"FED Legal" Baseballs

[UmpJM]

DG,

Does it seem evident to you that the NFHS doesn't insist on (strict) enforcement of the "authenticating mark" requirement - since that's what their published Official Interpretation is and has been since the language entered the rule book.

(That was the "point" of my earlier question about you having a BRD. See Equipment: Baseballs: Approved.)

Also, since you never really answered, I wonder if you would say what, exactly, you would do if

- strictly hypothetically, of course, willing suspension of disbelief, & all that, since this simply wouldn't happen in NC -

there were no properly marked balls at the game site where you showed up to call a game, but an ample supply of baseballs that appeared perfectly suitable, other than lack of the mark?

Thanks.

JM

[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.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Baden balls aren't too bad.

Interesting. The word I'm getting is they are junk.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Interesting. The word I'm getting is they are junk.

I've seen them and used them and they soften up REALLY fast and they scuff VERY easily....other than that they're not bad.

JJ

[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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JJ

I've seen them and used them and they soften up REALLY fast and they scuff VERY easily....other than that they're not bad.

JJ

FWIW, basketball coaches I've talked to don't like the Baden ball, either.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, basketball coaches I've talked to don't like the Baden ball, either.

Pretty hard to throw a curve ball with a Baden basketball...

JJ

[RPatrino]

I have however seen a rising fastball thrown with a basketball? Maybe it was just an illusion????????????????

[NFump]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I have however seen a rising fastball thrown with a basketball? Maybe it was just an illusion????????????????

AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

No, no more rising fastballs, they make me blink. LOL!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Interesting. The word I'm getting is they are junk.

Well, they are better than the Pro Nine's I got last week. Now there's a junkie baseball!

[DG]

Baseballs provided in these parts by HS teams are high percentage Diamond D1's, followed by Wilson 1010 and Rawlings (forgot number). I am familiar with other baseballs from youth league play but all I recall from HS play is Diamond, Wilson and Rawlings. AD Starr makes some good balls. I have seen Baden (rare though), but I have never seen a Pro-Nine ball.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

...but I have never seen a Pro-Nine ball.

Thank your lucky stars and/or the deity of your choosing.

[johnnyg08]

The Pro Nine's look like Diamonds at first glace...that's their niche.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I have however seen a rising fastball thrown with a basketball? Maybe it was just an illusion????????????????

Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are...

[griff901c]

Originally Posted by JJ

Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are...

Funny..ha ha or funny...nevermind...