Fed rules prohibit use of a tobacco-like product, but I do not know what they are referring to.

What would fall under the category of "tobacco-like product"?

(A big wad of bubble gum?)

Certainly an area eligible for OOOs... but...

There are some gums and jerky that come in a "tin" that sure looks like SKOAL when its in the pocket. Because it looks like chew you can't let them parade around the field with that showing. I'd ask what it was, and if gum, say, you can't keep it in your pocket because.....

Similar to big league chew, etc.

A couple of "don't do thats"

Yes, that's the stuff. Big League Chew. Looks like pieces of that stringy foam. They sell it in the snack bar. The 10-and-under girls all keep it in their back pockets, but sticking out a few inches.

In Fed, it's supposed to be an ejection, with no warning. (Case book 3.3.1.S)

I've heard this once before, but a ban on Big League Chew? How ludicrous! Thank you Lord for making RI a FED-Free State!

Don't rest too comfortably. They are knocking on the door, or will be once they convert Mass and I hear, from reliable sources, that is just down the road.

If they come here, I'm gone from HS ball. Come to think of it, that might be the reason why they are coming. G.

Well, the case book doesn't specify Big League Chew, but here's the citation:

<b>3.3.1.S</b> While on the bench, two players appear to the umpire to be using tobacco. The umpire discovers that the substance is not tobacco, but a tobacco-like product. <b>Ruling:</b> Both players are in violation of the rule and shall be ejected. Even though the players were not using tobacco, they gave the appearance of using a tobacco product, which is not acceptable.

Sooooo,
 

We know whenever there is a discussion about FED GreyMule and Jim Porter will always take the side against FED.

At least Jim admits freely admits that he is in a non-FED state. Greymule intimates that he retored from FED becasue he didn't like the rules.

I followed Grey for 25 years. I got tired of the FED BS and retired from High School baseball becasue I hated FED rules.

But that changed. Why?

Because I took the time to try to understand WHY the FEDlandia rules run as they do. That became a pretty serious journey.

ON TOBACCO-LIKE PRODUCTS:

No where does FED make a definitive judgement about "Big League Chew" . . . I can't picture ANY umpire (let me rephrase that) . . . I can't picture ANY umpire, that isn't an overly officious jerk, from making an issue with the product.

The "product" does not resemble a tobbaco product . . . the packaging is different enough there is never a confusion.

FED has done a very good job at reviewing their rules every year. Since Brad Rumble has left FED there are even some changes occuring that help the school based game.

We can just hope that this years new group will finally face up to some of the inconsistencies, editing problems and big differecnes from OBR and find an even better working set of rules.

And I hear, from my HS UIC with whom I worked the Senior League State Tournament this year (no pay, volunteer - and happily, terrific tourney - I had a no hitter for my plate game), "They can't make us do anything. We'll play by FED rules over my dead body."

I know! I know! They were sucking on candy cigarettes! This isn't a ban on Big League Chew, it's a Candy Cigarette rule.

What on Earth does that rule mean? A kid stuffs a wad of gum in his cheek, and the umpire thinks he sees him putting RedMan in his mouth. The umpire approaches the kid, the kid shows him the Big League Chew, and the ump tosses the kid?

Huh?

Whatever I think of Fed rules, my original question was, What would fall under the category of "tobacco-like product"? Somebody else brought up Big League Chaw—er, Chew.

If it's not gum or jerky or licorice, what is it? Does the fact that it comes in a tin like Skoal make it a tobacco-like product? If you keep it between your cheek and gum, is it tobacco-like? If using it makes you spit brown juice, is it?

I wish that the case book "play" had provided an example by specifying that the substance turned out to be such-and-such. What did Fed have in mind when they wrote the rule? Smoking pot in the dugout?

Grey
 

I FEEL your pain.

Milk Duds, whole package resting 'tween your cheek and gum!

A whole pack of Black Jack Chewing Gum . . .

The "new" packet (looks like a little bag) of spearamint that you place like a dip?

I AM pretty sure that FED would frown on the "packing" of Big league Chew . . . however they have never identified the source of their concern.

I am pretty sure that I could dump a 14 year old shortstop if he little up a Cuban Cigar while in the dugout.

Black Jack chewing gum! Used to love it! Does anybody know where I can get some?

Jim, I've been doing FED games just south of you in CT for years. Once you get over the differences, it's not so bad. The tobacco rule is important to enforce because of the times. During the HS season, I've only had to speak to one coach but if you do youth games by FED rules, that's another story. The coaches can get downright nasty when you tell them they can't have their "chew".

It's real simple, when the game is to be played by FED rules, allof the FED rules have to be enforced. Coaches and umpires can't pick and choose the rules to enforce and ignore. If the MA High Schools decide to go FED then you are stuck with it. As I was once told years ago by our FED rules interperter, "You may not agree with a rule, but you damn better enforce it!".

Don't sweat the FED, when the time comes, don't try to compare it to OBR for a while. That's where I made my mistake years ago. Also remember that the FED deals with youth and HS. Saftey and sportsmanship are the main concern when it comes to FED. Finally, the BRD is a great help once you get the FED book and its layout under your belt

Not that different
 

FED is really not that different.

There are a few differences, but it is a lot closer to NCAA or NAIA which is where most of the serious ball players around the South advance next.

So, with that in mind, I think its better for the kids to have a lot of the safety rules in place before they get to the next level.

Sure they could clean up some of the editing, but a lot of (no I'll say nearly all of) the changes are really to make it a lot easier for the umpire to enforce the rules.

With case support and all it makes it a lot easier to convince Smitty of the way he should make the call since we know he is NOT going to look at JEA, PBUC, and all of the other books that try to explain the rules etc.,

I just wish they would make it a quicker process to get the rule interpretations in the actual book and case book.

Thanks
David

First off, we do not allow tobacco products anywhere near the field here in Rhode Island High School Baseball. No coaches are allowed to chew or smoke, and no kids can chew or smoke. But we do allow Big League Chew <u>and</u> candy cigarettes, not that I've ever seen either.

Next, after taking part in message boards for the last four years, I know much more about FED rules now than anyone else in Rhode Island - no exaggeration. I find their balk rules to be unnecessarily obtrusive to the game, I have a very low opinion of the recent appeal rule follies, and I even find their rules tests with their word games and trickeries to be some of the most unproductive rules tests I've ever read. Throw in this silliness about, "tobacco-like prodicts," and they've scored a hat trick for an undesirable code of baseball rules. There's more, but I'll spare my Pro-FED counterparts.

Yes, we have some age-appropriate differences to make the game safer. I find it impossible to believe that our baseball is somehow unsafer because we do not use FED rules.

I'm confident we will not playing our HS ball under FED any time soon. I'm even more confident that I will never work a FED game for the rest of my life.

Guys, Im pretty sure the "tobacco-like product" they refer to is not candy or gum at all. As a tobacco user, I have been seeing more and more of this herbal...tobacco like product in the stores i get my chew from. It looks just like tobacco, its a crushed leaf etc. but its offically not tobacco but some kind of mint or something and you spit etc. when "chewing" it . I have a feeling thats what theyre talking about. Not a candy product that comes ina package similar to tobacco. On this board its often easy to miss the forest due to the trees (ya'll need to quit thinking so d@#n much)

It's a rainy day. I feel like lighting a fire, so here goes.

"Even though the players were not using tobacco, they gave the appearance of using a tobacco product, which is <i>not acceptable</i>" [my emphasis].

I am strongly anti-smoking, and I'm glad it's now banned in public places. I played ball with several guys who chewed tobacco, and I thought it was pretty revolting.

However, Joe DiMaggio smoked. Babe Ruth smoked (and died of throat cancer). Many current players leave the dugout to smoke in the runway. Half the baseball Hall of Fame chewed tobacco.

Is tobacco use a moral evil such that society must obliterate all possible hints of it? What's the matter with having licorice or this ground up mint in your mouth simply because one uses it the way one uses tobacco? How about drinking from an aluminum soda can in the dugout? Doesn't that simulate alcohol use?

Recently, the government commissioned a statue of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the statue was to be based on a famous photograph. However, the photograph showed Roosevelt with his trademark cigarette holder, so they ordered that, though Roosevelt's hand would remain in front of his face, and though his fingers would remain in a "V," there would be no cigarette holder. There were several other modifications to please various interest groups. (They also removed Eleanor's trademark fur stole, either from this memorial or another one, after protests from animal rights activists.)

Does the crusade against tobacco mean that history should be changed and people prohibited from "appearing" to use tobacco? I'm reminded of the comment of one college student after her professor recounted some World War II history that didn't jibe with her ideology: "There are some facts students just shouldn't know."

Should Fed insinuate itself into what is really a political issue? Should the umpire be responsible for enforcing political correctness on the field? I can imagine the case book ten years from now: "The umpire hears a male player complain that male batters get 4 balls and 3 strikes, but female batters get 2 balls and 8 strikes. After the umpire reminds the player that the new system meets federal guidelines by producing male and female baserunners in equal proportions, the player refuses to recant. Ruling: The complaining player is ejected and sent for re-education. The next three opposing female batters are awarded first base."

PS. A survey of local high school students revealed that more of them smoke pot (well over half) than cigarettes. Reason? Pot is easier to buy.

Yep. And if you can imagine that the so-called, "War on Drugs," over the last 18 years has made heroin much cheaper and much more readily available than marijuana, then you finally understand why our young people have such a severe problem with heroin. It's cheap, it's everywhere, and it's available, and our so-called drug education programs lump marijuana and heroin into practically the same category.

While sometimes we mean to do good, it can definitely backfire. Decriminalize, regulate, tax, and reform!

Hey,
What happened to all of those cool candy cigarettes we had as kids? They surely contributed to adult smoking, ...wait, I don't smoke...huh?

Much ado about nothing.

Yeah, every kid in the neighborhood loved to play "guns," too. Amazing that during all the decades since, not a single kid has shot anyone for real.

Greymule:
I wasn't referring to the problems with youth and tobacco, I was referring to the "raging" debate over the Fed rule.

You make a great point.

You'll like this:

Once when I was in the P/R - advertising business I had a television station as a client. I also ran ads on that station for other clients. One day I had a meeting with both the managment of the station to discuss some "image" problems and with the sales office to place a buy.

In the meeting with the vice president/GM I was asked how to best get out their message that television doesn't encourage violence. Their position, I was told, was that televsion is pure entertainment and does not effect anyone's behavior.

Later, in the sales meeting, I was presented with facts and figures of how advertsing another client's products on television would succeed because of television's ability to persuade and "modify" behavior.

And all the time everyone kept a straight face.