The worst thing in FED

[mbyron]

So, what do you hate about FED rules? (I'll assume that nobody really uses FED mechanics...)

Be specific now: "why do we have to have a separate rule set" is just crying over spilled milk at this point.

[Tim C]

Ok, my new favorite:

We know that the NFHS made a change this season in a play where a base runner interfers with a fielder attempting to catch a foul fly ball.

We now know that is ALL cases the runner interferring is declared out.

Situation:

Tie Game
Bottom of the 7th
The Worlds Greatest High School Hitter at Bat
2 Outs
R2
1 Ball 2 strikes

F1 jams TWGHSH and he hits a foul fly slightly to the left of the third base bag.

As F5 sets under the ball in an attempt to retire TWGHSH.

A smart R2 thinks: "wow, if I run into that guy TWGHSH will get a new at bat in the bottom of the 7th!"

R2 runs into F5 (not anything near MC) and F5 drops the ball.

R2 is declared "out" and TWGHSH gets a new at bat in the next inning.

ALL THEY HAD TO DO: "with two out the batter is declared 'out'".

ALSO do not read the ruling in the Illustrated NFHS Rule Book as it still claims the batter is "out" at all times.

T

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by mbyron

.

You can pretty much ask this type question about any rule-set.

I would like rule 2-32-2(c) to be changed. The way it reads now

It is an illegal slide if:

(c) the runner goes beyond the base and THEN makes contact with OR alters the play of the fielder.

Notice the conjunction OR which means either or. I would like to take out the word OR and substitute AND. If a player sliding past the bag and making contact (as long as it is not malicous) does not alter the play then IMO they should not be declared out.

Same on a FPSR. If a play is not altered then again IMO there should be no interference.

The way the current rule reads, the following is a FPSR violation

R1: Ground ball to F6 to start the old fashion 6-4-3 DP. R1 slides past second base and contacts F4.

According to the current rule the call is

1. TIME
2. That's interference
3. R1 and the BR are out.

Also, as umpires we should NOT have to check "bats / hats" IMO, the onus should be on the coaches. If discovered then we penalize accordingly.

Pete Booth

[dash_riprock]

Minimum one base award on all obstructions. Unlike other codes, it removes umpire judgment from a (non) play where umpire judgment is needed most (analogous to the interpretation that spawned this excellent thread) .

But what REALLY pisses me off - also in the "judgment removal" vein - is not being able to control when the wipers stop after washing the windshield. That extra swipe or two can ruin an otherwise fine wash job. Somehow I think FED is behind that engineering.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

You can pretty much ask this type question about any rule-set.

I would like rule 2-32-2(c) to be changed. The way it reads now

It is an illegal slide if:

(c) the runner goes beyond the base and THEN makes contact with OR alters the play of the fielder.

Notice the conjunction OR which means either or. I would like to take out the word OR and substitute AND. If a player sliding past the bag and making contact (as long as it is not malicous) does not alter the play then IMO they should not be declared out.

Same on a FPSR. If a play is not altered then again IMO there should be no interference.

The way the current rule reads, the following is a FPSR violation

R1: Ground ball to F6 to start the old fashion 6-4-3 DP. R1 slides past second base and contacts F4.

According to the current rule the call is

1. TIME
2. That's interference
3. R1 and the BR are out.

Also, as umpires we should NOT have to check "bats / hats" IMO, the onus should be on the coaches. If discovered then we penalize accordingly.

Pete Booth

You interchange the word AND for OR,then both scenarios would have to happen. The word OR makes the ruling consistent with the other wordings in the FED rule book. It's the same if the infielder is off to the infield or outfield side of the bag. Would you have them change the wording there also?

You would having it reading the same as, "If the runner goes past the base and makes contact (not malicous), the play must altered to call interference." Really no need for the word AND is there?

Playing some 2B way back before such rules were incorporated, I would use the back of the bag as protection from a sliding runner, especially if there was no shot at turning a double play. FED has made this a safety issue so the infielders aren't a sitting duck and the runner gets a free shot at them.

I suppose my pet peeve is if an illegal substitute is discovered they will be restricted to the bench. If discovered again they will be ejected.

What's the difference? In this situation, restricting is basically the same as an ejection.

[ozzy6900]

Pre-game check of equipment is my pet peve. The NCAA finally stopped this a couple of years ago and I thought that the FED would follow suit. Personally, I don't like going into the dugouts and how are we sure that we checked all of the helmets? What if Johhny forgot to pull out his helmet from his bag and it is cracked or not approved. Johnny takes a pitch the head and you know the rest.

NCAA put the onus on the coaches and the schools where it belongs. We as umpires should not be checking the equipment before the game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Ok, my new favorite:

We know that the NFHS made a change this season in a play where a base runner interfers with a fielder attempting to catch a foul fly ball.

We now know that is ALL cases the runner interferring is declared out.

This brings the ruling in line with other codes, and is consistent that the (non-retired) runner / batter who interferes is out.

[scarolinablue]

Agree, my least favorite is the bat/helmet inspection. We're already asking the coaches if the players are legally and properly equipped...doesn't that already imply the bats and helmets?!?

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE=Steven Tyler;667158]

You interchange the word AND for OR,then both scenarios would have to happen. The word OR makes the ruling consistent with the other wordings in the FED rule book. It's the same if the infielder is off to the infield or outfield side of the bag. Would you have them change the wording there also?

Steve perhaps I should have just said adopt the NCAA FPSR where in NCAA contact after the bag is legal as long as the player was sliding directly into the bag.

In FED, even if the runner slides directly into the base but slides past the base and makes contact it is considered an illegal slide. (FED rule 2-32-2(c))

In other words, IMO, sliding past a base and making contact (as long as the contact is not malicious or alters the play) should be legal. As it stands now in FED, if a runner slides past the base and makes contact it is an infraction.

Pete Booth

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Ok, my new favorite:

We know that the NFHS made a change this season in a play where a base runner interfers with a fielder attempting to catch a foul fly ball.

We now know that is ALL cases the runner interferring is declared out.

Situation:

Tie Game
Bottom of the 7th
The Worlds Greatest High School Hitter at Bat
2 Outs
R2
1 Ball 2 strikes

F1 jams TWGHSH and he hits a foul fly slightly to the left of the third base bag.

As F5 sets under the ball in an attempt to retire TWGHSH.

A smart R2 thinks: "wow, if I run into that guy TWGHSH will get a new at bat in the bottom of the 7th!"

R2 runs into F5 (not anything near MC) and F5 drops the ball.

R2 is declared "out" and TWGHSH gets a new at bat in the next inning.

ALL THEY HAD TO DO: "with two out the batter is declared 'out'".

ALSO do not read the ruling in the Illustrated NFHS Rule Book as it still claims the batter is "out" at all times.

T

Creative thinking, but

1) No player (or coach) is that smart
2) Why would you want TWGHSH to bat again with nobody on instead of with a runner in scoring position?


Now, for my hate list:

1) Dead ball balk
2) Overrunning 1st base on base on balls
3) Certain actions that are considered the start of the pitch in FED that are not consistent with OBR/NCAA
4) Checking the bats in the dugout
5) Case book play 9.1.1M (probably hate this the most, but the likelihood of this happening is slim)
6) Offensive charged conferences - I would like to see them to go to the NCAA rule of 3 per game
7) Err'ing on an appeal still lets the defense appeal that runner

I think that's it...