Left Early on a Caught Fly

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Eastshire,

You are mistaken.

As I understand your argument, it is that "Well, gosh, that doesn't seem right to ME. That's not how I always thought of it."

It's not very persuasive. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, EVEN after you have been shown the unequivocal language from THE authoritative reference. Which is consistent with the treatment of the question in all of the respected interpretation manuals.

I mean, if I see an infielder make a diving catch on a low line drive, I might say something like, "That was a great play by that shortstop" - it's just not a "play" within the narrow context of the rule. Because that's not what they wanted the rule to be.

The rule is designed to encourage aggressive, even "risky", defensive play after the defense has initially gained control of a batted ball. That's why it's written that way.

JM

I'm not sure why why you're attacking me personally here. You haven't provided any reference let alone reference from the rule book beyond the one that deals with fielding (not catching) the ball.

You want to try again with an actual rules reference rather than personal attacks?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not sure why why you're attacking me personally here. You haven't provided any reference let alone reference from the rule book beyond the one that deals with fielding (not catching) the ball.

You want to try again with an actual rules reference rather than personal attacks?

He posted the MLBUM definition of a play. That's where the answer is.

Do you understand what the MLBUM is? It's the OFFICIAL from the owners of OBR interpretations of the rules. It is gospel. Opinions to the contrary are invalid.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

He posted the MLBUM definition of a play. That's where the answer is.

Do you understand what the MLBUM is? It's the OFFICIAL from the owners of OBR interpretations of the rules. It is gospel. Opinions to the contrary are invalid.

Oddly enough, I'm not a MLB umpire so I don't have to take it as gospel. Show me a rule in a book that they are even basing the ruling from. I'm not saying they are wrong; I'm saying waiving that book around doesn't substitute for an actual rule on the matter.

I'm a Fed umpire and the MLBUM doesn't apply to my games at all. I'm not convinced that fielding and catching are equivalent.

Why don't you try to actual use the rules to change my mine instead of just yelling at me? I've got an open mind but stamping your foot just makes me think you're wrong.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

How about a quote from a rule book that refers to catching? Or failing that a logical explanation of how we ended up with an out when no one made a play on the batter-runner.

Well, let's see, you've been given the answer according to the Major League Umpire Manual, an official publication of MLB, and apparently that isn't enough.

If ignorance is bliss, you've gotta be one happy guy.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm not sure why why you're attacking me personally here.

Dude!!! WTF are you talking about?!?!? If I had called you a moron, or your argument "retarded", THAT would have been attacking you personally.

I am deeply offended by your scurrilous, slanderous, and baseless accusation! (Sheesh, talk about getting personal.)

I just stated the fact that you were mistaken and paraphrased the "argument" you presented to support your erroneous position. Rather concisely and objectively, I thought.

You haven't provided any reference let alone reference from the rule book beyond the one that deals with fielding (not catching) the ball.

WTF are you talking about?!?!? I provided you TWO references - one from the MLBUM and one from the OBR rules. Are you blind? Anybody can see that they're there. And all catching is fielding, though not all fielding is catching, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that part.

You want to try again with an actual rules reference rather than personal attacks?

Read the MLBUM cite I posted earlier. What it says is that:

1. In order for there to be a "play" as defined for Rule 7.05(g)...

2. Some fielder must have possession of the ball

AND

3. Once he has possession of the ball, must perform some other act which the umpire judges to be a legitimate attempt (even if ultimately unsuccessful or aborted) to retire a runner.

Therefore, making a legal catch of an in-flight batted ball cannot be a "first play" in the context of 7.05(g) because it does not meet the defined requirements in the official interpretation.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Also...

...At either rate, the UIC's ruling of award 2nd is still right out. ...

What on earth were you trying to convey with this statement?

JM

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Eastshire,
You clearly don't know what you are talking about

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Are you blind? Anybody can see that they're there.

These are personal attacks.

Read the MLBUM cite I posted earlier. What it says is that:

1. In order for there to be a "play" as defined for Rule 7.05(g)...

2. Some fielder must have possession of the ball

AND

3. Once he has possession of the ball, must perform some other act which the umpire judges to be a legitimate attempt (even if ultimately unsuccessful or aborted) to retire a runner.

Therefore, making a legal catch of an in-flight batted ball cannot be a "first play" in the context of 7.05(g) because it does not meet the defined requirements in the official interpretation.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

What you've demonstrated is that the rules don't cover it. The only coverage is in the MLBUM. Sure, sure it's official. I got it. The bottom line is you still don't have anything to point to in the rulebook when you're in front of the protest committee.

Do you have a cite for all catching is fielding? Preferably for Fed, but I'll take an OBR cite as well.

Also...

What on earth were you trying to convey with this statement?

JM

In the second situation, the UIC said the award was 2nd (the two bases to be awarded being the return to first and then second). This is clearly wrong.


I don't understand at all the lack of willingness of the board in general to cite rules instead of just blasting the person who asks questions.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

These are personal attacks.



What you've demonstrated is that the rules don't cover it. The only coverage is in the MLBUM. Sure, sure it's official. I got it. The bottom line is you still don't have anything to point to in the rulebook when you're in front of the protest committee.

Do you have a cite for all catching is fielding? Preferably for Fed, but I'll take an OBR cite as well.



In the second situation, the UIC said the award was 2nd (the two bases to be awarded being the return to first and then second). This is clearly wrong.


I don't understand at all the lack of willingness of the board in general to cite rules instead of just blasting the person who asks questions.

You don't know what a personal attack is. You don't know that the MLBUM is authoritative. You don't know that the rulebook fails to provide an answer to every question an umpire might ask.

You've been given the correct answer using the correct sources. The correct response is: "Thanks guys, that's a great help! Now I know more than I did before."

The path you're on leads to a place like the one occupied by the UIC in Mike's original post.

[UmpJM]

Eastshire,

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Oddly enough, I'm not a MLB umpire so I don't have to take it as gospel. Show me a rule in a book that they are even basing the ruling from.
....
I'm a Fed umpire and the MLBUM doesn't apply to my games at all. I'm not convinced that fielding and catching are equivalent.

I find the breadth of your ignorance magnificent. And it complements your, "you have to show me a RULE..." arrogance quite nicely.

Fielding and catching are NOT equivalent. I thought I already explained that.

...[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

These are personal attacks.

Again, I resent your libelous and baseless accusation.

The first was a simple statement of fact, and the second was a response to your lie that I had not posted "any reference". Anybody can see them and you said I hadn't posted them. I was just calling you on your misrepresentation. If you don't like that, don't lie.

What you've demonstrated is that the rules don't cover it.

I believe this is the most insightful comment you've made on the question. Because that's exactly the point. The text of the rules does NOT "cover it". Because there is no definition of "play or attempted play" in the text of the rules. Although it's used a number of times. Kind of like "in the act of fielding" - both important, and somewhat complicated, concepts to understand in order to properly rule on certain plays.

That's why there are "interpretation manuals". The MLBUM is "official" for OBR based games. What it says IS what the rule means, whether you've always thought of it that way or not. The BRD has an official interpretation from FED that says it's the same. That's the rule.

The only coverage is in the MLBUM. Sure, sure it's official. I got it. The bottom line is you still don't have anything to point to in the rulebook when you're in front of the protest committee.

No the bottom line is that YOU don't have anything in a rule book, OR anything in a credible interpretation manual, OR support for your position from any credible poster on this forum - it's because you're wrong.

Show me a rule - or ANYTHING for that matter - that suggests your position is correct.

I'll await with 'bated breath.

JM

[Eastshire]

JM,

I don't have a position, other than what I gave as my ruling before anyone else chimed in. When the different ruling was put forward, I said I wasn't yet convinced. Rather than trying to convince me, I've been called any number of things, sworn at and in general treated in a manner that I generally don't associate with convincing someone.

In fact quite the opposite, the posters here have generally acted in the manner of those who don't have support for their position than those who do have support for their position.

I did, however, find what has convinced me that you are correct for Fed. The baserunning award chart given in rule 8 lists

5. First throw by infielder . . . Pitch
6. For any subsequent play by an infielder . . . Throw

I hope I will find you more cordial in the future.

[jicecone]

Eastshire, for your viewing pleasure,

BRD 2009 pg 30. It don't get no easier:

29 AWARDS TO: RUNNER: FIRST PLAY BY INFIELDER:

FAKED OR FEINTED THROW

FED: Point not covered.

OFF INTERP 35-T-29: HOPKINS: A fielder with the ball walking a
few steps toward a runner constitutes a play. (Website, 2003, #7) A
pitcher steps off the pitcher's plate and turns "abruptly" toward an
occupied base. That is a play. (Website, 2003, #11) A faked or feinted
throw also constitutes a play. (Website, 2003, #10)

EXCEPT: A feint is not considered a throw. (8.3.5h)

NCAA: Same as OBR OFF INTERP 36-29, this section. (8-30-3 AR 2)

OBR: Point not covered.

OFF INTERP 36-T-29: PBUC MANUAL: "A PLAY OR ATTEMPTED PLAY
... [original emphasis] shall be interpreted as a legitimate effort by a
defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a
runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder
running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a
runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to
retire a runner. A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or
an attempted play. (The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant.)"

I r3.11

AO 4-29: J/R: "It is a play if there is a (1) tag or tag try of a
runner, (2) tag or tag try of a base, (3) throw to another fielder in a
try to put out a runner, (4) rundown, or (5) balk. [original emphasis]
(29:F) {See § 3D.}

21. ALSO: OFF INTERP 37-29: SI: J/R: "It is not a play if there is
only: (1) an appeal; (2) a fake or feint of a throw; (3) an interruption of a
throw; (4) a step or several steps toward a base or runner that do not
result in an actual tag attempt; or (5) a dropped line drive or pop fly."
Ir301

• Play 32-29: R2: Bl slaps a grounder to the shortstop, who runs a few
steps toward second as R2 retreats. F6 then overthrows first. At TOT, Bl
had already touched first. Ruling: In FED, R2 scores, and Bl goes to third
(second play). In NCAA and OBR, Bl stops at second: The throw by F6
was the first play by an infielder.

Note 26: NCAAIOBR: If F6 had tagged R2, or attempted a tag, that would
have been his "first play, " and BI would be awarded third. Observe that the
runner at second did not advance on the play, so NCAA 8-30 AR 1 and the
Approved Ruling at OBR 7.05g AR do not apply.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Just for clarification. On the above post, I may have quoted it, but it did not orginate from me.

My mistake, I forgot to edit that part. I'll fix it.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

My mistake, I forgot to edit that part. I'll fix it.

You darn tootin better.

[johnnyg08]

I didn't think anybody would notice. I was wrong.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

JM,

I don't have a position, other than what I gave as my ruling before anyone else chimed in. When the different ruling was put forward, I said I wasn't yet convinced. Rather than trying to convince me, I've been called any number of things, sworn at and in general treated in a manner that I generally don't associate with convincing someone.

So, let me get this straight.

1. You're a skeptic, just waiting to be convinced.
2. The authoritative sources cited so far don't convince you.
3. You're a sensitive soul upset by being told he's an idiot for not being convinced by authoritative sources.

Lah me.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

So, let me get this straight.

1. You're a skeptic, just waiting to be convinced.
2. The authoritative sources cited so far don't convince you.
3. You're a sensitive soul upset by being told he's an idiot for not being convinced by authoritative sources.

Lah me.

1. Yes, I was a skeptic. Then I was convinced that JM et al were wrong based on their vitriol. Then I actually found a rule that convinced me they were right despite their vitriol.

2. I'd never heard of the MLBUM before this thread. I'd heard of the PBUM which I suppose this is the successor to. Regardless, I've never worked a game where either of these have been adopted as authorities.

3. I'm pointing out it does no one any good to argue the person rather than the rule. The information you are trying to give is discounted when it comes with an attack. For example, you calling me an idiot does what exactly aside from making you feel superior to me?