(FED) THE Dumbest ...

[UmpTTS43]

... 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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

... 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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

... 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.

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.

[UmpTTS43]

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.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

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.

[UmpJM]

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:

SITUATION 13: R1 is on third and R2 is on second with no outs. Both runners attempt a double steal. As R1 gets into a rundown between home and third, R2 advances and stays on third base. With R2 on third base, R1 commits interference during the rundown. RULING: The ball is dead immediately. R1 is declared out for the interference. R2 will be kept at third base since he had legally reached third at the time of the interference. (8-2-9, 8-2-8)

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

[UmpTTS43]

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.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

JM

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

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

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

JM

.

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

[Kevin Finnerty]

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/

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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 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.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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: Rules of Baseball.com

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.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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: Rules of Baseball.com

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

[ODJ]

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

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by ODJ

It's listed on his website for sale: Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring

The Jim Evans Annotated Rules of Baseball?

No it's not.