(FED) THE Dumbest ...
 

... thing I have ever read in ANY baseball publication concerning rules. 2010 FED rulebook. pg. 37

"Turning the shoulders to check runners while in contact with the pitcher's plate in the set position is legal. Turning the shoulders after bringing the hands together during or after the stretch is a balk."

And to think that the people that come up with this stuff are actually trying to make the game "easier" for the umpires.

I really hate this time of year when I have to read the FED book, just to get the cobwebs out.

You must be confusing the word set as to when the pitcher comes to his stop before going home. There are two position the pitcher may pitch from. The set position or the windup position. The non pivot foot will be the tipoff as to which position the pitcher is in. The rule is very simple to me.

1) It's not new.

2) It's the same (in a practical sense) as all the other codes.

3) There are, imo, better examples of poor rules or poor writing by FED.

I am not confused at all. It seems the authors of this FED rule are definately confused. They are the ones that do not have a grasp on the proper terminology concerning legal pitching positions, and and what the "stretch" actually entails.

If an umpire did not do due dilegence in his homework, he could infer that once a pitcher has come set, he can legally turn his shoulders. However, the pitcher cannot legally turn his shoulders with his hands together prior to coming set.

2) FED's intent may have been to be in line with other codes (OBR) their wording misses the point.

In OBR and NCAA, a pitcher may turn his shoulder during his "stretch" as he is coming "set" whether his hands are together or not. Once he is in the "set position," he is prohibited from turning his shoulders by virtue of it being an illegal feint to first base.

In the example given, FED has said exactly the opposite.

UmpTT,

That's not even in my "top ten" with regard to FED rules.

Everybody in FED knows what they mean and its not hard to enforce..

My new favorite is:

because the text of the interp contradicts the text of the two rules it cites. (With regard to "legal occupation" of a base and the resulting placement of R2 in this sitch.)

JM

JM

That is a doozy as well.

I know that we all know what FED intends, it's just too bad that they can't put it in writing.

At least MLB refuses to update their book unless something happens that they have to address. We know where they stand at least.

FED can't borrow that excuse.

There are over 200 errors in the OBR. A little updating wouldn't hurt.

There are at least 230 or so errors in the OBR rule-book and the OBR rule book is poorly indexed.

Here is a simple OBR rule.

A batter is HBP - what is the status of the ball?

Simple on the surface but what if you are reading the OBR book for the first time.

You have to go to another rule code (5) to find out that the ball is dead when B1 is HBP.

In OBR sometimes you have to go to 3-4 sections to get the COMPLETE answer.

FED is not perfect but at least they have a CASE book to explain. You might not agree or think it's dumb but at least it's explained.

In trying to understand OBR rules you need Evans / MLBUM or JR to get a good grasp of the rules.

Pete Booth

I don't know, or can't figure out why, if Jim Evans' annotated rule book is so fantastic, why is it unavailable?

Availability alone makes the Jaksa/Roder the premier reference: http://www.rulesofbaseball.com/

I concur and totally understand.

Unfortunately MLB does not feel that they need to do a rewrite of the rule book. Since they refuse, we have to use other sources in order to get proper interpretations and "spirit of the rule" rulings.

My point with FED is that they are constantly changing their rule book and are still getting multiple things wrong, leaving old case plays in, etc. That is the frustrating part when dealing with FED.

It is currently being revised. You won't have to worry about it because it will be out of your price range anyways.

On the flip side, it will give you something else to b*tch about.

It's listed on his website for sale: www.umpireacademy.com

I'll settle for FED referring to R1 as the runner on first base, not the one closest to home plate.

The Jim Evans Annotated Rules of Baseball?

No it's not.

Hi Kevin:

I believe the MAJOR source for MLB is the MLBUM (major league baseball umpire manual). You can get that manual on line.

Pete Booth

Thank you, Pete. That's a good recommendation.

I got one of those last year. It's a wonderful resource. Frank Pulli and Steve Palermo were big contributors to it.

I got mine from ebay, but, oddly enough, it's available at the Jim Evans online store:
Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring MLB Umpire Manual

My only gripe is when amateur publications like the Jim Evans Two-Umpire System Manual carry the price tag of a professionally written, edited and printed publication. It's an insult.

And I can both afford it and value it for its useful information, but the cut-rate manner in which it's delivered bears mention, considering how high the price is.

Be blind to it if you like, be blindly devoted to everything Evans if you like, and brand my criticism with a crude comment if you like, but it's still a fair and warranted criticism.

Do you realize what a 250 page soft cover college textbook that size costs? About the same as what Evans book runs at. Would you prefer he put a hard-cover on it, make the pages glossy, and charge 150?

I put two kids through private high school and one of them is still in college. I am intimately familiar with the cost of dozens of textbooks, and it is that exact standard by which I place the value on this particular publication. Virtually ALL of the full-size paperback textbooks that I have purchased over the last dozen years are in that price range. ALL of them are professionally written, edited, illustrated and printed. ALL of them. The Evans manual is not.

The Evans book is fraught with errors. It even has errors on the cover! I know rather fully what is required to publish a printed instructional publication. And when it is done professionally, a price tag of $70 is fully justified. The price tag of $70 is not justified by this particular amateur publication.

I'm being unbiased and fair-minded, and am expressing an informed opinion. That's always been welcome in America. Why not in this little corner?

The Game and the rules are not that hard, some guys just think to much. Most Jim Evans stuff seems over the top.

Of course being a 2001 Grad of Harry's, I may be a bit biased, we were never taught to think, just react, and look good doing it.:cool:

Gee, you might want to see if Harry wants to use that in his advertising.:rolleyes:

I can't speak to the book to which you're referring, since I haven't seen it or its cover, or any of that. And I'm not really trying to start a p155ing contest, either. But assuming your question was more than rhetorical, I'll answer it.

You certainly are expressing an opinion, and it's still allowed in America. But from my reading of this thread, and other postings elsewhere, is that you might not be as unbiased as you think you are (see: News, Fox). What I've read over time is that you seem to have issues, unresolved or otherwise, with Jim Evans, and have to put in little digs here and there. That, in turn, might be why people respond to your posts as they do.

I don't have the book infront of me at the moment. What errors are on the cover?

Nice Shot at Fox News. Let me guess you get all the truth from MSNBC and CNN:eek:

(deleted)

(And, look, realize where I come from on this. Everyone is biased - everyone.

(deleted)

And I would happily discuss subjects like this here, but I'm betting the over/under on Bob killing this post is 28.5 hours. :)

Under. Drop it (all of us).

Good point, I just edited my reply, but it was gone before I got done. Good Move:D

I have issues with any people who present a cut-rate, amateur publication, and then charge the same price as publishers who take the necessary and customary steps of having professionals write and edit the work, and then take the additional step of printing it with standard quality materials. It doesn't matter if it's you, me or Jim Evans; it's an insult.

So, no, I have no bias against Jim Evans, and your grouping me with the paragon of bias (FOX) is an insult to me, or any informed, educated adult.

Are there some typos in the book? Yes.

If he had taken the steps you request Kevin, would the price have gone up more? Yes. This isn't a book that is going to sell a million copies like Intro to Psyc 101. So either you complain about a 70 dollar book that in many ways replaces 5 weeks of training that also has some typos which do not detract from the material in anyway, or pay 120 for the same thing with bells on it, and complain about that too.

No, the sales would have gone up, and the price would be fair and justified. The price is not what it is because of publishing costs.

The teachers in our society, and those who write and publish our textbooks, have an obligation to convey their message grammatically. It is intellectually lazy to fall short of that obligation, as it is to blithely accept it when they fall short.

You also failed to note that I lauded the actual teachings in the book. My "complaining" was solely based on the cut-rate publication.

Nuts! I hadn't even gotten to the bookie yet!:D

Okay, here goes:

Everything about the Jim Evans work is totally acceptable, no matter what the price! And anything Jim does or says is more than enough for me to just accept and embrace. When it comes to standards, let's just set them aside when it comes to Jim, because that material is of immeasurable value.

How's that?

Okay, let's get past the manual, Kevin. You hate it, and don't want to pay for "shoddy work, etc, etc." Others do, have, and will. That was done to death last year, and we're starting it again.

I said:

To which you unhappily replied:

I'm not going to do extensive searches, but given your outrage, I thought I'd find a quote that says - to me - that you are indeed not as unbiased as you say. Granted, I dug it up from another board, but it's still you over there, too, and this was within the last week:

and
Now, as an informed, educated adult, you should be able to see where I might opine that My point got lost in the [CONTENT DELETED] reference, but it's still this: from your own 'public' statement, you don't seem to like Jim Evans that much, and thus can't claim unbias-hood (unbias-dom? not-so-biased? less-than-full-unbias-ness?) as easily as you'd like. (Unless you'd like to make the claim that there are multiple Kevin Finnerty logins out there, in which case, I withdraw my objections.)

You're certainly still entitled to that opinion, in 'this corner of America' or any other. I work for an organization designed to protect that very thing, and also am a USAF "bride." But don't act surprised when others react to that opinion, and even ... disagree! with it.

Hate it? You didn't read or comprehend all of what I said, so don't put words in my mouth. If you want to get personal, which you are, then at least know what the hell you're saying.

You're quite a piece of work.

Unbelievable^^^^

What a total pi**ing match....

Think I'll concentrate on doing my work this spring without the opinions from Newscast "experts" and Book Editing "experts"

Quite the Education from the Keith and Rachel set....:(

The Keith and Rachel set. Wow!

Ah, yes. Experts. We do have a couple. One is particular is an expert about everything that has to do with baseball. And, you don't need to ask him. Eventually, he will tell you.

Under "Settings and Options" is a feature entitled, "Edit Ignore List." I've found that it improves the overall quality of posts that you can view immensely.

Have a great spring.

Fair enough - you have a point at the beginning there. You have, in fact, complemented the work inside. However, as much as you've railed about mistakes, bad binding, grammar, etc., and the recent use of "cut-rate" and "amateur," I thought it would be appropriate to summarize your overall feelings about the manual as "hatred." Perhaps I generalized incorrectly, but I do not apologize for that; as a total package, that is the reading I've gotten from your words.

As to the rest of what I wrote, which was considerably more than the first two sentences, I notice you ignored it to get pissy with me. Personal? Really? I mean, compared to my shots at Fox News, you got off easy. I made an observation, based on your writings, and said you seemed to have issues with Jim Evans - a fairly tame sentence, and you're starting to act like I ate your children. Given this reaction, I'm thinking it hits close to home.

Pot, meet kettle.

This reaction almost makes me wish I'd hadn't gone to the trouble to state my original point as neutrally (if that's a word) as I did. I mean, really, Kevin: for someone who's the alter-ego of Tony Soprano, you should toughen up.

Since only one side gets deleted on this topic....

I almost didn't get that for a minute; I thought, "I know who Rachel is, but she married Ross....":rolleyes:

Don't get lost in the weeds based on 3 words in my original post, and feel like you have to take shots because I don't believe in your choice of news. It's really got nothing to do with newscasting and book editing; it was about answering a question of KF's that was, in hindsight, apparently rhetorical.

And don't make assumptions of what I do or don't watch, and choose to believe in. "Makes a [bleep] out of you and me," and all that....

Since this thread got way off track, I'll bring it back.... what else would you expect from the Fed?? Hell, it's Fed baseball, it seems they go out of their way to mess up a good game.