fielder's hand."

Used rule book language and applied it to the situation. If you feel like quoting a rule number, add the optional italics portion of the quote to make it sound more definitive.

better than...

"Coach, 7.05g says blah blah blah..."

[bossman72]

Kev,

I re-read your post and it seems like we're on the same page. I think you just misunderstood what the person you were quoting was trying to say. He was talking about rule NUMBERS and not actual rules.

[tballump]

I don't care if God taught him that balk move. It is still a balk.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by tballump

I don't care if God taught him that balk move. It is still a balk.

Why?

IMO, there have been some persuasive posts explaining why this isn't (necessarily) a balk. Rather than just declaring that it "is still a balk", please explain why you think this is a balk.