(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.

[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.

[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]

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]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

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 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.

[HokieUmp]

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:

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

But from my reading of this thread, and other postings elsewhere, is that you might not be as unbiased as you think you are ([CONTENT DELETED]).

To which you unhappily replied:

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

So, no, I have no bias against Jim Evans, and your grouping me with the paragon of bias ([CONTENT DELETED - just saving you from my fate) is an insult to me, or any informed, educated adult.

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:

What percentage of stuff does Jim Evans just make up?

and

Evans may be one of the leading expert rules practitioners, along with the likes of Jaksa & Roder, but his imperious ways make some of what he says and does very questionable. I think most of the information in his manual is fantastic (drastically overpriced, but excellent info throughout). But some of the umpires who went through his school are some of the more difficult umpires to work with. It seems that many of Evans's students acquire his imperiousness.

Now, as an informed, educated adult, you should be able to see where I might opine that

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

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.

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.

[Kevin Finnerty]

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.

[TheShadowKnows]

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....

[Kevin Finnerty]

The Keith and Rachel set. Wow!

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by TheShadowKnows

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....

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.