"FED Legal" Baseballs

[DG]

UMPJM

Why did you ask the original question since you have BRD in hand with a 1999 interpretation?

It is not uncommon for FED to issue an interpretation that never shows up in Case Book, such as this one, from 1999 (gorilla arm another example). It was not long ago that the state made this is a point for discussion at state meeting, apparently unaware of 1999 FED interpretation, that essentially, they really did not mean it when the rule was put in the book.

To answer your very hypothetical question, in the very unlikely event that I was presented with baseballs that did not meet the rule, I would advise the coach that legal baseballs need to be used, and if none were available on site, we would discuss at the plate meeting and both coaches would recognize that official baseballs were not being used, and both were agreeable to their use before we would play the game. Afterwards I would report this to my assignor.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by DG

UMPJM

Why did you ask the original question since you have BRD in hand with a 1999 interpretation?

It is not uncommon for FED to issue an interpretation that never shows up in Case Book, such as this one, from 1999 (gorilla arm another example). It was not long ago that the state made this is a point for discussion at state meeting, apparently unaware of 1999 FED interpretation, that essentially, they really did not mean it when the rule was put in the book.

To answer your very hypothetical question, in the very unlikely event that I was presented with baseballs that did not meet the rule, I would advise the coach that legal baseballs need to be used, and if none were available on site, we would discuss at the plate meeting and both coaches would recognize that official baseballs were not being used, and both were agreeable to their use before we would play the game. Afterwards I would report this to my assignor.

Don,

My post here was the result of a discussion on the question I was having with another gentleman on another forum. He held the position - intractably - that the lack of the "authenticating mark" was grounds for a forfeit (by the home team) under FED rules.

I had never heard that before & wanted to know how it would be handled in different parts of the country. So, I posted here to see what others would say. Maybe this was something I just "missed".

To me, there are a number of issues involved concerning the bounds of the umpire's authority & responsibility in a game, umpire liability should someone be injured, as well as "with the book" vs. "by the book" umpiring.

I was NOT trying to bust anyone's balls or be a know-it-all, so my apologies if I came across that way.

Furrther, I concur with your comments about FED interps, and find your suggested resolution to my hypothetical eminently sensible and appropriate. So, thanks for bothering.

JM